PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.

TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

Idfiéfid
gfifipggfi

 

 

 

Efi§é¥%% _

 

I ‘I

 

QTIL‘W

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1M mamas-p14

AN ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF HMONG REFUGEES’
PARTICIPATION EXPERIENCES IN MULTIETHNIC COMMUNITIES

By

Jessica R. Goodkind

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

Department of Psychology

1 999

ABSTRACT

AN ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF HMONG REF UGEES’
PARTICIPATION EXPERIENCES IN MULTIETHNIC COMMUNITIES

By

Jessica R. Goodkind

The number of refugees in the world continues to increase rapidly. Once
resettled, refugees struggle to adjust to life in a new place while overcoming past
traumas. Unreceptive communities often exacerbate this adjustment process. Therefore,
it is important to understand the processes through which refugees can become integrated
and accepted into their new communities. One important vehicle is community
participation (e.g., Jong, 1989). In order to promote the community involvement of one
refugee group and understand their unique challenges and experiences, an ecological
investigation of participation which considered the contextual conditions within a
particular setting (three multiethnic housing developments) and the characteristics of
specific community members (54 Hmong refugees) was conducted. Interviews with
quantitative and qualitative components revealed that Hmong residents participated both
formally and informally in their communities and valued it highly, but that their
involvement was limited. They were excluded from most meaningful avenues of
participation because of multiple barriers, including language differences, time
constraints, discrimination, and a lack of awareness of existing opportunities. No
supports to address these issues existed in their communities. Implications for the

Hmong, refugee adjustment, and participation in multiethnic communities are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

There are many people without whom I would not have completed this thesis.
The unfailing support of my family and friends helped me persevere when I thought I
could not. David Loveland helped me see not only that I could finish, but also that I
wanted to. I would also like to thank my committee: my chair Pennie Foster-Fishman for
her tireless efforts to help me find my voice in this project yet keep it grounded in
existing research, Debby Salem for always pushing me to produce the best that I was
capable of creating, and Tom Reischl who had the vision to see what I knew but could
not always express - that the Hmong participants deserved a voice of their own.

However, most importantly, I would like to acknowledge and dedicate this to my
Hmong friends and former students, both in the United States and in Thailand, from
whom I have learned to value community in a way I did not understand before. I
appreciate their willingness to share their experiences with me (especially the participants
I interviewed for this project). My inspiration and motivation to do this work is often
rekindled by my desire to make the dreams of one former student become a reality. Soon
afier resettling in the United States, she wrote to me, “I have something I’ll tell you,
when I was arrived in the United States, I looked around the world and the whole
country. It was beautiful country and I liked it very much and I thought it will be a very
comfortable place for me to make a new life.” I believe that we all have a role to play in

fulfilling the hopes of this young woman.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................. ix
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
Overview .................................................................................................................. l
Refugees and Immigrants in the United States ........................................................ 5
Refugee Adjustment ................................................................................................. 6
Importance of Participation .................................................................................... 10
Participation and Refugee Adjustment ...................................................... 11

An Ecological Perspective ..................................................................................... 12
The Hmong ............................................................................................................ 13
Background/History ................................................................................... 1 3
Current Situation ........................................................................................ 15
Hmong Culture and Strengths .................................................................... 16
Multiethnic Communities ...................................................................................... 18
Types of Participation ............................................................................................ 19
Participation Opportunities in Multiethnic Communities ...................................... 20
Predictors of Participation ...................................................................................... 21
Demographic Factors ................................................................................. 25
Race/Ethnicity ................................................................................ 25

Rootedness ..................................................................................... 26

Age and Age of Immigration ............................................. 27

Length of Time at Housing Development ......................... 27

Length of Time in the United States .................................. 28

Household Size .............................................................................. 28

Social Psychological Factors ..................................................................... 29

Sense of Community ...................................................................... 3O

Within-Group Sense of Community .............................................. 33

Cultural Factors .......................................................................................... 36
Acculturation .................................................................................. 36

Cultural Norms ............................................................................... 37

Gender Norms ................................................................................ 38

Extent of Household Participation ................................................. 39

Cultural Relevance ......................................................................... 40

Resource Factors ........................................................................................ 41
Language ........................................................................................ 4]

Awareness ...................................................................................... 42

Time ............................................................................................... 43

Contextual Factors - Intergroup Relations ................................................. 43

iv

Summary ................................................................................................................ 46

Research Questions ................................................................................................ 48
METHOD .......................................................................................................................... 49
Setting .................................................................................................................... 49
Sample .................................................................................................................... 50
Procedures .............................................................................................................. 5 1
Resident Interviews .................................................................................... 51
Translators ...................................................................................... 52

Ensuring Accuracy of Data Collected ............................................ 53

Staff Surveys .............................................................................................. 54
Measures ................................................................................................................ 54
Participation ............................................................................................... 54
Resident Council Participation ...................................................... 55

Community Center Participation ................................................... 55

Volunteer Activity ......................................................................... 56

Overall Participation ...................................................................... 57

Adjustment ................................................................................................. 58
Psychological Adjustment ............................................................. 58
Socioeconomic Adjustment ........................................................... 59

Demographic Variables ............................................................................. 60

Social Psychological Variables .................................................................. 60
Overall Sense of Community ......................................................... 60

Within-Group Sense of Community .............................................. 61

Cultural Variables ...................................................................................... 61
Acculturation .................................................................................. 61

Cultural Norms ............................................................................... 62

Gender Norms ................................................................................ 62

Extent of Household Participation ................................................. 62

Cultural Relevance ......................................................................... 63

Resource Variables .................................................................................... 64
Language ........................................................................................ 64

Subjective Language Assessment ...................................... 64

Objective Language Ability Assessment ........................... 65

Awareness ...................................................................................... 65

Time ............................................................................................... 66

Intergroup Relations ................................................................................... 66

Data Analyses ........................................................................................................ 68
RESULTS .......................................................................................................................... 71
Descriptive ............................................................................................................. 71
Question 1 - Self-Definitions of Involvement ....................................................... 72
lmportanceNalue ....................................................................................... 72
Importance for Self ........................................................................ 72

Importance for Community ............................................................ 74

Ways of Participating ................................................................................. 75

Formal Participation ....................................................................... 75
Informal Participation .................................................................... 76

Desire for More Involvement ......................................................... 76
Former Participation ...................................................................... 77
Barriers to Participation ............................................................................. 77
Individual Barriers ......................................................................... 77
Language ............................................................................ 78

Time Constraints ................................................................ 79

Lack of Self-Efficacy ......................................................... 79

Old Age .............................................................................. 80

Limited Time at Housing Development ............................ 80

Lack of Motivation ............................................................ 80

Lack of Awareness of Participation Opportunities ............ 81

Community Barriers ....................................................................... 81
Discrimination/Intergroup Relations ................................. 81

Not Asked/Not Welcomed ................................................. 82

No Translators .................................................................... 83

No Childcare ...................................................................... 83

No Voice ............................................................................ 83

Safety ................................................................................. 84

Lack of Council Effectiveness ........................................... 84

Expressed Needs/Desires ........................................................................... 85
Opportunities for Children ............................................................. 85
Personal Development ................................................................... 86
Improved Intergroup Relations ...................................................... 87
Material Needs ............................................................................... 87
Community Enhancement .............................................................. 87
General Assistance ......................................................................... 88

Life in the United States ............................................................................ 88
Question 2 - Predictors of Participation ................................................................. 90
Overall Frequency of Participation ............................................................ 96
Demographic Variables ................................................................. 96

Social Psychological Variables .................................................... 101
Cultural Variables ........................................................................ 103
Acculturation .................................................................... l 03

Cultural Norms ................................................................. 103

Household Participation ................................................... 104

Cultural Relevance ........................................................... 105

Resource Variables ...................................................................... 106
Intergroup Relations ..................................................................... 107
Regression .................................................................................... 108
Different Types of Participation .............................................................. 109
Resident Council Participation .................................................... 110
Involvement ..................................................................... 1 10

Frequency ......................................................................... 11 1

vi

Volunteering ................................................................................ l 1 1

Involvement ..................................................................... 1 12

Frequency ......................................................................... 112

Community Center Activities ...................................................... 112

Involvement ..................................................................... 112

Frequency ......................................................................... 113

Breadth of Participation ............................................................... 113

Question 3 - Participation and Psychological Adjustment .................................. 114
Psychological Adjustment ....................................................................... 114
Overall Frequency of Participation .............................................. 114

Resident Council Participation .................................................... 115

Volunteering ................................................................................ 1 15

Community Center Activities ...................................................... l 16

Breadth of Participation ............................................................... 116
Socioeconomic Adjustment ..................................................................... 117

Profile of Active Participators ............................................................................. 118
DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 123
Participation and Adjustment ............................................................................... 124
An Ecological Model of Participation ................................................................. 126
Individual Variables ................................................................................. 127
Demographic Variables ............................................................... 127

Social Psychological Variables .................................................... 129

Sense of Community and Adjustment ............................. 130

Cultural Variables ........................................................................ 13 1

Cultural Relevance ........................................................... 13 1

Gender Norms ................................................................. 131

Acculturation .................................................................... l 3 3

Cultural Norms for Participation ..................................... 134

Household Participation ................................................... 135

Resource Variables ...................................................................... 135

Within-Group Differences ....................................................................... 137
Contextual Variables ................................................................................ 138
Intergroup Relations ..................................................................... 138

Other Contextual Issues ............................................................... 138

Different Types of Participation .......................................................................... 139
Resident Council Participation ................................................................ 139
Volunteering ............................................................................................ 140
Community Center Activities .................................................................. 141
Breadth of Participation ........................................................................... 142
Listening to the Voices of Hmong Residents ...................................................... 144
Defining Participation .............................................................................. 149
Experiencing Participation as Meaningful and Empowering .................. 150
Implications for Practitioners ............................................................................... 152
Addressing Barriers to Participation ........................................................ 154

vii

Recognizing Individual Agency and Strengths ........................................ 158

Limitations ........................................................................................................... 159

Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 1 62
APPENDICES

Appendix A — Resident Interview ........................................................................ 164

Appendix B — Manager Survey ............................................................................ 172

Appendix C — AmeriCorps/VISTA Volunteer Survey ........................................ 174

Appendix D — Resident Initiatives Coordinator Survey ...................................... 178
LIST OF REFERENCES ................................................................................................. 182

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 — Racial/Ethnic Composition of Housing Developments by Household .............. 49
Table 2 — Description of Sample ....................................................................................... 51
Table 3 — Frequencies of Qualitative Themes ................................................................... 73
Table 4 -— Descriptive Statistics for Participation Items and Scales ................................... 92
Table 5 — Descriptive Statistics of Variables Used in Analyses ........................................ 93
Table 6 - Correlation Matrix for Predictors of Participation ............................................. 94
Table 7 — Correlation Matrix for Eight Participation Outcomes ....................................... 96
Table 8 - Correlations of Participation Measures and Predictors ...................................... 98
Table 9 — Correlation Matrix for Variables in Regression Analyses ............................... 108
Table 10 — Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Participation .......................... 109
Table 11 — Correlations of Participation and Psychological Adjustment ........................ 117
Table 12 — Correlations of Participation and Socioeconomic Adjustment ...................... 118
Table 13 — Descriptive Statistics for Active Participators and Other Residents .............. 120

ix

INTRODUCTION
Overview

Over the last 20 years, the number of refugees and displaced persons in the world
has rapidly increased. Ethnic conflict, famine, civil war, and other political struggles
have forced millions of people to flee from their homes and homelands. Between 1984
and 1995, the number of refugees in the world increased over 50 percent to 15.3 million
(United States Committee for Refugees, 1996). As a country founded by immigrants
seeking religious and political freedom, the United States has provided a safe haven of
resettlement for more refugees than any other country (United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees, 1998).

Refugee resettlement is an important part of legal immigration in the United
States. Since the late 1970’s, profound changes in immigration patterns have occurred,
including a large increase in the number of refugees and immigrants fi'om Asia, Africa,
and the Middle East. This changing legal immigration, as well as illegal immigration and
fluctuating birthrates among different ethnic and racial groups in the United States, has
resulted in an increasingly diverse country (Allen & Turner, 1990; Edmondson, 1996).
As a result, neighborhoods are becoming increasingly multiethnic and increasingly
racially integrated. However, despite living in close proximity, different ethnic and
cultural groups often remain isolated from each other and negative attitudes and
misperceptions among groups persist (e. g., Merry, 1980, 1981; Guthrie & Hutchinson,
1995). In some areas, conflict, violence, and hate crimes have increased, often with

1

refugees and immigrants as the targets (Hein, 1995; US. Commission on Civil Rights,
1988)

These demographic changes have been accompanied by new challenges faced
both by refugees and immigrants and by other Americans. Refugees and immigrants
struggle to adapt to ways of life that are very different from their previous experiences
and often face discrimination and prejudice (Hein, 1995; Westermeyer, 1991), while
Americans often struggle to accept changes to their neighborhoods and communities
which they may not have expected or wanted (e. g., Benson, 1990; Goode, 1990).
Therefore, the impetus to understand the processes through which refugees and
immigrants can adjust to life in the United States and become integrated and accepted
into their resettlement communities, while maintaining their own cultural identities, is
strong. One important vehicle for facilitating such adjustment is refugees’ participation
in their communities (e. g., J ong, 1989).

Participation in one’s community has been linked with numerous positive
outcomes, including individual, intergroup, and community benefits. Many researchers
have found that participation can be an empowering process for individuals (e. g., Florin
& Wandersman, 1984; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988; Zimmerman, 1995). For
immigrants and refugees, participation in the broader community is an important process
through which they can acquire the language skills, cultural knowledge, and connections
they need to access resources and adjust to a new, unknown environment. Intergroup
benefits include the facilitation of individuals’ integration into their broader community
(Tomeh, 1974). In addition, voluntary participation in integrative social settings can
facilitate interactions, reduce prejudice, and increase understanding among members of

2

different groups (Florin & Wandersman, 1990; J ong, 1989; Kelly, Azelton, Burzette &
Mock, 1994). There is also evidence that individuals’ participation in voluntary
organizations can lead to empowered communities that gain power, resources, and
decision-making influence (e.g., Speer & Hughey, 1995) and is associated with
improvements in the physical, social and economic conditions of neighborhoods (Florin
& Wandersman, 1990).

Although community participation is a valuable process which contributes to both
individual and community development, it is not necessarily common. Researchers have
long recognized that usually only a small percentage of community members are actively
involved in organizations and activities in their communities (Devereux, Bronfenbrenner,
& Harding, 1960). Participation and local community involvement is often less common
among recent refugees and immigrant subgroups that may have much to gain by
becoming involved in their new communities.

Recent refugees and immigrants face many obstacles to participation in their
neighborhood because they are ofien struggling to adjust to a new environment with an
unfamiliar language and culture. They may tend to rely on members of their own ethnic
or cultural group in order to support them in meeting the demands of adjustment.
Although within-group sense of community and ethnic support networks are very
important for newcomers and have been extensively documented as facilitating
immigrant adjustment (e. g. Bankston & Zhou, 1995; Church, 1982), becoming involved
in the larger community is essential for the development of non-native language abilities
and the acquisition of skills and knowledge to succeed in a new country (e. g., Rumbaut,
1991b). However, limited research has examined the participation of refugees in their

3

communities. Does participation really lead to positive adjustment and the additional
benefits discussed above for refirgees? If it does, then how can we promote the
participation of refugees, especially given the language differences and other barriers
newcomers may face to getting involved in their communities?

In order to answer these questions, we must develop an ecologically valid model
of participation. An ecological perspective, which incorporates individual and contextual
variables, is fimdamental to an understanding of people, processes, and communities in
context. Trickett (1996) notes that an ecological perspective is an ideal way to
incorporate culture and context into research and it is through an ecological perspective
that an understanding of the perspectives of diverse ethnic and cultural groups can be
developed. In an ecologically valid model of participation, we would need to understand
a population, their setting, and the unique factors which facilitate and impede
participation of these particular individuals in their specific setting.

Therefore, this study examined members of one ethnic group and the specific
context in which participation occurred for them. An investigation of participation of the
Hmong (a recent refirgee group) living in three multiethnic housing developments in
Lansing, Michigan was conducted. Because research in this area is limited, the study was
exploratory and addressed three questions: 1) How do Hmong participate in their
multiethnic community? 2) What factors are related to Hmong participation in their
multiethnic community? 3) Is participation in their broader community related to positive
adjustment for Hmong? With an emphasis on diversity and context, this investigation of
participation contributes to a more thorough understanding of both the adjustment
experiences of Hmong refugees and participation in multiethnic communities in general.

4

Refugees and Immigrants in the United States

In the last two decades, significant political and economic transformations have
been accompanied by ethnic conflict, famine, civil war, and other political struggles
throughout the world. As a result, the number of displaced persons has rapidly increased.
Between 1984 and 1995, the number of refugees in the world increased over 50 percent to
15.3 million (United States Committee for Refugees, 1996). As a country founded by
immigrants seeking religious and political fieedom, the United States has accepted more
refugees for resettlement than any other country. In 1995 (the latest year for which
statistics are available), the United States resettled 99,490 refugees, and had 468,896
pending asylum cases (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 1998). In the
last several years, total legal immigration in the United States (including refugees) was
almost 1 million people each year (Idelson, 1995).

Since the late 1970’s, profound changes in immigration patterns have occurred.
Previously, the majority of immigrants and refugees were of European descent. However,
the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 removed discriminatory country-by-country
quotas that favored Europeans and Canadians. Subsequently, the United States
experienced an influx of refugees from Southeast Asia in the 1970s and 805 as a result of
the Vietnam conflict and the Pol Pot regime in Cambodia. Recent refugees from conflicts
in Africa (e.g., Rwanda, Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Zaire) and the Middle East
(e. g., Afghanistan, Palestinians, Iran, Iraq), have also changed the faces of newcomers.

With these recent waves of immigration and the fluctuating birthrates of different
ethnic groups, the demographics of this country have been rapidly changing (Allen &
Turner, 1990; Edmondson, 1996). As a result, many neighborhoods are becoming

5

increasingly multiethnic and increasingly racially integrated. Census Bureau projections
estimate that by the year 2050, Americans who are members of racial and ethnic
“minority" groups will outnumber non- Hispanic whites (Edmondson, 1996). In fact,
there are already many counties in the United States where no ethnic or racial group is a
majority (Allen and Turner, 1990). This diversification is especially apparent in
communities with limited resources. However, despite living in close proximity,
different ethnic and cultural groups often remain isolated from each other and negative
attitudes and misperceptions among groups persist (e.g., Merry, 1980, 1981; Guthrie &
Hutchinson, 1995). In some areas, conflict, violence, and hate crimes have increased,
ofien with refugees and immigrants as the targets (Hein, 1995; US. Commission on Civil
Rights, 198 8).
Refugee Adiustrnent

These demographic changes have been accompanied by new challenges faced
both by refugees and immigrants and by other Americans. Refugees and immigrants
struggle to adapt to ways of life that are very different fi'om their previous experiences
and often face discrimination and prejudice, while Americans often struggle to accept
changes to their neighborhoods and communities which they may not have expected or
wanted. Newcomers to the United States bring with them unique perspectives, skills, and
traditions which have the potential to make great contributions to our country. Therefore,
the impetus to understand the processes through which refugees and immigrants can
adjust to life in the United States and become integrated into their resettlement

communities, while maintaining their own cultural identities, is strong.

By the time refugees arrive in their country of resettlement, they have most often
suffered numerous hardships, including: war, violence, religious and political
persecution, famine, death of loved ones, loss of home, destruction of community, torture,
and the difficulties of flight and life in refugee camps (Aheam & Athey, 1991). However,
their struggles are not over; they must then adjust to life in a new place, which usually has
a different language, culture, technology, and social and economic systems. In addition,
the native people in the refugees’ country of resettlement usually do not understand them
and often resent their arrival (Hein, 1995).

Clearly, refugees face many challenges in the processes of adjusting to their new
lives. Adjustment is the focus here because most refugees in the United States will never
be able to return to their homelands, and, therefore, must adjust and adapt to life here to
promote their own psychological, physical, and economic well-being. It is important to
facilitate refugee adjustment because refirgees who are able to adapt and adjust are more
proficient in English, achieve higher socioeconomic status, have better physical and
psychological health, and are more self-sufficient (Rumbaut, 1991b). However, it is
important not to equate adjustment with assimilation, which occurs when individuals
become part of the larger society without maintaining their unique cultural identities.
Adjustment, on the other hand, occurs when individuals change in such ways as to reduce
the conflict between themselves and their environment (Berry, 1976), without necessarily
losing their cultural values, beliefs or practices. Adjustment is often accomplished
through integration, a process in which individuals maintain their own cultural identity
while also valuing relationships with the larger society (Berry, 1991). For instance,
individuals may continue to speak their native language at home and maintain their

7

traditional cultural and religious practices, while learning to speak English, becoming
integrated economically in the United States, and seeking contact with Americans who
can assist them and connect them with resources.

Some researchers conceptualize refirgee adjustment in terms of acculturation or
cultural adaptation (e. g., Rumbaut, 1991a). However, it also important to emphasize
general indicators of adjustment that are important to all people and do not necessarily
involve the loss of unique cultural traditions or beliefs. Two such dimensions of
adjustment are socioeconomic adjustment and psychological adjustment. As might be
expected given the challenges faced by refugees discussed above, extensive research
shows that refugees and immigrants often struggle with both types of adjustment (e.g.,
Rumbaut 19913; Westerrneyer, Neider & Callies, 1989).

In one study of refugee adaptation, over half of the Hmong refugees interviewed
reported problems with psychological adjustment, and the rate of demoralization and
distress among all Southeast Asian refugee groups was three times higher than that
among the American population (Rumbaut, 1989). The socioeconomic adjustment of
Southeast Asian refugees has also been particularly challenging (Bach & Argiros, 1991).
In addition, it is important to note that psychological adjustment and socioeconomic
adjustment are often related to one another (Mirowsky & Ross, 1986; Rumbaut, 1991b).

Socioeconomic adjustment includes employment status, educational level, and
socioeconomic status and is important because it indicates individuals’ abilities to ensure
and support their physical survival. For refugees, socioeconomic adjustment also
indicates that they have become integrated into the economic fabric of the community.
Given recent welfare reform, which has eliminated most benefits previously available to

8

legal immigrants who are not citizens of the United States, employment and education are
particularly important for refugees. For the Hmong in particular, socioeconomic
adjustment is related to several positive outcomes, including higher grade point averages,
test scores, and educational aspirations among youth (Rumbaut, 1996), and greater
happiness and less distress among adults (Rmnbaut, 1991b).

Psychological adj ustment has been conceptualized in terms of life satisfaction
(e. g., Rumbaut, 1991b), happiness and low levels of demoralization (e. g., Ying & Akutsu,
1997), and low levels of psychosocial problems and psychiatric symptoms (e. g.,
Westermeyer, et al., 1989). This type of adjustment is important to consider because
psychological well-being affects multiple aspects of individuals’ lives, including their
mental health and physical health (Rumbaut, 1989). In addition, it is important because it
captures individuals’ happiness and experiences of the world, rather than an outsider’s
assessment of what appropriate adjustment involves. Many studies have found that
refugees experience greater psychological distress than others (e.g., Berry, 1986; .
Williams and Westermeyer, 1986), in particular Southeast Asian refugees (Hirayama,
Hirayama & Cetingok, 1993; Rumbaut, 1991b), which makes it an important dimension
of refugee adjustment to understand. Adult Southeast Asian refugees’ positive
psychological adjustment is associated with many important outcomes, including higher
socioeconomic status (Rumbaut, 1991a), physical health (Rumabut, 1991a) and their
children’s success in school (Rumbaut, 1991b).

Adjustment is often more challenging for refugees than for other immigrants
because their relocation and contact with a new culture is involuntary (Rumbaut, 1991a).
Because they were forced to leave their native countries, they may be more hesitant to

9

embrace aspects of their new environment and may focus more energy on hoping for
return to their homeland. During their migration, refugees usually experience more
undesirable change and danger and less control over their lives. In addition, once
resettled, they are “challenged to resolve dual crises: a ‘crisis of loss’ — coming to terms
with the past — and a ‘crisis of load’ — coming to terms with the present and immediate
future” (Rumbaut, 1991a, p.57). Therefore, it is important to understand those processes
that can facilitate refugee adjustment. One important vehicle for refugee adjustment is
participation in one’s new resettlement community (e. g., J ong, 1989).
Importafnce of Participation

The value of community participation is widely recognized and the benefits for
individuals and communities are numerous. Many researchers have found it useful to
conceptualize the positive outcomes of participation within a framework of empowerment
(e. g. Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988, Zimmerman, 1995). There are several reasons for
thinking about participation from an empowerment perspective, primarily because there is
considerable evidence that participation in voluntary organizations can be empowering.
Participants have been shown to develop higher competencies and self-confidence, and
lower feelings of helplessness (Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Zimmerman & Rappaport,
1988; Zimmerman, 1995). There is also evidence that participation in voluntary
organizations can empower communities because they are often effective vehicles
through which communities acquire power and decision-making influence (Speer &
Hughey, 1995). In addition, participation has been linked with improvements in the
physical, social and economic conditions of neighborhoods (Cassidy, 1980; Florin &
Wandersman, 1990), community crime reduction (Washnis, 1976), and the increase in

10

decision-making power and resources of communities (Speer & Hughey, 1995). Finally,
participation facilitates individuals’ integration into their broader community (Tomeh,
1974), which is particularly important for refirgees and immigrants.
Participation and Refiigee Adiustrnent

Community participation is particularly important for refugees and immigrants
who have recently resettled here because it involves processes that have been shown to
contribute to their adjustment in the United States (e. g., Rumbaut, 1989). First, through
involvement in their local communities, newcomers to the United States have the
opportunity to improve their English skills, learn about and acquire community resources,
make connections with people and services, and gain a voice in society. These processes
are essential initial steps in the adjustment process for refirgees and immigrants
(Westermeyer, Neider, & Callies, 1989) because they facilitate components of
socioeconomic adjustment, including finding employment, gaining access to educational
opportunities, and improving one’s socioeconomic status (e.g., Rumbaut, 1989).
Increased income, employment, and English proficiency, in turn, can contribute to several
areas of psychological adjustment for the Hmong and other refugees, including: greater
life satisfaction (Rumbaut, 1991b), greater happiness and less demoralization (Y ing &
Akutsu, 1997), and decreased psychosocial problems and psychiatric symptoms
(W estermeyer, et al., 1989). Therefore, because increased community participation
contributes to the initial processes of learning English and making connections to
resources, it should be an important link to socioeconomic and psychological adjustment

for refugees and immigrants.

ll

An Ecological Perspective

Refirgees come from all areas of the world. Although refirgees share certain
common experiences (forced flight from their homes and countries), each individual and
each group has a different background, a different culture, and a unique worldview. For a
meaningful understanding of refugee participation, we have to look at the participation
experiences of members of one group in their particular setting — an ecological
perspective. An examination of individuals in context is fundamental to an understanding
of people, processes, and communities. Trickett (1996) notes that an ecological
perspective is an ideal way to incorporate culture and context into research and it is
through an ecological perspective that an understanding of the perspectives of diverse
ethnic and cultural groups can be developed.

An ecological perspective is also important because it allows for the examination
of within-group differences. Within-group differences must be understood in order to
acquire a comprehensive understanding of a particular group’s participation experiences,
which is an essential precondition to developing effective interventions for the group.
Different factors may be relevant for different groups. For instance, a construct such as
psychological empowerment, which has been linked to participation in several studies of
white and Afi'ican American respondents (e. g., Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988; Chavis
& Wandersman, 1990) may not be relevant to individuals from collectively oriented
cultures. Interventions developed and implemented without this awareness often fail, and
can even result in the disempowerment of individuals or communities which researchers
intended to empower (Strawn, 1994). Therefore, this study focuses on developing an
understanding of a specific group of people — adult Hmong refugees, in a particular

12

setting - multiethnic housing developments, the unique factors which might facilitate or
impede their participation in the setting, and what participation means for these
individuals in this setting.
The Hmong

Although all refugees face great struggles during the resettlement process, the
Hmong have been particularly challenged in their adjustment to life in the United States.
Numerous factors have contributed to their difficulties: significant language and cultural
differences, limited previous education (which puts any individual or group at a
disadvantage in the United States), limited transferable occupational skills, and the
particular context into which they were relocated (most Hmong arrived here in the 1980’s
in the midst of a severe economic recession with high unemployment). As a result of
these factors, the Hmong have experienced a large gap between the abilities they possess
and the skills required to meet the needs they must fulfill in the United States (Scott,
1982). It is therefore important to consider processes which might lessen their adjustment
difficulties. Because Hmong culture emphasizes the importance of the community,
community involvement is likely an essential aspect of their adjustment. Thus,
participation might be a valuable venue for adjustment for the Hmong.
Mound/History

In order to explore the participation experiences of Hmong refugees in multiethnic
housing developments in the United States and develop an ecologically valid model of
their participation in these settings, it is important to understand the background and the
historical circumstances which have brought the Hmong to the United States, as well as
their current situation here. These are important components of the first of three major

13

contexts identified by Haines (1989) as essential in understanding the adaptation of any
refugee group: the cultural, social, and personal histories of the refugees, the society in
which refugees are relocated, and the assistance refugees have received through their
particular resettlement program (Haines, 1989).

The Hmong are a hill tribe people from Laos, whose resettlement in the United
States in the last twenty years marks the end of a long history of persecution and suffering
as an ethnic minority in several countries. Originally from China (where approximately
5,000,000 Hmong still live), many fled Chinese efforts of forced assimilation and
migrated to the mountains of Laos and Vietnam about 150 years ago. In Laos, the Hmong
lived in the mountains and remained largely segregated from the Laotian people, who
often discriminated against them and viewed them as backward and inferior.

During the Vietnam War, the Hmong in Laos fought against the North
Vietnamese and the Pathet Lao (their Communist allies in Laos), whom they perceived as
threats to their autonomy and ways of life. The Hmong resistance was co-opted and
eventually directed by the United States Central Intelligence Agency. At least 30,000
Hmong (ten percent of their population in Laos) died during the conflict. In 1975, when
the Pathet Lao gained control of Laos, the CIA withdrew and left most of the Hmong to
fend for themselves. About 100,000 Hmong began a mass exodus across the Mekong
River into Thailand, where they were put into refugee camps by the Thai government.
Eventually, most were resettled in the United States, France, and Australia, although

beginning in 1991, some of the Hmong were repatriated to Laos.

14

Current Situation

The Hmong in the United States have had an exceptionally difficult adjustment
process (F ass, 1986). They have faced the language and cultural barriers which most
immigrants and refugees experience, but their transition has been additionally
complicated by their limited previous exposure to education and technology, their rural
backgrounds, limited transferable occupational skills, the context of their entry which
occurred during a severe economic recession, and the immense differences between their
traditional culture and way of life and life in the United States.

Over 100,000 Hmong currently live in the United States, and the number of
Hmong in the United States is increasing at the fastest rate of any Asian group. From
1980 and 1990, the Hmong population in the United States increased by 1,165% (Yang &
Murphy, 1993). As their population here has increased, the impact of the Hmong’s
adjustment struggles have become magnified. Statistics fiom the US. Department of
Commerce indicate that in 1990, the median household income was $14,300, 67% of
Hmong households received public assistance, 87% of Hmong lived in rental units, 86%
did not have a high school degree, 60% were linguistically isolated, and 91% of non-US.
born Hmong were not US. citizens (Hein, 1995). In Lansing, Michigan, there are more
than 250 Hmong families (approximately 3000 people), 50% of whom depend on federal
and state assistance, and 90% of whom live below the poverty line. Seventy-three of
these families (40%) have lived in the Lansing area less than five years and
approximately 30% of the Hmong in Lansing live in public housing developments
(Hmong American Community, 1996). Although it is typically expected that refugees
and immigrants require time and perhaps several generations before their group as a

15

whole is thriving, these statistics indicate the situation in the Hmong community is
precarious and that identifying venues for improving their adjustment is important. If
such processes are not identified, the Hmong have a greater chance of becoming mired in
a cycle of poverty.

_lim__oag Culture and Strengtfi

In order to identify successful adjustment strategies for the Hmong, it is essential
to understand some of the important aspects of Hmong culture and its strengths. Hmong
culture is community-oriented and clan-based. There are approximately 13 different
clans in the United States and decisions made by the clan leaders affect all members of
the clan in a given city or area. Hmong culture is also patriarchal and women
traditionally marry when they are quite young (14 or 15 years old), although this has been
slowly changing for the Hmong in the United States. The Hmong have a higher birthrate
than any other ethnic group in the United States (Rumbaut & Weeks, 1986).

These aspects of Hmong culture are important to understand because they often
result in larger families than what is typical in the United States, and the Hmong usually
place greater emphasis on the family, the clan, and the community in general. For
instance, relatives who are considered cousins in American culture are considered
brothers and sisters by the Hmong, while anyone in the same clan is considered a cousin.
This emphasis on clan and community is an important strength of the Hmong community,
which commonly results in an incredibly extensive and strong support system. Hmong
families often pool economic resources and support each other in making decisions and

overcoming hardships.

16

This collective orientation also makes participation a potentially powerful vehicle
for promoting adj ustment because community involvement is inherently valued by many
Hmong. In addition, for individuals such as the Hmong whose cultures emphasize
collective (rather than individual) well being, community participation may also be
important for reasons not typically emphasized or explored. Rather than individual gains
in empowerment and competencies, some Hmong may seek collective action to work
towards common goals. Research has shown that empowerment and community
involvement mean different things to different people, and are facilitated by various
processes for different individuals (Foster-Fishman, Salem, Chibnal, Legler & Yapchai,
1998; Strawn, 1994).

Another strength within Hmong culture is the value placed on education and the
strong motivation of many individuals to take advantage of educational and other
opportunities to improve their lives here. These attributes have been important as many
Hmong struggle to overcome the traumas they have experienced in the past while facing
the transition to life in a new and extremely different culture and environment. They are
trying to preserve their own cultural traditions while also developing proficiency and
capabilities in the United States.

Many aspects of Hmong culture have been shaped by their experience as a
minority group in every country where they have lived. They have worked hard to
preserve their cultural identity and, as their patterns of migration show, will move rather
than be forced to assimilate. Their immigration to the United States has challenged the
integrity of their culture more than any other relocation because it is difficult to remain
completely autonomous here. The United States intentionally dispersed the Hmong when

17

they were resettled here to lessen the impact on any one community, and it has not been
poSsible for them to lead self-sustaining lives as farmers as they have always done in the
past. Through secondary migration within the United States the Hmong have regrouped
themselves somewhat, but most recognize that some degree of integration and
involvement in the broader community is essential. It is important, therefore, to
understand the individual factors and the characteristics of communities or contexts
which facilitate participation of Hmong refugees in their local communities so that they
can acquire the necessary skills, language ability, and resources to successfully make the
transition to life in the United States, while still preserving their Hmong identity.
Multiethnic Communities

The particular setting in which participation occurs is essential to consider. As
discussed above, researchers have established a connection between participation and
numerous positive outcomes. However, there is a stipulation to these relationships that
has not been adequately addressed: participation may not be empowering or lead to
adjustment and integration in new communities if organizations or other settings are not
representative of or at least open to participation by all of the members of the
communities in which they are embedded. Gruber and Trickett (1987) found that
organizations within larger settings of inequality cannot empower people. Therefore, it is
important to understand the particular setting in which participation occurs and the
participation opportunities within the setting.

The focus in this study is on participation in multiethnic communities. There are
several important reasons for this emphasis. First of all, most refugees resettle in urban
areas because these are the primary locations of sponsors, jobs, and housing (Hein, 1995).

18

The urban neighborhoods in which refirgees are located are often low income and if not
multiethnic before, become so as newcomers arrive. Communities with diverse ethnic
and racial groups commonly face specific challenges: language and cultural divisions and
strained intergroup relations. It is because of these added difficulties that facilitating
participation in these communities is even more important. It is essential to help bridge
potential language and cultural gaps and bring people together to work towards common
goals (Jong, 1989).

One specific type of multiethnic community is public housing developments,
which are unique because they are most often home to low income residents living in
very close proximity to each other. Residents of public housing may be in greater need of
making connections to resources in the community. In addition, public housing
developments often have community centers, resident councils and other formal
opportunities for community involvement. Thus participation in public housing
developments may be both more urgent and more possible. Given that participation in
these communities is important, it is necessary to consider what factors may facilitate
participation in these communities.

Types of Participation

One purpose of this study is to examine the factors that are related to Hmong
participation in multiethnic housing developments. However, although relationships
between formal community participation and numerous positive outcomes have been
established, this research has been based on participation as defined by researchers. We
know, however, that people want to have control and influence in their environments in
different ways (F oster-F ishman, et al., 1998). Therefore, it is also important to consider

l9

that individuals and groups may participate in unique ways in their communities. In order
to incorporate human diversity into research in meaningful and genuine ways, Trickett,
Watts, and Birman (1994) caution researchers against imposing their definitions or
assumptions of phenomena upon their participants. Instead they suggest that we must
first attempt to understand diversity and the phenomena we investigate from participants’
perspectives. In other words, we need to “appreciate diversity from the inside out”
(T rickett, Watts & Birrnan, 1994, p. 23). This is particularly important when working
with disenfranchised individuals and groups. If the assumptions underlying researchers’
conceptualizations and definitions remain unexarnined, the results may not only be
inconclusive, but can also be inadvertently harmful to participants (e. g., Strawn, 1994).
Therefore, in order to understand the participation process for some of the Hmong, the
first purpose of this study was to explore qualitatively the types of participation and
community involvement that Hmong residents of multiethnic communities pursue, in
order to allow the perspectives and voices of the Hmong residents to emerge.
P_articipation Opportunities in Multiethnic Houiiag Developments

The second purpose of this study was to examine the factors that are related to one
specific type of Hmong participation in multiethnic housing developments — formal
participation. There are numerous types of participation possible in communities, and the
definition and operationalization of participation varies greatly across studies. An
extensive amount of research has been conducted on frequency of participation in
voluntary neighborhood and block associations and different roles of participants (e.g.,
Florin & Wandersman, 1990; Tomeh, 1974; Wandersman, 1981; Wandersman, et al.,
1987). There are also numerous investigations of political participation, which includes

20

voting, campaigning, and contacting elected officials (e. g., Bobo & Gilliam, 1990; Lien,
1994). On the other hand, many researchers conceptualize participation in an even
broader sense - including activities such as community involvement with fiiends and
neighbors (e. g., Lee, Campbell & Miller, 1991).

One particular type of participation that seems fruitful to examine is involvement
in formal organizations, programs, and activities located within multiethnic housing
developments. This type of formal participation is important because it provides
individuals with the opportunity to be involved in decision-making in the institutions and
environments that affect them. This is what Wandersman (1984) refers to as citizen
participation, and is the process that is related to the many positive outcomes of
participation discussed above. In the public housing developments in Lansing, these
formal participation opportunities include: attending resident council meetings, holding
an elected position on the resident council, voting in resident council elections, attending
activities or programs at the community center, and volunteering in the community by
either planning events or donating time and materials to events. Capturing these formal
activities is important because in communities where all residents have limited resources,
participation that brings residents into contact not only with each other, but also with the
programs and services in their community is essential. Informal participation, such as
social interactions with neighbors, is likely to have different relevant predictors and
outcomes (Lee, Campbell, & Miller, 1991) and was not targeted in this study.

Predictors of Participation

With the goal of increasing levels of community participation, many investigators

have tried to understand the numerous demographic, psychological, situational, and

21

cost/benefit factors which facilitate or impede it (e. g., Chavis & Wandersman, 1990;
Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Wandersman, 1981; Wandersman, Jakubs, & Giamartino,
1981; Wandersman, Florin, Friedmann, & Meier, 1987). These efforts, however, have
been limited in several ways. First, little empirical work investigating participation has
been conducted in multiethnic neighborhoods or communities. Most participation
research that includes respondents of different racial and ethnic groups looks at
participation only in racially and ethnically segregated neighborhoods (e. g., Chavis &
Wandersman, 1990; Wandersman, Florin, Friedmann, & Meier, 1987). However,
researchers do not always make this explicit. If they do mention it, they do not usually
recognize or emphasize the importance of this limitation. With the increasing diversity of
communities in the United States, research on participation that focuses only on
respondents in ethnically homogeneous neighborhoods or groups fails to capture the
experiences of most people.

In addition, few studies have focused on understanding the participation
experiences of specific ethnic or cultural groups, and even fewer examine participation
among recent refugees and immigrants in the United States. Most studies on the
participation of racial and ethnic minorities compares rates of participation among
members of different racial and ethnic groups. (e. g. Babchuk & Thompson, 1962; Olsen,
1970; Williams, Babchuk & Johnson, 1973). This focus ignores within-group differences
(Cohen & Kapsis, 1978), and, consequently, does not lead to useful points of intervention
for a targeted group. The diversity within a group is as important as the diversity among

groups, and therefore, in order to develop an understanding of participation in multiethnic

22

communities, it is necessary to first investigate the experiences of specific groups within
the community.

Another limitation of many studies concerns the extent to which context is taken
into consideration. More than 15 years ago, Wandersman (1981) noted the importance of
investigating contextual variables which affect participation. This work precipitated
numerous studies that considered contextual factors such as crime rate, community
resources, and physical conditions of the environment (e. g. Wandersman, 1981; Sagy,
Stern & Krakover, 1996). Although these are important aspects of community context
and have improved our understanding of participation, most studies have not specifically
addressed relations among members of diverse racial and ethnic groups, which is also a
fundamental part of the context. Within multiethnic communities the importance of
considering contextual elements and the community climate is central, given that these
factors affect residents’ integration into their local communities (Buckner, 1988; Fried,
1982; Sagy, Stern, & Krakover, 1996). Since interaction and participation in multiethnic
communities are low (Wirth, 193 8), and most often occur within ethnic groups, not
between (Guthrie & Hutchinson, 1995; J ong, 1989; Humphreys & Woods, 1993; Tomeh,
1974), attention to the climate in ethnically mixed communities and how it influences
participation rates is essential. In addition, it is important to consider factors or
conditions within a specific neighborhood or community which facilitate participation
because, as opposed to individual demographic characteristics, they can often be changed.
Also, focusing on the climate and contextual factors that promote participation of
refugees and immigrants is an important aspect of shifting the responsibility for the
adjustment of newcomers so that it is shared by individuals and their communities.

23

Finally, most research on participation has been conducted in middle class
neighborhoods (e. g., Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Wandersman, J akubs, & Giamartino,
1981). However, understanding and facilitating participation and sense of community is
especially essential in low income areas, including public housing developments, where a
large number of people share a limited geographic area and where the need for
community development and the acquisition of resources is great. In addition, low-
income communities are often multiethnic and home to many recent refugees and
immigrants in the United States. Together, these limitations of the research on
participation suggest that one important new direction is an ecological investigation of
this phenomenon in multiethnic communities.

The extensive literature on community participation includes many approaches to
promoting participation and has examined the role of numerous factors that facilitate and
impede this process. Primarily, these include emphases on individual-level variables
such as demographic, social psychological, and cost/benefit variables (e. g., Florin, Jones,
& Wandersman, 1986; Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, & Chavis, 1990). Other
studies have investigated contextual variables such as crime rates, community boundaries,
ethnic heterogeneity, and community conditions (e. g., Guthrie & Hutchinson, 1995;
Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980). At this point, most researchers agree that
participation is facilitated or inhibited by both individual and contextual characteristics
and the complex ways in which they interact with each other (e. g., Wandersman, 1984;
Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980). The relevance of these factors to the participation

experiences of Hmong residents in a multiethnic community is explored below. '

24

Demographic Fagors

Smith (1975) as well as many more recent studies (e. g. Wandersman, Florin,
Friedmann, & Meier, 1987) have concluded that, in general, demographic characteristics
are not useful predictors of participation. Wandersman, Florin, F riedrnann, & Meier
(1987) argue that who participates is not as important a question to ask as the why, when,
where, and how of participation. This is a useful way to think about community
participation, because it focuses intervention efforts on factors that can be controlled or
changed, as opposed to demographic variables, which are usually immutable (Florin &
Wandersman, 1984). However, the inclusion of certain demographic variables in
research on participation may be appropriate. It is important to consider that
demographic variables may be useful if they are examined from the perspective of what is
relevant for a specific population. In addition, they contribute to our understanding of
within-group differences.

gee/Ethnicity. Most participation studies have found no significant racial or
ethnic differences between participants and nonparticipants in neighborhood voluntary
associations (Wandersman, Florin, Friedmann, & Meier, 1987; Chavis & Wandersman,
1990). Therefore, Cohen and Kapsis (1978) argue that researchers should try to
understand differences among people of the same ethnic group before continuing to
explore differences between groups.

Although an individual’s race or ethnicity is not necessarily an effective predictor
of participation, members of nondominant ethnic, racial, and cultural groups may have
different participation experiences than members of the White majority. Also, specific or
unique factors could affect the participation of members of some minority groups, such as

25

non-native English speakers who may need translators in order to participate. In addition,
individuals within a given ethnic, racial, or cultural group may have distinct participation
experiences. Therefore, it is important not .to assume the generalizabi‘lity of researchhwrth
White participants to members of other racial and ethnic groups, and, furthermore, tobe ‘

careful not to rely only on superficial racial and etlmic categorizations when investigating

-—-—_

participation among individuals within these groups. Instead, specific attention should be
focused on the participation experiences of individuals and members of groups whose
similarities or differences are explored, not assumed. Therefore, the proposed study will
examine the individual andcgntextual factors which facilitate participation for members
of a single ethnic group in a specific setting.

For Hmong in multiethnic communities, there are two types of demographic
variables that may be particularly relevant: variables that indicate rootedness in the
community, both locally and in the United States, (age, age of immigration, length of time
at housing development, and length of time in the United States,) and the size of
residents’ households.

Rootedness. Several studies have found that although demographic variables of
status (such as occupation, education, and race) are not significantly related to
participation, demographic variables indicating rootedness (such as age, length of
residence, and home ownership) are related to participation (Wandersman, Jakubs, and
Giamartino, 1981). Rootedness, which involves the degree to which individuals have
established roots in their community, is especially important for refugees and immigrants
because they have been forced to reestablish their roots in a new country and may vary
more in degree of rootedness in their new communities than people who have lived in the

26

United States all of their lives. A common indicator of rootedness in one’s community is
home ownership. However this factor is not relevant for this study of Hmong residents of
public housing developments because ownership in these developments is not an option.
Other common indicators of rootedness are age and length of residence in one’s
neighborhood. In addition, for the Hmong and other groups of refirgees and immigrants,
age at which individuals came to the United States and the length of time they have lived
in the United States would also be relevant indicators of rootedness in this country.
These four indicators are described below.

Age and Age of Immigration. Many studies of participation have found that
older residents are more likely to participate in their neighborhood organizations (e. g.,
Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Wandersman, J akubs, & Giamartino, 1981). However, for
the Hmong, the age at which they arrived in the United States may also be relevant.
Refirgees or immigrants who resettle at a later age often have more difficulty
acculturating and playing an active role in their new environment (Rumbaut, 1985).
Therefore, it seems important to explore the relationships between both age and
participation and age of immigration and participation in this population, especially given
that the specific role age of immigration plays in community participation has not
received much attention in the literature. Understanding the relationship between age of
immigration and participation will provide a basis for the development of specialized
supports that may be necessary to facilitate the participation of individuals who resettle at
a later age.

Length of Time at HousinLDevelopment. Another common indicator of
being rooted in one’s community is the length of time an individual has lived in his or her

27

current residence. Numerous researchers have found that people who have lived in their
current residence longer are more likely to participate in neighborhood voluntary
associations (e.g., Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980; Wandersman, Jakubs, &
Giamartino, 1981). Intended length of residence is also positively related to participation
(e.g., Wandersman, Florin, Friedman, & Meier, 1987).
Length of Time in the United 8% The length of time Hmong have lived

in the United States varies greatly; the first Hmong to resettle in Lansing arrived in 1979,
and arrival fi'om Thai refugee camps has continued until very recently (1996). The length
of time individuals have lived in the United States is an important within-group
difference which is often ignored among refugee or immigrant groups, but can account
for significant differences in their lives (e.g., Ying & Akutsu, 1997). This factor may be
an indicator of individuals’ rootedness in the United States and their ability to be rooted
in their local community. It is likely to impact refugee and immigrants’ involvement in
their new community, although there is no evidence to suggest in what way it relates to
participation. It seems probable that as the length of time refugees and immigrants have
lived in the United States increases, they will participate more in their broader
communities because they will have developed language skills which enable them to
participate and, perhaps, an increased commitment to their community.

Household Size. Wandersman, Florin, Friedmann & Meier (1987) found that the
number of people in an individual’s household was not related to participation in
neighborhood voluntary organizations. However, they did find that the number of

children under the age of 17 was significantly positively related to participation of

28

individuals in Israel, but not in the United States. Thus, they suggested that cultural
differences related to the effect of children in the household on participation existed.

Household size might impact Hmong participation for several reasons. First,
many Hmong families often have eight or more children. The average number of children
ever born to Hmong women refugees in San Diego was 8.63, higher than any other
Southeast Asian refugee group and much higher than the average among other women in
the United States (Rumbaut & Weeks, 1986). These larger numbers of children might
preclude participation because parents’ time and resources are greatly constrained.

On the other hand, older Hmong adults may not have any young children at home.
Ordinarily, according to Hmong culture, these older adults would be living with the
family of their eldest son, but often the regulations of public housing or welfare require
them to live independently (although they may live in the same housing complex or
development as one or more of their sons). These older adults might be less likely to
participate because of age or more likely to be involved because they have more time.
Given that there are particularly large variations in household size within the Hmong
community, it seems important to explore whether this factor is related to their
participation.

Social Psychological Factors

One potential area for intervention includes the numerous social psychological
factors which have been found to be significant predictors of citizen participation. These
include: the perceived importance of the block or neighborhood, participation in other
voluntary organizations, perceived personal influence in being able to effect change in the
neighborhood, perceived sense of community, sense of civic duty, self-esteem, political

29

efficacy, and power (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Wandersman, Florin, Friedmann, &
Meier, 1987; Wandersman, Jakubs, & Giamartino, 1981). These studies of social
psychological variables examined neighborhoods in the United States in which individual
blocks were racially homogeneous. Because the block organizations studied were usually
comprised of only one racial or ethnic group, the findings may or may not be applicable
to multiethnic settings. It is important to consider these social psychological variables in
multiethnic communities, but this has not been addressed in the literature. In addition,
these factors have not been investigated from the perspectives of newcomers to the
United States. This study will target those social psychological variables that appear most
relevant to Hmong participants in a multiethnic community.

Sense of Community. Among social psychological variables, sense of commmrity
has one of the strongest links to participation (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). Extensive
research suggests that a sense of community is positively correlated with participation and
involvement in one’s community (e. g., Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Hutcheson &
Prather, 1988; McMillan & Chavis, 1986; Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980) and is a
significant catalyst for participation (Chavis and Wandersman, 1990). In addition to its
connection to participation, a sense of community is positively linked to community
development and individual well being (Chavis & Newbrough, 1986; Jason & Kobayashi,
1995). Chavis and Newbrough (1986) state, “The building of a sense of community acts
as a mechanism to stimulate the healthy development of the environment and the people
who inhabit it” (p. 337). While most research does not directly discuss sense of
community in multiethnic communities, the link established between sense of community
and participation (e. g., Chavis & Wandersman, 1990) suggests that the lack of sense of

30

community, which has long been documented in research on multiethnic communities
(e.g., Merry, 1981), could contribute to low participation of certain groups of individuals
in these settings. Sense of community seems especially relevant for the Hmong because
they emphasize the community rather than the individual in all aspects of their lives.

Sense of community takes context into account. Although it is measured on an
individual level as a psychological construct, it refers to individuals’ perceptions of their
community or context. This measurement approach has been recognized as a valid and
meaningful assessment of a targeted context (Schneider & Rentsch, 1988). Because we
know that participation is affected by complex interactions between individual and
contextual factors (Wandersman 1984), understanding individuals’ perceptions of the
context in which they can potentially participate is an important point of connection. In
addition, a strong sense of community is often particularly important for refugees and
immigrants as they negotiate their roles in the broader new environment in which they
have resettled (Fitzpatrick, 1966).

Many researchers have sought to develop conceptual definitions of sense of
community which could serve as a basis for its operationalization. One of the most
widely accepted definitions is McMillan and Chavis’ (1986), which divides sense of
community into four elements: membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of
needs, and shared emotional connection. They define membership as the sense of
belonging, identification, and personal investment within a community. Influence is the
feeling that one matters to the group and also that the group matters to its members.
Integration and fulfillment of needs is defined as the belief that one’s needs will be met
through membership in the community. Shared emotional connection is the sense that

31

members of the community have shared and will continue to share a common history or
certain experiences together. Several studies have confirmed the viability of McMillan
and Chavis’ definition (e.g., Chavis, Hogge, McMillan & Wandersman, 1986). These
definitions will be adopted in this study because they can be applied both to communities
defined geographically (i.e., a neighborhood or housing development) and to ethnic
communities.

Most individuals are members of several communities or have multiple layers of
community. The examination of sense of community is often complicated by these
numerous affiliations because a decision must be made about how to define a person’s
community. Traditionally, community was exclusively defined by where a person lived.
The idea of community was tied to place for many years, until three phenomena - the
industrial revolution, the increase in scientific knowledge, and the increase in speed of
communication - transformed the way many people define their community or
communities (Dunham, 1986). More recently, some definitions of community have been
based on shared values, goals, and experiences rather than place (e. g. McMillan &
Chavis, 1986).

McMillan and Chavis (1986) recognize the many types of communities
experienced by individuals today. They state, “The layering of communities is very much
part of modern life (Fischer, 1982), in which multiple affiliations are based both on
territoriality and tradition (neighborhood, city, state, nation) and on what Durkheim
(1964) called ‘organic solidarity’ (interest, professions, religion, etc.)” (p. 19). It is

important to think about these layers of community, especially in a multiethnic

32

community, where, for example, individuals may be highly involved with their ethnic
community, but may also identify with the neighborhood in which they live.

Ethnic communities are probably especially salient for immigrants and refugees
who face the hegemony of American culture in the United States and may feel that the
survival of their culture is threatened. However, most immigrants and refugees live in
urban settings, which are increasingly multiethnic (Allen & Turner, 1990). Within urban
areas, public housing developments are common places of residence for people with
limited resources and are also usually meaningful communities to their residents. There
are several reasons for this. First of all, housing developments are characterized by clear
boundaries and have a community name with which residents identify. Also, residents in
housing developments usually live in close proximity to each other and share common
space and resources. In addition, certain shared values probably connect residents. For
instance, it is likely that most residents value a safe place for their children to grow up
and opportunities for themselves and their children to improve their living circumstances.
Finally, neighborhoods tend to play an important role in the lives of individuals with
limited resources (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). It seems clear that a community can be
conceptualized both as an ethnic or cultural group and as a neighborhood or other
geographically defined area. Sense of community that Hmong residents feel within their
ethnic group and within their neighborhood will be examined in this study.

Within-Group Sense of Communig. For Hmong refirgees in multiethnic
communities, it is important to consider how their sense of community within the Hmong
community impacts their participation. McMillan and Chavis (1986) said, “As the force
of sense of community drives people closer together, it also seems to be polarizing and

33

separating subgroups of people. The potential for great social conflict is increasing - a
side of community that must be understood as well” (p.20). Therefore, it seems essential
to determine whether sense of community within different groups of people in
multiethnic communities could be impeding participation in the community as a whole.

In multiethnic neighborhoods there is often a strong sense of community within
certain ethnic groups (especially immigrant groups), but not a shared sense of community
(e.g., Benson, 1990; Guthrie & Hutchinson, 1995; Merry, 1980). Although this is not
necessarily undesirable, there are most likely some needs of residents that can best be met
by residents’ involvement in the broader community, especially in housing developments.
Primarily, this is because there are shared issues and problems among the residents which
can be most effectively addressed collectively. These include crime prevention, safety,
and neighborhood development. Therefore, because individuals and communities can
experience benefits from the development of a sense of community within a given
community as defined by place as well as a sense of community within their ethnic group,
it is important to consider both types of sense of community.

The impact of within-group sense of community on participation within a
multiethnic neighborhood is especially important to consider among immigrants who tend
to rely on members of their own ethnic group during their transition to a new country
(e. g., Church, 1982) and among members of collectively-oriented cultures who place
more emphasis on their community. Newbrough and Chavis (1986) suggest that there are
two reciprocal aspects of belonging: an I-you sense that distinguishes individuals from
each other and a we sense of belonging together. American culture tends to be based
more on the Lyon distinction, while many other cultures (including Hmong culture)

34

emphasize collectivity and common interest. In addition, more than any other immigrant
group, the Hmong have succeeded in preserving many aspects of their culture,
interdependency, and sense of ethnic community (F adiman, 1997).

The resettlement of the Hmong in the United States is an interesting juxtaposition
of several cultures and has required the integration of different levels of community.
Most Hmong have many layers of community - among members of their ethnic group in
their community, among their clan, and among the community in which they live.
Although all of these layers of community are probably important, Hmong residents’
proximity to each other within housing developments suggests that particularly salient to
Hmong residents would be within-group sense of community among Hmong in their
development. Identification with Hmong neighbors may be especially strong given that
Hmong traditionally lived in small villages in mountainous regions which impeded their
ability to have extensive contact with other villages and because many Hmong in the
United States have limited access to transportation. These factors suggest that Hmong
might most readily identify with the other Hmong living within their housing
development.

However, the degree of within-group sense of community may vary among
Hmong residents, depending on their age, the time they have spent in the United States,
their English language abilities, and other factors. Hmong residents who have the
strongest within-group sense of community may be those who are least able to develop
relationships with other residents because of language and cultural differences. On the
other hand, some individuals might value and emphasize the development of
relationships with all community members and might have a strong overall sense of

35

community in the housing development and a strong within-group sense of community.
These varying levels of sense of community within the housing development and among
other Hmong residents are likely to impact participation.

Cultural Factors

It is particularly important to consider cultural factors that may be related to
participation because refugees often experience large cultural differences regarding
participation norms. Different refugee groups have cultures that value community and
participation differently. Also, because refugees have most often endured limited control
over many recent aspects of their lives (Rumbaut, 1991a), they may translate these
experiences to perceptions that they cannot affect their current environment. In addition,
cultural barriers which make interaction and participation difficult are common in
multiethnic communities. These cultural differences and gaps can affect individuals’
abilities and desire to participate. Cultural factors which are specifically relevant for the
Hmong include their level of acculturation, cultural norms (including gender norms), the
extent to which, because of the collective nature of their culture, individuals feel they are
represented by other members of their household who participate, and the cultural
relevance of existing participation opportunities.

Acculturation. Acculturation is a factor that is specifically relevant for all
refirgees and immigrants. On the individual level, it can be broadly defined as changes in
individuals’ attitudes and behaviors which result from their contact with a culture
different fi'om their own (Berry, 1991). Research on acculturation of the Hmong and
other Southeast Asian refugees has often considered acculturation in terms of
assimilation, biculturalism, and traditionalism, which are indicators of an individual’s

36

attitudes towards maintaining his/her traditional culture and interacting and accepting
aspects of the new culture (e.g., Rumbaut, 1989). An individual who values assimilation
is most interested in becoming part of the larger society without maintaining his/her
traditional cultural identity. Biculturalism involves maintaining most aspects of
traditional cultural identity while also actively seeking to become integrated in the larger
society. An individual who values traditionalism seeks to maintain his/her traditional
culture and ways of life separate from the larger society.

Research has not examined acculturation and participation together within this
framework. However, there is evidence that for both Asian Americans and Mexican
Americans, acculturation as indicated by having norms, beliefs, and attitudes
commiserate with those prevailing in American political culture is positively linked to
political participation (Lien, 1995). Refirgees and immigrants who value assirrrilation or
choose to adopt some aspects of the new culture while maintaining their own cultural
identity (biculturalism) would seem to be more likely to participate in their new
community than those who remain attached only to their traditional beliefs and culture
and do not seek to be involved in the larger society (traditionalism). The relationship
between participation in multiethnic housing developments and assimilation,
biculturalism, and traditionalism was examined for the Hmong in this study.

Cultural Norrn_§ for Participation. Another important factor to consider involves
the participatory norms within a culture that deterrrrine whether participation is
appropriate or not. Olsen’s (1970) normative theory suggests that participatory norms
within an ethnic group are related to their participation. Several studies of participation
among African Americans, Mexican Americans, and Whites support this theory (Antunes

37

and Gaitz, 1975; Cohen and Kapsis, 1978). Many people come fiom backgrounds where
there were no opportunities to express their opinion or control their lives (this is
especially relevant for many recent refugee groups, including the Hmong). Such
backgrounds often preclude participation in resettlement countries.

Although the Hmong have always emphasized community involvement within the
Hmong community and have based most aspects of their lives on group decisions, their
minority status in every country they have lived throughout their history (e. g., China,
Laos, and the United States) and their experiences of persecution and lack of control over
their lives in refugee camps, may have contributed to a sense of futility regarding
participation in the larger context. Thus, formal participation in their broader community
may be less important or familiar to some Hmong, particularly those who lived in refugee
camps for significant periods of their adult lives. These individuals might value
participation less and might be less likely to participate.

On the other hand, because many of the Hmong have other cultural norms which
value the community so highly, participation in the broader community may be important
to them. Hmong individuals who hold cultural norms which value the community highly,
may be more likely to participate. Depending on their past and present experiences,
Hmong may have different cultural norms regarding participation. Therefore, it is
essential to explore the relationship between participation and the importance Hmong
individuals ascribe to participation.

Cultural Gender Norm; In several studies, researchers have found that women
are more likely to participate than men are (e.g., Florin & Wandersman, 1984;
Wandersman, J akubs, & Giamartino, 1981). However, this pattern rrright not be

38

consistent within all groups of people. According to traditional Hmong culture, men
usually represent their families in clan elections and decisions, while women often do not
individually participate in the political process. In some cases, a clan member, such as
the oldest brother or male cousin, can represent the interests of multiple families in
Hmong community meetings. How these cultural gender norms translate to
neighborhood participation is unknown. One hypothesis is that the processes are parallel
in that Hmong men who believe that it is more appropriate for Hmong men to participate
in the Hmong community than women, might be more likely to participate in the broader
community. Hmong women who hold these traditional gender norms might be less likely
to participate in the broader community.

However, cultural norms about participation within the Hmong community and
participation outside the Hmong community could be different. Hmong men and women
might believe that men should participate in the Hmong community, but might feel that it
is appropriate for both men and women to participate in the broader community. Some
might believe that it is more appropriate for women to participate in the neighborhood
community because they may consider it to represent part of the women’s domain in the
home. Therefore, it is important to explore the relationship between gender norms and
participation.

fitent of Hou_sehold Participation. In order to develop a complete understanding
of the impact of gender on participation, it is also necessary to examine the extent to
which members of the household other than the respondent participate. As discussed
above, Hmong culture is family and clan-based. Traditionally, women do not participate
in formal political processes in Hmong culture, but are represented by their husband or

39

other male head of household. Therefore, it may be that some Hmong families believe it
to be more culturally appropriate for only the head of the household to participate in the
broader community, rather than each individual. Consequently, it is important to examine
each respondent’s participation within the context of the participation of the other
members of their household. For the Hmong, the participation patterns of each household
may be as meaningful as individuals’ rates of participation. In this study, the
participation of all adults in each household will be assessed in order to understand how
and if they affect each other.

Cultural Relevance. Another important factor concerns whether the opportunities
for participation within one’s community are culturally relevant or not. Avenues of
participation in certain communities may not be culturally appropriate for all residents.
For instance, participation opportunities in a multiethnic community could be dominated
by the interests of the groups which are most represented. Events such as Halloween or
Thanksgiving celebrations might not appeal to some Hmong or other newcomers to the
United States. Nutrition and health classes might involve foods that the members of
certain ethnic groups do not eat. Residents with needs such as English language or
citizenship classes might be less able to communicate these to their communities. In
addition, resident council meetings may be structured in ways that are uncomfortable or
disruptive of refugees’ culture (e. g., Hein, 1995). For instance, some refugees may feel
that it is inappropriate to raise personal complaints during a meeting or that they do not
have opportunities to share their ideas when others are talking. Therefore, the cultural

preferences of individuals and the extent to which they view community activities as

40

relevant to themselves and their culture may affect their participation in existing events
and activities in their community.
Resource Factors

Previous researchers (e. g., Wandersman, J akubs & Giamartino, 1981) have found
that when individuals lack certain resources (i.e., time, childcare), they are likely not to
participate. Understanding the resources which may affect refugee participation in
multiethnic communities is particularly important because residents often lack a common
language, are unaware of participation opportunities, and have multiple responsibilities
(i.e., childcare, work) which limit their time, all of which can act as barriers to their
participation.

Langaage. One of the most apparent factors which may be related to participation
in multiethnic communities is the language barrier faced by many refugees, immigrants,
and other non-native English speaking residents in the United States. Individuals’
cognitive and behavioral abilities to participate are significant predictors of their
participation (Florin, Jones, and Wandersman, 1986; Florin and Wandersman, 1984). For
the Hmong, these would include their English skills, which could influence their ability to
participate as well as their ability to make themselves aware of the participation
opportunities in their communities. This barrier may be especially salient and difficult to
overcome for the Hmong, many of whom are illiterate. Depending on several factors
including their level of education and the age at which they resettled in the United States,
many Hmong often find it extremely difficult to learn English (at least among first
generation refugees). Although traditionally in Hmong culture it is often the elder males
who participate in community activities, the language abilities of family members might

41

become a more important determinant of participation. Many elder clan members may
not have the English skills to enable them to participate in neighborhood organizations.
There is limited research on the impact of language skills on participation, which could
be because many studies of participation have focused on ethnically homogenous block
organizations (e. g., Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Wandersman, Florin, Friedmann, &
Meier, 1987) and because multilingual sites pose numerous methodological difficulties.
However, it is likely that English language ability is an important factor for the Hmong
who live in multiethnic communities.

Awareness. If residents are not aware of the opportunities that exist in their
community for involvement, they cannot participate. There may be numerous reasons for
lack of awareness of participation opportunities in multiethnic communities: programs,
events, and meetings might be publicized only in English, current participants might be
unable to communicate with nonparticipating residents about upcoming meetings and
events, or participants might be uncomfortable about encouraging participation of
members of different ethnic groups.

Guthrie and Hutchinson (1995) examined participation among African Americans
and Asian Americans at a housing development in San Francisco. They noted that there
was little effort by the staff at the community center in the project to inform or include
Asian Americans in activities or programs. This resulted in minimal participation in
community meetings and at the community center by Asian Americans. However,
Wandersman, J akubs, and Giarnartino (1981) found that people who knew about their
block organization but did not join were similar to those who did not know about the
block organization, and therefore concluded that the unaware people would not have

42

joined their block organization even if they had known about it. In a multiethnic,
multilingual community, though, lack of awareness cannot necessarily be attributed to
residents’ being less rooted in their community and caring less about their community
than the members of the block organization, as was the case in Wandersman, et a1.
(1981). The reasons for lack of awareness in the case of non-native English speakers may
be different (i.e., language in which information about events and meetings is written may
not be comprehensible or residents may lack an understanding of what neighborhood
organizations are), and therefore these conclusions might not be applicable. Thus, it is
important to explore the relationship between awareness and participation in multiethnic
communities.

11mg. Time constraints (either not having enough time to participate or being
unable to attend meetings or events at their scheduled times) and lack of child care are
often prohibitive to individuals’ participation. Disenfranchised and disadvantaged people
who are in the greatest need of resources and power often do not have the time to
participate in voluntary organizations, because they are struggling simply to survive and
support themselves (Kieffer, 1984). They may also be more likely to work evenings or
other times when neighborhood meetings are typically scheduled. In fact, Wandersman,
J akubs, and Giarnartino (1981) found that time constraints were the most significant
barrier for the majority of individuals who do not participate in their neighborhood
associations.
Contextual Factor - Intergroup Relations in a Multiethnic Community

In the development of an ecological perspective on participation, it is important to
look beyond the individual and individual factors, and to consider the context in which

43

participation occurs. Most researchers have found that participation in multiethnic
neighborhoods is low (e. g. Fischer, 1977; Guthrie & Hutchinson, 1995; Merry, 1981;
Tittle, 1989). People who are members of different ethnic and cultural groups are likely
to have less in common (including language, culture, values, and experience) and tend to
be less involved with their neighborhood than if their community is comprised only of
members of their own group. In addition, in communities where resources are limited,
members of different ethnic groups often feel that their financial security is threatened by
members of other groups, especially newcomers (e. g., Cho, 1995; Guthrie & Hutchinson,
1995). Therefore, it is important to consider how relations among members of different
ethnic and racial groups, a specific characteristic of multiethnic communities, affects
participation.

Wandersman and Giarnartino (1980) found that an atmosphere that is conducive
to participation in voluntary block associations, including positive interaction among
neighbors, is necessary in order for individual characteristics that facilitate participation
to operate. In communities with individuals of diverse racial, ethnic, and cultural
backgrounds, the environment would not be conducive to participation if intergroup
relations among community members were negative. In a discussion of intergroup
theory, Alderfer (1986) identifies ethnic groups as one of the fundamental groups (called
identity groups) that an individual belongs to fiom birth. He argues that identity-group
membership is more fundamental than organizational- group membership. Intergroup
relations is important to consider because community participation in multiethnic
communities means interacting with individuals from other identity groups and because
the potential for intergroup conflict is great in multiethnic housing developments and

44

other communities in which many ethnic groups are represented and most residents have
limited resources.

Although there is not extensive empirical evidence on the relationship between
racial/ethnic relations and participation, organizational theorists have long recognized the
importance of understanding intergroup relations (particularly among members of
different racial, ethnic, and gender groups) embedded within organizations (e.g., Alderfer,
1986). With a specific focus on a multiethnic community that lacked positive intergroup
contact, Merry (1981) characterized the low levels of community involvement as “life in
a neighborhood of strangers.” There is also some evidence that negative intergroup
relations, characterized by misperceptions and lack of interaction, contributes to low
levels of involvement among refugees in multiethnic housing developments (Guthrie &
Hutchinson, 1995; Hein, 1995). In addition, negative interaction and conflict with
members of different ethnic groups engenders negative attitudes towards those ethnic
groups (e.g., Tzeng, 1994), which might preclude participation. Evidence exists to
suggest that negative relations among members of different ethnic or racial groups affects
their interest and commitment to participating in multiethnic organizations and
communities. However, this relationship has not been examined in studies of formal
participation. Therefore, it is important to firrther investigate this phenomenon.

In this study, intergroup relations was considered to be a contextual variable that
was measured distinctly from individuals’ perceptions of members of other groups or
their perceptions of other groups’ attitudes towards them. Instead, it was assumed to be
an objective factor which could be observed by outsiders who were familiar with the
communities, spent a significant amount of time in them, and compiled statistics on the

45

intergroup incidents that occurred there. Positive intergroup relations were considered to
exist in a housing development if there were contact among members of different groups,
a lack of conflict or negative interaction, and some degree of respect among different
group members.

Summm

The issues of refugee resettlement and adjustment have become increasingly
complex as the United States accepts larger numbers of refugees and immigrants and the
demographics of our country continue to shift. Participation is an important process
through which refugees can adjust to life here and become accepted in their new
communities. However, there is clearly no simple formula for facilitating community
participation; the appropriate methods and strategies depend on the particular individuals
involved and their unique settings. In addition to exploring factors that are already
known to be related to participation, it is important to consider the unique factors that
may affect participation of the Hmong in multiethnic housing developments, including
both individual- and contextual-level variables that are specific to this population, their
setting, and their experiences.

For Hmong residents within a multiethnic housing development, we would expect
several individual and contextual factors to influence participation. Age, age of
immigration, length of time in current residence, length of time in the United States, and
household size are demographic factors which are particularly relevant for the Hmong.
Among social psychological factors, sense of community is most strongly related to
participation, and is especially important for the Hmong who emphasize the collective
interest and in multiethnic communities given that the community climate is often

46

particularly strained. Residents may lack the desire or motivation to participate if they do
not feel a sense of community (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). In addition, the
community climate in multiethnic communities is often more complex, and can be
complicated by factors such as residents’ sense of community within their ethnic group.

As the Hmong continue to negotiate their existence in a new country, certain
cultural factors are also relevant, including acculturation, cultural norms, cultural gender
norms, extent of household participation, and cultural relevance. The resources of
residents are also essential to consider for the Hmong and other residents of multiethnic
communities, where individuals often face language barriers, lack of awareness of
community events, and time constraints. It is also important to examine factors beyond
the individual-level. As Shinn (1990) notes, most research about communities relies on
measures of individual variables, but in order to understand individuals in context, multi-
level research which involves organizational-level or community-level variables is
essential. Intergroup relations is a particularly relevant contextual variable in multiethnic
communities.

It is also important to consider the different ways in which Hmong residents
define their participation experiences and envision their involvement in their broader
community in multiethnic housing developments because they might vary from common
definitions of community participation. Finally, it is important to examine the
relationship between participation and adjustment for Hmong in multiethnic
communities, in order to validate the assumption that participation is a beneficial process
for them. For full inclusion to occur in our society, we must understand the issues,
capacities, and cultures within specific communities.

47

Research Questions

The central questions which were addressed by this exploratory study were:
How do Hmong residents participate in multiethnic communities?
a. How do Hmong residents value their participation?
b. What barriers do Hmong residents in multiethnic communities experience?
c. In what ways would Hmong residents like to participate in or improve their

communities?
What factors are related to Hmong participation in a multiethnic community?

Is participation in their broader community related to positive adjustment for the

Hmong?

48

The participants in the study were Hmong residents of three multiethnic public
housing developments in Lansing, Michigan: LaRoy Froh, Hildebrandt, and Mt. Vernon,
which provide subsidized housing to low-income Lansing residents. LaRoy Froh and
Hildebrandt each have 100 residential units and Mt. Vernon has 150. Each site also has a
community center with computers, tutoring facilities, and a small gym. According to
number of households, LaRoy F roh is 10% Hmong and 19% Asian American (including
Hmong), Mt. Vernon is 14% Hmong and 27% Asian American, and Hildebrandt is 15%
Hmong and 27% Asian American. Table 1 details the racial and ethnic composition of

each development.

Table 1 — Racial/Ethnic Composition of Housing Developments by Household

 

 

Race/Ethnicity LaRoy Froh Mt. Vernon Hildbrandt
Afiican-American 73% (69) 50% (69) 48% (47)
American Indian 2% (2) 0% (0) 0% (0)
Asian-American 19% (18) 27% (37) 27% (27)

Hmong 10% (9) 14% (19) ”15% (15)
Lao 1% (1) 1% (1) 1% (1)
Vietnamese 9% (8) 12% (I 7) 1 1% (I 1)
Hispanic 1% (1) 8% (11) 12% (12)
Non-Hispanic White 4% (4) 15% (20) 11% (11)
1%; 100% (94) 100% (137) 100% (97)

 

Discussions with residents and staff and the researcher’s participant observations at the
housing developments suggested that the three housing developments differed

considerably in their intergroup relations among residents. In addition, the housing

49

developments provided the opportunity to access a large proportion of the Hmong in
Lansing because approximately 30% of the Hmong families in Lansing live in the three
public housing developments.
.3me

The participants in this study were sampled from all of the Hmong adults (over
the age of 18) who lived in three public housing developments in Lansing, Michigan
(LaRoy F roh, Mt. Vernon, and Hildebrandt). There were a total of 54 Hmong families
currently living in the developments; the number of Hmong adults was estimated to be
about 100. The fewest number of Hmong families lived at LaRoy Froh (9). Therefore,
all of the Hmong families at this site were asked and agreed to participate in the study; 15
interviews were conducted at this site. For each targeted household, attempts were made
to interview all adult members. A similar number of family units or households was
randomly sampled from the other two sites. A total of 19 interviews were conducted
fiom ten households at Hildebrandt. However, at Mt. Vernon, interviews were conducted
with 13 households because many households were headed by single moms or, in one
case, a second wife of a man who also lived at Mt. Vernon with his first wife. A total of
20 interviews were completed at this site. The total number of households across all three
sites was 32 and the total number of participants was 54. The overall individual response

rate was 86%, and the household response rate was 94% (see Table 2 for more details).

50

Table 2 — Description of Sample

 

 

 

Respondents Site 1 Site 2 Site 3 Total
Number of Households 9 13 10 32
Household Response Rate 100% 93% 91% 94%
Number of Individuals 15 20 19 54
Men 5 8 9 22
Women 10 12 10 32
Individual Response Rate 94% 83% 83% 86%
Procedures

Resident Interviews

A structured interview, containing both open-ended and fixed response questions
was initially constructed in English. Interview questions were subsequently translated
into Hmong by the director of the Hmong mutual assistance agency in Lansing, who is
fluent in both English and Hmong. To ensure that the questions were culturally relevant
and appropriate, the interview was piloted on two Hmong men and two Hmong women.

In order to increase participation and ensure the project’s relevance for the Hmong
community, the study was discussed with the clan leaders of the Hmong community in
Lansing. The researcher requested and received their support for the study by
emphasizing the importance of investigating how Hmong adjustment and well being can
be increased by understanding how their participation in the community can be
facilitated. Participation provides opportrmities for the Hmong to develop skills,
language ability, and connections to resources, and to become more integrated in
American society. This support was communicated to Hmong residents at the annual
Hmong New Year celebration in Lansing, where the researcher and the research project

were introduced by the director of the Hmong mutual assistance association in Lansing.

51

Hmong New Year is a highly attended event, with almost all Hmong families in Lansing
present. With support from clan leaders, a high rate of participation in the study was
anticipated and achieved.

In order to arrange the interviews, the researcher, accompanied by a translator,
knocked on the door of each targeted residence in the housing developments. The
translator briefly explained the purpose of the study and inquired about each farnily’s
interest and willingness to participate in the study. The translator also determined how
many adults lived in each household and the extent of their English and Hmong language
abilities. Residents who agreed to participate were interviewed in English or in Hmong
with the assistance of a translator, depending upon their preference (eight interviews were
completed in English and 46 in Hmong). Interviews occurred either immediately or at an
agreed upon time in the future in respondents’ homes. Interviews lasted between one and
two hours, with most being completed in about one hour.

Translators. A total of four translators were employed. Thirty of the interviews
were translated by a Hmong woman in her mid-twenties who resettled in the United
States at the age of ten. She completed high school in the United States and possessed a
good understanding of American culture, while also remaining rooted in Hmong cultures
and traditions (i.e., age of marriage, sewing, and healing practices consistent with Hmong
culture). Another Hmong woman in her mid-twenties translated for 10 of the interviews.
She was also in her mid-twenties and was similarly bicultural. Four interviews were
translated by a Hmong woman in her mid-thirties who was employed as a translator for
Refugee Services in Lansing, and two interviews were translated by a Hmong man in his
early twenties who was a college student at MSU and resettled in the United States at the

52

age of nine. All translators were trained by the researcher on interviewing techniques,
including appropriate probing and the importance of accurate translations. The
translators’ training also included reading through the interview questions in Hmong and
translating them to the researcher in English to ensure that a shared understanding of the
meaning and purpose of each question was achieved. The translators were paid an hourly
wage of $10.

The translators were essential not only to bridge the language gap between the
researcher and many of the respondents, but also as important liaisons or gatekeepers.
Most Hmong people would probably not agree to an interview (or even open their door)
with a non-Hmong individual they did not recognize. Even within the Hmong
community, it is important when meeting other Hmong for the first time to know whom
their parents are, their clan, and fi'om whom in the clan they trace their lineage.
Background is very important to most Hmong and is an essential part of establishing
trust. Thus non-Hmong individuals need to be able to make some sort of connection with
Hmong people when they first meet. In this case, being accompanied by a Hmong person
was an important aspect of developing this trust. It also allowed the researcher to share
with Hmong participants her experiences of having worked with Hmong in a refugee
camp in Thailand and of currently teaching English to Hmong in Lansing.

Ensuring Accuracy of 1% Recorded. In order to ensure that the data collected
was authentic and accurate, the following procedures were followed. Ifthe interview was
conducted in English, the researcher asked the interview questions and recorded the
respondents’ answers verbatim. If the interview was conducted in Hmong, the translator
asked the interview questions and translated the verbatim responses, which the researcher

53

recorded in English. It was emphasized to the translators that verbatim responses were
required, as opposed to their interpretations of the respondents’ statements. Because the
researcher was present for all interviews, clarification or further probing occurred
whenever necessary.

Staff Survefi

In order to assess intergroup relations, several staff members at each housing
development (the site supervisors and the AmeriCorps/VISTA volunteers) as well as the
Residents Initiative Coordinator for all three sites were surveyed.

Measures
Participation

In a structured interview created specifically for this study, two aspects of
participation were targeted: an emergent understanding from the Hmong residents of how
they participated in their housing development communities and their degree of formal
participation in their communities. To examine Hmong residents’ definitions of
participation, they were given the opportunity to define their participation and
involvement in their community through an open-ended question: “You live here at
(name of housing development). In what ways do you participate in this community?
How are you involved here? What activities do you get involved in?” (Appendix A, item
B 1).

To assess the degree of Hmong residents’ participation in formal activities,
participation was measured through questions about residents’ involvement in community
activities, meetings, programs, and events at each housing development. The
communities had three main avenues for formal involvement: resident council

54

participation, participation in programs and activities at the community centers, and
volunteering to help with events or services.

Resident Council Participation. Resident council participation had three
components (Appendix A, items B6-BB): attendance at resident council meetings (In the
last year, how many resident council meetings have you attended?), voting in resident
council elections (Did you vote in the last resident council election?), and holding an
office on the resident council (Do you hold an elected or appointed position on the
resident council?). None of the Hmong residents interviewed held a position on the
resident council, so this question was not included in the analyses. Two indicators of
resident council participation were created. The first was a dichotomous item, which
indicated whether a resident participated in the resident council in any way. Respondents
received a “1” if they had attended any meetings in the last year and/or voted in the last
election, and a “0” if they had done neither of these. The second indicator measured
frequency of resident council participation and was created by summing the z-scores of
the number of resident council meetings attended in the last year and whether or not
respondents had voted in the last election. It should be noted that all three housing
developments had monthly resident council meetings and annual resident council
elections. Therefore, opportunities to participate in the resident council were equivalent
at all sites.

Communig Center Participation. Participation in programs at the community
center was asked as an open-ended item: How often do you go to the community center
(Appendix A, item B26)? Respondents were then asked to indicate what activities or
programs they were involved in at the center (Appendix A, item B27), including using the

55

computers in the Learning Centers, attending English language classes, attending health
education classes, and attending special events such as Thanksgiving or Martin Luther
King, Jr. Day celebrations. They were also given the opportunity to mention other
programs or activities they participated in, which included receiving food, clothing or
healthcare through programs established at the centers, reporting problems with neighbors
or maintenance problems to the manager, and paying their rent.

Two indicators of involvement in community center activities were created. The
first was a dichotomous item, which indicated whether a resident participated in any
activities at the community center. Respondents received a “1” if they had attended any
programs or events at the community center. However, if residents only went to the
community center to pay rent or report maintenance problems, or if they did not go to the
center at all, they received a “0”. Paying rent or reporting maintenance problems were
not considered to indicate participation in community center activities because they were
not specifically aspects of programs offered by the center. Instead, they were activities
which could have been accomplished by phone or mail and were inherent aspects of being
a tenant at the housing developments. The second indicator of participation in
community center activities measured frequency of involvement in center activities and
was created by standardizing respondents’ answers to the open-ended question of how
often they went to the community center into an indicator of their attendance per month.
Again, residents who went to the center only to pay rent or report maintenance problems
were scored “0” on this item.

Volunteer Activity. Volunteer activity included helping to plan or organize events
at the community center (In the last year, have you helped to plan or organize any events,

56

services, or activities at the community center? If so, how many?) and donating time or
materials to events (In the last year, have you donated time or materials to help with
events or services at the community center. If so, how many?) (Appendix A, items B28
and B29). As with the other types of participation, two indicators of volunteer activity
were created. The first was a dichotomous item, which indicated whether a resident
volunteered in the community in any way. Respondents received a “1” if they had helped
to plan or organize an event in the last year and/or donated time or materials to help with
an event, and a “0” if they had done neither of these. The second indicator measured
frequency of volunteer activity and was created by summing the items which asked how
often respondents had helped organize events or donated time or materials in the last year.
Overall Participation. In addition to considering each type of formal involvement
separately, two scales of overall participation were also created. The first was a measure
of breadth of participation in the community and was a sum of five dichotomous items:
attendance at any resident council meetings in the last year, voting in the last resident
council election, participation in activities at the community center, helping to plan or
organize any events in the last year, and donating time or materials to any events in the
last year. Thus, the scale had a possible range from 0 (no participation) to 5 (involvement
in all five aspects of participation). A resident’s score on this scale reflected the number
of different ways in which he or she was involved in the community. The reliability of
this breadth of participation scale was low (alpha = .47). This low internal consistency
was expected because the scale was composed of five dichotomous items, which
truncated the variance in terms of respondents’ frequency of participation. In addition,
different avenues of participation in the housing development communities are not

57

necessarily related. For instance, an individual who obtained free food fiom the
community center would not necessarily be more likely to participate in the resident
council than someone who was not involved in the food program. Thus, this reduces
even firrther the possibility of achieving high internal consistency, and also suggests that
internal consistency might not be the optimal indicator of reliability for this scale.

The second scale of participation indicated overall frequency of participation. In
order to aggregate the five frequency items (number of resident council meetings attended
in last year, voting in last resident council election, number of visits to community center
per month, helping to plan or organize events, and donating time or materials) into a
single measure of participation, the response to each item was transformed into a
standardized z-score. The z-scores were summed to obtain a total frequency score of
participation for each individual (alpha = .65). It should be noted that the final two
volunteering items were included as dichotomous rather than continuous items in the
scale because they were extremely rare (N=3 and 4, respectively). The scale of overall
frequency of participation was the central participation outcome used in this study,
although the other seven indicators of participation were also examined.

Adjustment

The second central outcome in this study was adjustment. Two aspects of
adjustment were assessed: psychological adjustment and socioeconomic adjustment.

Psychological Adiustrnent. Two distinct aspects of psychological adjustment
were measured: happiness and distress. Each scale included three items based on
questions adapted fiom the happiness subscale and the demoralization/distress subscale
of Rumbaut’s (1985) Psychological Well-Being Scale, which has been used successfully

58

in several studies of psychological adjustment of Hmong and other Southeast Asian
refugee groups (e. g., Rumbaut, 1985, 1989; Ying & Akutsu, 1997). The items were
measured on a six-point Likert scale with possible responses of never, rarely, sometimes,
often, most of the time, and all of the time. The happiness scale (alpha = .66) was created
by averaging the scores on the three happiness items (Appendix A, items E2, E4, E6),
such as: In the last month, how often have you felt happy or satisfied with your present
life? This final score reflected an individual’s overall happiness and life satisfaction
during the previous month. The distress scale (alpha = .78) was created by averaging the
scores on the three distress items (Appendix A, items E1, E3, E5), such as: In the last
month, how often have you felt anxious, worried, or upset? This score reflected an
individual’s overall distress, including stress and demoralization, over the past month.
Socioeconomic Adjustment. Income, employment status, and level of education
are indicators that are often used to assess the socioeconomic adjustment of refugee and
immigrants (e. g., Rumbaut, 1989). In this study, income was not measured because a
requirement for all residents of public housing developments is that they have low
incomes. However, employment status (Appendix A, item A14) and level of education
(Appendix A, items AlO—A13) were assessed in the demographics section of the
interview. Employment status was a dichotomous item determining whether the
respondent was currently employed. Four indicators of level of education were created.
Each respondent was asked about the number of years of education he or she had
acquired in Thailand and/or Laos and in the United States. The number of years of
education in Thailand/Laos and in the United States were examined as separate indicators
and were also summed to obtain a total number of years of education for each respondent.

59

Finally, respondents were asked to describe the highest educational degree they possessed
(none, high school diploma/GED, vocational/technical degree, B.A.lB.S., or graduate
degree).
Demogaphic Variables

The resident survey also included questions about respondents’ age, age of
immigration, gender, level of education, English and Hmong literacy, current
employment status, length of residence at the development, length of time in the United
States, and number of people in the household (Appendix A, items A1 -A24).
Social Psychological Variables

Overall Sense of Communigy. Questions to measure sense of community within
the housing development were based on McMillan and Chavis’ (1986) four components:
membership, influence, integration and fulfillment of needs, and shared emotional
connection (Appendix A, items D1-D8). The scale was comprised of eight items (two
involving each of the four dimensions of overall sense of community) with reference to
all residents of the housing development. The items were measured on a six-point Likert
scale which required respondents to indicate whether they agreed with each statement
never, rarely, sometimes, often, most of the time, or all of the time. Questions from each
dimension include: I don’t feel like I belong here at LaRoy Froh (membership), If I want
something to change at LaRoy F roh, I can make it happen (influence), My values are
_ similar to the values of other residents at LaRoy Froh (integration and fulfillment of
needs), and I usually stop and talk with other residents of LaRoy Froh when I seem them

(shared emotional connection). Of the eight items, two were negative and were reverse

60

coded. The scores on all eight items were averaged to obtain a single indicator of overall
sense of community (alpha = .75).

Within-Group Sense of Communig. Within-group sense of community was
measured by the same eight questions employed in the overall sense of community scale
(Appendix A, items D9-D16), but with reference to the other Hmong residents in the
housing development (i.e., The beliefs of other Hmong at (housing development)
sometimes affect my opinions and actions). The mean score of the eight items was
calculated to produce a measure of within-group sense of community (alpha = .86).
Cultural Variables

Acculturation. Acculturation was measured by three likert-type items, each
assessing a separate dimension of acculturation: assimilation, biculturalism, and
traditionalism (Appendix A, items E7-E9). The items were measured on a six-point scale
which required respondents to indicate the extent to which they agreed or disagreed with
each statement. The assimilation item was “The schools should help our children learn
American ways of behaving and to become more like American children in the
neighborhood.” Biculturalism was indicated by agreement or disagreement with the
following, “We may adapt ourselves to American society in order to earn a living, but we
must stay together as a group to preserve our own culture.” The traditionalism item was
“The American way of life may be good for others, but not for me.” These items were
used previously with the Hmong and other Southeast Asian refugees (e. g., Rumbaut,
1989). Each item was considered to be a separate indicator of one of the three

dimensions of acculturation.

61

Cultural Norms. In order to measure Hmong residents’ cultural nouns regarding
participation in their geographic community, the interview included the following
questions: Do you think your participation here in the community is important? Why or
why not? The dichotomous response regarding the importance of participation (0 = not
important, 1 = important) was used in the statistical analyses. The responses to the open-
ended why or why not question were analyzed in the qualitative section of the study.

Gender NOE Gender norms were assessed by respondents’ agreement or
disagreement on a six-point scale (ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree) with
the following item: “It is more appropriate for men to participate in the community than
for women.” Traditionally in Hmong culture, it is believed that it is more appropriate for
men to participate in the community than for women, but the norms of Hmong in the
United States vary, depending upon their acceptance of traditional gender norms and
gender norms here.

Extent of Household Participation. The extent of participation of the other adult
members of the respondents’ households was obtained by the respondents’ subjective
reports of the participation of other members of their household (Appendix A, items B9,
B12 and B14). These three items involved other household members’ involvement in
resident council meetings (Does someone in your household other than you attend
resident council meetings here?), resident council elections (Did anyone in your
household other than you vote in the last resident council election?), and elected or
appointed resident council leadership positions (Does anyone in your household other
than you have an elected or appointed position on the resident council?). Although it was
originally anticipated that this information could be compared to the objective data

62

reported by the other adults in the household, this was not possible. Many households
were headed by single women, while in several other households, one adult was unable to
participate in the project due to time constraints, health reasons, or unwillingness. Thus,
the subjective data was used to indicate extent of household participation because it was
available for all respondents and it included all adults in the household.

The final measure of household participation was produced as a dichotomous
categorization, indicating whether any other adults in the household had participated in
resident council meetings or had voted in the last resident council election. If the
respondent had answered affirmatively to either or both of these questions (Appendix A,
items B9 and B14), then their household participation was coded as a 1. If the respondent
answered negatively to both items, then their household participation was coded as a 0.
The third question regarding a member of the household who held a position on the
resident council was excluded because-no Hmong respondents reported that they or
anyone in their farme held a position on the resident council.

Cultural Relemce. The relevance of existing participation opportunities for
Hmong residents was assessed by four dichotomous questions: Do you think resident
council meetings are important for yourself or other Hmong people? Do you think that
participating in the resident council is worthwhile for Hmong people? Does the
community center have activities or services that are interesting for Hmong people? And
Does the community center have activities or services that are appropriate for Hmong
people? (Appendix A, items B19, B22, B33, and B35). The responses to these items
were summed (no = 0, yes = 1) to obtain a total cultural relevance score for each
individual, with 0 indicating no relevance and 4 indicating that all participation

63

opportunities were culturally relevant (alpha = .63). Sixteen respondents were unable to
answer one or more of the items because they did not know either about the resident
council meetings or community center activities and services. These “don’t know”
responses were assigned a value of 0 because the purpose of this scale was to test the
relationship between having participation opportunities that were culturally relevant and
participation. Those individuals who were not aware of the opportunities available in
their communities thus did not perceive or experience culturally relevant options.
Resource Vafibles

Langpage. The measure of language as a resource was measured subjectively as
respondent’s perceptions of their ability or lack of ability to participate because of limited
English and objectively by the researcher as respondents’ English comprehension and
speaking abilities.

Subjective Langpage Assessment. Respondents were asked four
dichotomous questions (Appendix A, items B18, B21, B31, and B36): Do you speak
English well enough to attend resident council meetings? Do you understand what people
are saying at resident council meetings when everyone is speaking English? Do you
speak English well enough to participate in everything you would like to at the
community center? And Is it difficult to go to the community center because everything
that happens there is in English? The fourth item was reverse coded, and then the
responses to these four items were summed to obtain a total language score (alpha = .91),
with 0 indicating that the individual believed she had no English. language resources to
participate and 4 indicating that the individual believed that she spoke well enough to
participate in all activities in the community.

64

Objective Langpage Ability Assessment. The English language ability of
each respondent was also assessed objectively at the end of the interview with five
questions in English, which were created specifically for this study and were given to
respondents by the researcher in increasing order of difficulty (Appendix A, items F 1 -F5).
The techniques and knowledge possessed by the researcher as a long-time instructor of
English as a Second Language were used to guide the development of these questions.
The researcher judged whether the respondent understood each question (comprehension
of questions was worth one point each) and then respondents received an additional point
for each question to which they were able to respond appropriately in English. Thus,
English ability was calculated on an eleven-point scale from 0=none to 10=fluent. In
addition, separate scales were calculated for English comprehension (0 to 5) and English
speaking ability (0 to 5). This method of English ability assessment was used to avoid
inconsistent or underestimates of ability which might be likely fi‘om self-assessments,
although it should be noted that it is different from the language scale discussed above
which measured respondents’ perceptions of possessing the English language ability
necessary to enable them to participate.

Awareness. Awareness of opportunities for participation in the community was
measured by four dichotomous items (Appendix A, items B16, B20, B30, and B34): Do
you know what resident council meetings are? Do you know when and where resident
council meetings are held? Do you know about the activities and services at the
community center? And Do you know what day and time things happen at the community

center? Responses to these four items were summed to produce an overall measure of

65

respondents’ awareness of participation opportunities (alpha = .57), with 0 indicating no
awareness and 4 indicating awareness of all opportunities.

Ti_ma= The availability of time required for participation in the community was
assessed by four dichotomous questions (Appendix A, items B17, B23, B32, and B37):
Do you have time to attend resident council meetings? Are you able to attend resident
council meetings at the time they are scheduled? Do you have time to go to the
community center? And Are you busy during the hours when the community center is
open? The fourth item was reverse coded. Responses to the four items were then
summed to obtain a total score for time (alpha = .81). Four individuals were unable to
answer one of the items. For these respondents, their mean score on the other three items
was calculated and then multiplied by four to obtain a comparable score.
htegroup Relatians

Intergroup relations was measured by assessments of intergroup relations by staff
at each housing development and by the percent of intergroup incidents reported at each
development. Each housing development had one site supervisor and one
AmeriCorps/VISTA volunteer. There was also one individual who served as the
residents’ initiatives coordinator for all three sites and spent significant time at each.
These seven people were asked to complete a short survey (Appendices B, C and D).

Each supervisor was asked to assess the intergroup relations at their site by
indicating their level of agreement with 13 items measured on a Likert-type scale from 1
to 6. The survey questions focused on the extent to which residents of different ethnic
groups interacted with each other (e. g., Residents of Mt. Vernon interact mostly with
other people in their ethnic group), got along with each other (e. g., Most of the problems

66

among residents at Mt. Vernon are between people who are members of different races or
ethnic groups), and treated each other equally and respectfully (e. g., The residents of Mt.
Vernon respect each other, regardless of race or ethnicity). In addition, they were asked
about the total number of resident incidents reported at their site in the last three months
and the number of these incidents which involved residents who were members of
different racial or ethnic groups (see Appendix B). Although AmeriCorpsNISTA
volunteers were each assigned to a particular site, they worked closely at all three
developments. Therefore, they, as well as the residents’ initiatives coordinator, were
asked to answer the same 13 questions about each development, for a total of 39
questions (see Appendices C and D). Two of the AmeriCorpsNISTA volunteers
assessed all three sites, but one volunteer felt capable of evaluating only two
developments, but not the third.

Thus, two of the developments had a total of five intergroup relations assessment
scores: one fi'om each AmeriCorpsNISTA volunteer, one from the resident initiatives
coordinator, and one from the supervisor of that site, and one development had four
intergroup relations assessment scores (two rather than three from AmeriCorps/VISTA
volunteers). The means of each individual’s responses to the 13 items regarding each site
were calculated in order to obtain intergroup relations scores for each site by each person
who evaluated that site. Then the mean of those five (or four) mean scores was calculated
to produce an overall intergroup relations score at each site. Coefficient alpha reliabilities
could not be calculated for these scales because the number of respondents (five or four)

was less than the number of items for each site (13).

67

The percent of racial/ethnic incidents at each site was calculated by dividing the
number of racial/ethnic incidents reported in the last three months by the total number of
incidents reported. However, it became clear during interviews with Hmong residents
that many people do not report incidents or problems to the site supervisors. Therefore,
the statistics kept by the site supervisors are unlikely to be accurate accounts of the actual
number of incidents and there was no alternative way to validate that information. For
this reason, the incident reports were not used in data analyses.

Data Analyses

To examine research question 1 (How do the Hmong participate in a multiethnic
community?), open-ended questions about participation were content analyzed using a
modified grounded theory approach (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). Analyzing data using
grounded theory involves allowing themes to emerge from the data, rather than basing
analysis on the researcher’s ideas or beliefs about a topic. In this case, it was particularly
important to check apriori assumptions about participants’ experiences of participation,
given that their background and culture differed substantially from that of the researcher.
Concepts and themes that were found repeated in respondents’ answers were identified
and then grouped into larger, related categories. This method is important because the
broader structural conditions in which phenomena are embedded also receive particular
attention (Corbin & Strauss, 1990).

Respondents were asked eight open-ended questions: 1) How do you participate in
this community? (In what ways do you help out your neighbors or the community? What
activities are you involved in here? What meetings do you go to?), 2) (If you want to be
more involved), in what ways do you want to be more involved?, 3) Why is (or why isn’t)

68

your participation in the community here important?, 4) If you could change anything
about (name of development), what would you change?, 5) What other things make it
difficult for you to attend resident council meetings?, 6) What other things make it
difficult for you to go to the community center?, 7) What programs, activities, or services
would you like the community center to offer for you or your children? And 8) Is there
anything else you would like to tell me that I haven’t asked you about?

Respondents’ answers to these questions appeared to overlap across questions, so
their responses were combined to create a narrative for each individual. All of the
narratives were read through once, and then re-read looking for themes. A
comprehensive list of themes was created and then narratives were read for a third time
and coded against the list. Once this thematic coding was completed, these individual
codes were aggregated into more substantive themes, which reflected the underlying
issues or factors discussed (Corbin & Strauss, 1990). These substantive themes are
described below. To confirm the authenticity of this coding framework, an objective
third party reviewed the original content analysis and coding fiamework.

Research question 2 (What factors are related to Hmong participation in a
multiethnic community?) was examined in two steps, with the ultimate goal of
identifying a linear model which explained the most variance. First, the reliability of each
scale in the interview (including the scale of the dependent variable participation and the
scales measuring the independent predictors) was computed using Cronbach’s alpha as a
measure of internal consistency. Correlations between each independent variable and
participation were then computed and a correlation matrix was created. From this matrix,
the factors which were related to participation were determined. Finally, using multiple

69

linear regression, the most strongly related factors were included in a series of regression
equations to examine the relative relationships among them and to determine the model
which explained the most variance. Because participation was operationalized in eight
different ways (overall frequency of participation, participation/lack of participation in
each of three types of participation, fiequency of each type of participation, and breadth
of participation), correlation matrices were created separately for each measure of
participation. However, regression analyses were completed only for the central
participation outcome (overall frequency of participation).

Research question 3 (Is participation in their broader community related to
positive adjustment for the Hmong?) was examined by calculating the correlations
between the happiness and distress subscales of the psychological adjustment measure
and each of the eight measures of participation, and the correlations between employment
status, the four indicators of education level and each of the eight measures of

participation.

70

RESULTS
Descriptive

As a cultural minority in the United States and a recent refugee group, descriptive
information about Hmong communities here is important. Although this study sampled a
small percent of the approximately 3000 Hmong in Lansing, the characteristics of these
respondents help to illuminate the current situation of one group of Hmong refirgees. Of
the 54 Hmong residents interviewed, 59% were female and 41% were male. Eighty-one
percent were married, 13% were separated or widowed and 6% had never been married.
The average age was 46 and the average number of children of each respondent was 6.6
(with a range from 0 to 16). In terms of employment, 44% were employed and 43%
identified childcare as their primary role. Of those who were employed, one was a
professional (nurse) and the rest worked in factories, supermarkets, or as janitors, cooks,
or bus drivers.

Respondents had an average of 6.6 years of education (2.3 years in Thailand/Laos
and 4.1 years in the United States). Seventeen percent had no formal education, 85% had
no degree, 11% had a high school diploma or GED, and 4% had a college degree (B.A.,
BS. or Associates). Seventeen percent of respondents were US. citizens and 83% were
not (although 74% indicated their desire to take classes to prepare them to pass the
citizenship exam). F if’ty-nine percent were literate in Hmong and 39% were literate in
English, which means that 41% of respondents were not literate in any language. Ninety-
one percent said they spoke only Hmong at home and 54% spoke only Hmong outside the
home as well.

71

Question 1 — Self-Definition_s of Involvement

In order to understand the ways in which Hmong residents participated in their
communities, as well as aspects of their participation experiences, it was important to
allow respondents to speak in their own words. Often, the voices of refirgees are not
heard. Particularly because of language differences, they are often overlooked or
invisible. What do Hmong residents say about their participation experiences? How do
they value participation? What do they do? What barriers do they face? What do they
want?

Below are the substantive themes that emerged across the informants in regards to
these questions (see Table 3 for summary of frequencies). What developed was a story of
a group of individuals who valued participation and wanted to be involved in their
communities, but who were often precluded from meaningful participation because of
numerous individual and community barriers. Because of the numerous barriers they
experienced, these individuals had many needs and desires both for further involvement
and for improvements in their communities.

Importance/filly

The Hmong respondents highly valued participation in their community: 94% said
their participation was important, although almost 19% qualified this statement by
highlighting that their participation was important only if they could understand and
communicate. Respondents identified both individual and community reasons for the
importance of participation.

Importance for self. F orty-six percent of respondents felt that participation was
important for individual reasons. Participation was valued as important because

72

Table 3 — Frequencies of Qualitative Themes

 

 

Theme Frequency
lmportanceNalue of Participation 94%
Important for Self 46%
Important for Community 54%
Current Participation in Community 48%
Formal Participation 22%
Informal Participation 28%
Desire for More Involvement 74%
Former Participation 13%
Individual Barriers to Participation 94%
Language 83%
Time Constraints 44%
Lack of Self-Efficacy 15%
Old Age 7%
Limited Time at Housing Development 7%
Lack of Motivation 7%
Lack of Awareness 6%
Community Barriers to Participation 70%
Discrimination/Intergroup Relations 28%
Not Asked/Welcomed 24%
No Translators 22%
No Childcare 20%
No Voice 9%
Safety 7%
Lack of Resident Council Effectiveness 6%
Expressed Needs/Desires 81%
Opportunities for Children 54%
Personal Development 44%
Improved Intergroup Relations 30%
Material Needs 30%
Community Enhancement 24%
General Assistance 1 1%
Satisfaction with Life in the United States/Community 13%
Difficult Life in the United States 6%

 

73

individuals perceived it as a way for them to learn and acquire knowledge (i.e., English,
American laws), to gain experience, to raise their awareness about their community, to be
involved with their children, and to get exercise. Others believed that participation was
important to ensure that other people would like or respect them, know them, and help
them. In their own words:

“I believe that if you participate, you will get more experience and this will help
you.”

“It’s very important because you know what’s going on around you.”
“If you are involved, you will know more about the place where you live.”

“It’s important because if they teach American laws and rules, it’s important for
me to know them.”

“. . .if you participate then a lot of people know you and they know you’re good
and more people help you and you don’t have a lot of trouble.”

Immrtance for Communig. Respondents also felt that participation was very
important for the broader community of the housing development in which they lived,
and 54% of respondents talked about this. They valued participation because it involved
working together, helping others, disciplining children together, maintaining good
relations among community members, and being a part of the community. As several
respondents said:

“It’s important because being part of the residents here you must be able to
participate here — for the better of the group.”

“Everyone working together is important. It’s like a table, if it has only two legs it
won’t work. It needs four legs to stand.”

“Helping others and them helping you is the most important thing about living
here.”

74

“If you live together you should help each other and participate so you can be part
of the community.”

“It’s important because living together, you should participate in whatever they
have so everyone will get along.”

Although respondents recognized different reasons for its importance, community
participation was clearly valued by most people. Some emphasized its value for
themselves as individuals, while others focused on its importance for the community.
Knowing its importance to Hmong residents, how did they describe their participation?
Ways of Pflicithing

When Hmong residents were asked how they participated in their housing
development communities, more than half (52%) reported that they did not participate at
all. However, the other 48% of respondents mentioned both formal and informal ways in
which they were involved in their communities.

Formal Participation. Twenty-two percent of respondents identified formal ways
in which they participated, such as attending resident council meetings and other
activities at the center, helping to clean or improve the neighborhood, and volunteering at
the community center to clean the laundry room or to help with the Head Start program
there.

“I go to meetings, I volunteer to help clean up around the neighborhood and
office.”

“I go to meetings whenever I’m home and I know about them, and I share
whatever I see around the neighborhood that’s not right, that should be changed.”

“I participate in programs and listen. Then, if they don’t have anything else, 1

come home. Some families don’t go to the activities, but we do. I also volunteer
to help clean the laundry room.”

75

“Sometimes if there are meetings and my daughter-in-law goes, I go with her, but
I don’t understand anything.”

Informal Participation. Respondents were slightly more likely to mention other,
more informal ways in which they were involved. Twenty-eight percent of Hmong
residents talked about helping their neighbors, relatives and other Hmong in their
developments and gardening in the community:

“I have a garden and I always give my neighbors corn and vegetables. When the

neighbors fight, sometimes the wife makes the husband leave the house. Then I

bring her food.”

“I watch the neighbors’ kids when they play outside, make sure they don’t run into
the street.”

“I’m a bad one. I don’t go to meetings or participate in anything. Sometimes if
my neighbors need help, I help them.”

“I take care of the Hmong neighbors’ kids.”

“Sometimes Hmong neighbors can’t talk to their landlord so I help them translate.

I do what I can.”

Desire for More Involvement. Although the majority of respondents were not
involved in the community or were involved in limited ways, most wished that they were
more involved. Twenty-eight of those interviewed (52%) reported that they did not
participate at all in the community, and most people felt that they could not participate in
the community to the extent they would have liked because of the many barriers they
faced. However, 40 respondents (74%) wished they were more involved in the

community:

“I want to be more involved. If there is anything I can help with, I will. Anything
that I can do without talking.”

“If there were things I knew how to do, I would like to get more involved. I’m not
sure what those things are.”

76

“I would like to participate around the neighborhood as long as someone could
translate to me and tell me what they needed help with.”

Former Participation. Related to the limited participation of Hmong residents in
the community, 13% of respondents mentioned that they had participated in the past, but,
because of barriers or fi'ustrations, no longer were involved in the community or went to
meetings. These respondents had tried to participate, but their efforts were thwarted:

“I went to meetings before, but when you have a question, they don’t let you say.

I raise my hand, but others raise their hands and talk first. The meetings don’t

help me, so it wastes my time.”

“Every time they have a meeting, if I go, I just sit there and don’t understand
anything, so I don’t go.”

“Two years ago, I volunteered to pick up trash around the buildings, but now they
changed managers, and it seems like the new manager doesn’t want any help.”

Although residents were involved in their communities in both formal and
informal ways, their participation was limited, which led many residents to express
interest in being more involved. For other residents, their participation was frustrating
and not meaningful, which led them to end their involvement in the community. Either
way, the barriers they faced were a fundamental aspect of their participation experiences.
Barriers to Participation

Respondents discussed numerous barriers that precluded their participation or
made it difficult to be actively involved in their community. They mentioned both
individual and community barriers. The most frequently mentioned barriers are discussed
below.

Individual Barriers. All but three respondents (94%) experienced individual
barriers to participation, which are attributes of individual residents that inhibit or

77

preclude their involvement in the community. These included lack of English language
ability, time constraints, lack of self-efficacy, old age, limited time of residence at the
housing development, lack of motivation, lack of awareness of participation
opportunities, lack of education, disability, cultural gender norms, and poor health.

Langpage. As would be expected among recent refugee groups, language
differences posed great problems for Hmong respondents. Eighty-three percent identified
language as a barrier. Residents felt that they could not attend meetings, could not
understand meetings, could not express their ideas, and could not really be a part of the
community because they could not speak English. Their expressions of the frustration
and difficulties accompanying these language barriers are evident in the following
statements (translated from Hmong):

“The reason that I don’t go to meetings is that I can’t speak the language. Even if
I have a good idea, I can’t tell them so I just stay home and keep it to myself.”

“I think when I speak English very well and understand then I will be more
involved. Some people who don’t know me talk very fast or don’t explain what
they’re saying. They have no time to explain to you so it’s hard.”

“The problem is the language. If you don’t know how to talk, they think you are
lazy. For example, think about bulls fighting. One has long horns and one has
short horns. The one with short horns is going to get hurt more. It’s the same
with smarter people. In this country, people compete everyday.”

“If you understand English then you can participate and it would be important, but
if you can’t understand anything then it’s not important. You should at least know

the language before you can participate. It’s difficult for me to participate.”

“I can’t speak English so it takes me away from the group because I don’t
understand what they’re saying.”

“IfI could speak English, I would go. But if I go now I feel stupid because I can’t
understand.”

78

“I go to meetings and sign my name, but I don’t understand. Then the meetings

finish and everyone stands up and goes home. When everyone claps their hands, I

clap my hands too.”

Not only did the lack of English language ability experienced by many residents
prevent them from participating in the community, it also compounded other barriers and
often created additional ones.

Time ConLtaints. Forty-four percent of Hmong residents described not
having enough time to participate in the community. Some were busy working or
attending to other responsibilities:

“We’re working so we don’t have time to be involved in the community.”

“For me, I have no time because I work most of the time. . .There are so many

other things I have to do. . .if I’m free I will go, but if not, the other Hmong

families here will share the information with me.”

Taking care of children also precluded many respondents fi'om participating:

“Since my wife works, I take care of the kids so it’s hard for me to participate. If
there was childcare, I would be available to participate in activities.”

“My children need me to take care of their children so they can go to work or
school.”

M of Self-Efficapyp In part due to language differences and lack of
familiarity with the community, 15% residents felt that they were not able to participate
or make changes in their community. They believed that they did not have the abilities or
skills necessary to participate:

“If there was something I could do, I would participate, but other than that, I don’t
participate.”

“There doesn’t seem to be anything that I can do or help with. . .If there was
anything that I could do, I would volunteer to help.”

79

Old Age. Several residents mentioned that they were too old to participate
in the community; 7% did not believe that, at their age, they had anything to contribute.
One woman said:

“I feel sorry because I’m old. When you’re young, you have something to add and
can participate, but I’m too old so I don’t think they would want me anyway.”

Others felt that the responsibility for community involvement belonged to their children:

“Because I’m old, I don’t know what to change. Whatever our children want to
change, we let them.”

Limited Time at How Development. Another barrier experienced by
some residents was the limited amount of time they had lived in their community. Seven
percent of respondents indicated that they did not feel that they could or should
participate because they were too new at their particular housing development:

“I’m new here so I don’t think it’s right for me to go looking around.”

“I just moved here last year and I didn’t know a lot of neighbors here. . .I would
like to be more involved because my children go to the center there.”

Lack of Motivation. For various reasons, seven percent of Hmong
respondents indicated that they lacked the motivation or desire to be involved in their
communities. Some preferred spending their time in other ways:

“I used to take a lot of classes, but right now I just want to enjoy myself and
relax.”

“There are so many other things I have to do. It [going to meetings] isn’t a
priority for me, so if I’m free I will go, but if not, the other Hmong families here
will share the information with me.”
Others were not motivated because they did not perceive their participation to be
worthwhile for themselves:

“I have too many problems for myself already. I don’t need to go listen to more.”

80

“I just don’t feel like I want to go because there is nothing important there to be
involved in.”

Lg of Awareness ofhrticipation Opportunities. Six percent of Hmong
respondents specifically mentioned that they were not aware of the activities in their
communities or opportunities for participation. Often, they suggested this was because
they could not speak English and/or were illiterate:

“I don’t know because I don’t speak English and I don’t know what’s going on.”

“Because I don’t know how to read so sometimes I don’t know when the meetings

9’

are.

“I don’t really know what’s going on here.”

Community Barriers. Hmong respondents did not feel that it was only their own
individual abilities, resources, and characteristics which made participation difficult for
them. Seventy percent also identified aspects of the community which were barriers to
their involvement. Community barriers are characteristics of the community or supports
lacking in the community which inhibit or preclude individuals’ participation. These
included discrimination and harassment by neighbors and center staff, not being heard or
listened to by the community, not being asked or welcomed to participate in the
community, not having translators available, not having childcare available, lack of
effectiveness of resident council meetings, and unsafe conditions.

Discrimination/Intergroup Relatmz Twenty-eight percent of Hmong
residents identified discrimination or poor treatment by members of other racial/ethnic
groups as major barriers to their participation. They experienced this discrimination in

meetings, at activities and services held at the community centers, and more generally in

81

the community. For some, discrimination made it difficult to participate, while for
others, it made them not want to participate at all.
“The black people are on the top and you are on the bottom. You have to help
yourself first. The police won’t help us. That’s why the meetings don’t help. If
you’re very smart and can speak English well then Americans will help you and

work together, but if not, forget it.”

“I wouldn’t like to get involved because I’m not a citizen so sometimes people
treat me differently than white or black people.”

“If Hmong people go to the meetings or not, it doesn’t matter. Their opinion isn’t
counted. There is discrimination now, so Hmong opinions don’t count.”

“There used to be a lot of white people at the community center, but right now
mostly black people work and go to the community center, and the police are
black, so we don’t go there as much anymore. The black kids sometimes hit the
Hmong kids for no reason at all, so the Hmong kids are afiaid of them.”

Not Asked/Welcomed. Another barrier that was frequently mentioned was
that residents felt they were not asked or invited to participate in the community.
Twenty-four percent did not feel that the community was open or receptive to their
participation because they were not specifically asked to participate:

“They haven’t asked me anything, so I haven’t done anything.”

“I don’t participate in anything because they don’t ask us. We feel that they do
not welcome us to participate here.”

However, respondents were willing to participate, if they felt welcomed and were
personally invited:

“If they came to ask me to participate in any activities, I would. But according to
my opinion, they already have people to participate and they don’t need me.”

“I would like to participate if they ask me. If they don’t ask me, I probably
wouldn’t go.”

82

No Translators. Hmong residents not only experienced limited English
ability as an individual barrier, but also talked about the lack of translators in the
community as a barrier to their participation. This is closely related to the theme of
individual language barriers discussed above. However, it is different in that it
specifically highlights something that is lacking in the community that precludes Hmong
residents’ participation. If translators were available, Hmong residents could be involved
in the community regardless of their English ability. Twenty-two percent of respondents
specifically mentioned translators:

“I don’t go to meetings because there is no translator.”
“If there was a translator, I would participate in anything they have here.”

“We don’t participate at all because it’s too difficult because of the language
barrier and there is no translator.”

No Childcare. Twenty percent of residents said they would participate in
community activities if childcare were available. Although this is related to the
individual barrier of not having enough time to participate, it is distinct because it
involves specific requests for childcare to be provided by the community to enable
residents to participate. In the words of several parents:

“If there was childcare, I would be available to participate in activities.”

“I’m busy with my children. I have to take care of my children. If I had a
babysitter, I’m willing to participate.”

No Voice. Nine percent of residents believed that their voice was not
listened to or heard in the community. They thus felt that it was not worthwhile for them

to participate in the community:

83

“We don’t do that much because the problem is they’re picking on us and we
don’t feel good. Also, we don’t know the language and when we talk to them,
they turn away from us and we don’t think they want us to be involved with them.
Very rarely do I go to meetings. We see a lot of papers saying, ‘meeting,
meeting’, but we ignore them because if you don’t know the language well, I
don’t think they will listen to you.”
“They don’t listen to me, so I don’t go anymore. I told two police at a meeting
that we needed a crosswalk from Turner to the liquor store across the street
because a lot of children go there to buy candy. They didn’t listen to me, and a
few months later, a black child was run over there. It was very sad.”
Respondents also felt they had no voice in the community because events in the
community were beyond their control:
“Whatever they do, we have to follow. There’s nothing I want to change.”

“I have nothing to change, and we don’t really have a choice to change or not to
change.”

Sm Unsafe conditions in the neighborhood were mentioned by 7% of
respondents as a barrier to their participation. Violent crime and drug dealing worried
some residents and impeded their participation. Residents felt that if conditions
improved, they would be more likely to participate:

“If there was safety, I would like to participate in whatever they do.”

Lack of Council Effectiveness. Finally, 6% of residents expressed their
fi'ustration with the resident council meetings and other activities and services in the
community. They felt that these programs were not effective at improving the
community or solving community problems. As one long-time resident said:

“According to my opinion, as I have lived here for seven or eight years, I don’t see

that the center has helped. I don’t feel that the center can accomplish anything or
help. Why could something happen now, if it hasn’t yet?”

84

Another resident who used to participate in resident council meetings, but was no longer
involved, commented:

“Resident council meetings are a lot of talk and no action.”

The barriers faced by residents were obviously numerous. Most respondents
mentioned multiple factors, both individual and community, which prevented them from
becoming involved in the community. Others had participated in the past, but had ended
their involvement because language barriers or discrimination precluded meaningful
participation. Unfortunately, these barriers made participation difficult for most Hmong
residents.

Expressed Needa/Desires

Because most respondents faced extensive barriers and were not able to
participate in many community activities, they had numerous unfulfilled needs. They
hoped for activities and services that focused on increased opportunities for their
children, their own personal development, improvement of intergroup relations, increased
provisions of material needs, and enhancement of their communities. They had the
opportunity to express these needs when asked what, if anything, they would like to
change in their community and what programs, activities, or services they would like
their community center to offer.

Opportunities for Children. More than half of respondents (54%) had numerous
desires related to improving the opportunities available to their children and prospects for
their children’s futures. A common request was for programs that could help their

children to be good people:

85

“For the children, I would like after school programs for them to learn. I would
also like a program to teach our children to be good people and get along with
others.”

“I want them to teach our kids how to be good. I want them to help our kids find
jobs.”

Parents also hoped for additional tutoring or homework help, job training, weekend
programs, money for college, and organized fieldtrips for their children. Some parents
felt that programs and activities at the community center should focus solely on their
children:

“Anything that the center can provide for my children, such as classes, I am

willing to accept. My hope is for my children so I prefer activities and services

for my children rather than for me.”

Persgrl Development. Forty-four percent of Hmong residents expressed interest
in educational, recreational, and health programs that would enhance their own personal
development. In terms of education, they requested English, math, citizenship, and
Hmong literacy classes, job training/assistance, and computer training. As one woman
said:

“We’re hoping to find someone who can come and teach English and math to the

Hmong women here. There are a lot of Hmong women here who want to learn.

We would also like training to prepare us for better jobs. If we don't have

training, no one will hire us and we won’t have money to feed our families.”
Recreation and health programs mentioned included adult exercise classes, programs for
adults to get together to share and discuss problems, senior citizen activities, and health
classes for the whole family. One woman suggested:

“If they had some program where one or two times a week, all the old people get

together. Let’s say we prepare some food and come together and just talk about
life. I believe this would help decrease our stress.”

86

Improved Intergroup Relations. Another common concern among respondents
was poor relations among members of different ethnic and racial groups. In addition to
expressing their problems with neighbors, 30% of Hmong residents hoped for programs
that would help improve the negative relations:

“I would like some programs to help neighbors get along because we have some
problems with our black neighbors. The children of some of the black people are
mean. They hit the old people.”
“Once in a while bad people come with knifes and break our windows. There’s
some black families who have young children who bother all the neighbors and
me too. When I come home from work, they stand by my car and make frm of me
or hit me. Some black children step on all my flowers. I’ve told the manager, but
the manager doesn’t seem to care. I think maybe the kids would be afraid if I told
the police. I would like someone to help everyone get along.”

“I would like to have a council of people to look out for everyone. Some people

would be from each group, Hmong, Vietnamese, American, African American, to

share and solve problems together.”

Material Needs. As might be expected in any low income community, many
respondents (30%) expressed desires for material items, including food, toys, clothing
and jackets, furniture, school supplies, childcare, carpeting, and more computers in the

computer centers. One resident said:

“I would like food for the old people, especially fresh meat. I would like toys for
the children also.”

Communiry Enhancement. Twenty-four percent of Hmong residents were also
very concerned with ways in which to improve their communities. They expressed
desires for a neighborhood that was safer and quieter, an end to drug dealing, and more
Hmong neighbors:

“It’s too noisy... I would like people to stay quiet and not make a lot of noise for

other people. Some people need to sleep at night.”

87

“I wish there were more Hmong people on this side [of the housing development].
I would also like the drug dealing to stop.”

“I would like to move to a place where I didn’t meet bad people. . .Sometirnes the
older kids play basketball until one or two in the morning and the noise keeps us
awake. Some of the younger kids bother and hit our kids when they play on the
playground.”
They also wanted improved relations with the manager at each development. Many felt
that their manager did not care about their needs or problems and discriminated against

Hmong people:

“. . .the manager didn’t seem to care about our feelings. I would like someone who
cared about our needs.”

“Actually, I would like to change the manager. I would like someone who could
help and understand, who would listen to our problems and help us rather than

argue back to us and tell us it’s our problem.”

“I just don’t like the manager. . .Sometimes I feel she needs to learn more
communication and how to listen more.”

General Assistance. Finally, 11% of Hmong residents did not necessarily identify
specific desires or needs, but stated that they hoped for any help available to them:

“We are hoping for any program, any service, any help - we are willing to accept
it.”

Life in the United Siatpa

Although the focus of most questions was on residents’ participation in the
housing development where they lived, some people talked more broadly about their
experiences of living and participating in life in the United States. One respondent
expressed satisfaction with his life here:

“I appreciate the way we live in America. In Laos, if you want to have a fire, you

have to do it yourself. If you want to go somewhere, you have to use your feet
and walk. Here in America, you just get in your car and drive. So I appreciate it

88

here. The reason I’m happy is that all my children have their own families, and I
don’t have anything to worry about.”

Others (13%) were satisfied with life in their communities and indicated that there was
nothing they wished to change:

“I’m satisfied here.”

“I’m satisfied with what we have right now.”

However, another 6% of respondents focused on the difficulties of life in the United
States:

“Sometimes we meet American people who may think we want to come to

America. We were very happy in Laos, but because of the war, we had to come

here and leave Laos. In America, it’s not like Laos. The old people suffer. They

don’t have jobs. Some of them want to die because they have no food. Please tell
other Americans this.”

“Right now we have a lot of problems. . .Buying a house, why does it cost double

if you don’t have the money? It seems like double, not interest, but some people

know how to cheat people and they keep doing it. You pay some tax for the
government and that’s fine, and some interest, but it’s more than that. I feel bad
with that because you can’t own a house and you have minimum wage. I don’t
think you can buy a house.”

“Maybe in my next life I will be born an American with a good education. This

life is hard for me. I don’t like to talk about it because then the tears will come

down my face.”
These perspectives are likely to influence individuals’ decisions about community
involvement in different ways.

Clearly, Hmong respondents had a lot to say. They seemed happy to find
someone who wanted to listen to them talk about their experiences in their communities.
Residents talked about the value and importance of community participation, the ways in
which they participated, barriers they experienced, their desires for their communities,

and life in general in the United States. They expressed ideas that were not anticipated

89

and thus were not included in the other sections of the interview. Without the opportunity
to put their experiences in their own words, much of this information would have been
missed. Therefore, it was important to have asked these open-ended questions.

Question 2 - Predictors of Participation

The second aspect of this study was to understand what factors were related to
Hmong residents’ formal participation in multiethnic housing developments. According
to the definition of formal participation in the quantitative section of the interview, 59%
of respondents participated in their community in some formal capacityl. Thirty-five
percent participated in the resident council, with 33% having attended a resident council
meeting in the last year, only 9% having voted in the last resident council election, and
none holding an elected position on any of the resident councils. In terms of participating
in programs, activities or services at the community center, 35% of reSpondents were
involved. Volunteering was the rarest form of participation (11%), with only 6% of
respondents having helped plan or organize an event at the community center in the last
year and 7% having donated time or materials to an event or program at the center.

In this study, participation was conceptualized and operationalized in eight
different ways. First of all, it is important to consider the overall frequency of
participation across all three types of formal participation. This is an indicator of overall
participation rates. However, because there were three conceptually distinct avenues of

formal participation in these communities (resident council, community center activities,

 

' This percent is greater than the percent of respondents who reported in the qualitative section of the
interview that they participated in their community. This discrepancy is explored in the Discussion.
However, it is appropriate to base the following analyses on the quantitative data, which includes an
assessment of all formal participation opportunities in the community and is more comprehensive.

9O

and volunteering), it is also important to examine the presence or absence of each type of
participation and the frequency of each type of participation separately. Finally, it is
important to consider the breadth of participation, which indicates how many different
ways an individual is involved in their community. Therefore, although the main focus is
on overall frequency of participation, the relationship of each of the eight indicators of
participation to the five types of variables examined in this study (demographic, social
psychological, cultural, resource, and contextual) is discussed. The means, modes,
standard deviations, minimum and maximum of all participation measures are presented
in Table 4. The means, standard deviations, minimum and maximum of all other
variables used in the analyses are presented in Table 5. The correlation matrix of
participation variables is presented in Table 6, and the correlation of all other variables is

presented in Table 7.

91

Table 4 — Descriptive Statistics for Participation Items and Scales

 

 

Variable Mean Mode SD Min. Max.
Individual Items
Resident Council Meetings (frequency) .86 0 1.84 0 10.00
Vote in Council Election (dichotomous) .09 0 .29 0 1.00
Community Center Activities (frequency) 1.66 0 4.59 0 30.00
Plan/ Organize Activities (dichotomous) .06 0 .23 0 1.00
Donate Time/Materials (dichotomous) .07 0 .26 0 1.00
'_Participation ’
Overall Frequency of Participation (z-score) 0 -.33 .65 -.33 2.30
Breadth of Participation .91 0 1.03 0 4.00
,Resident Council Participation
Yes/No .35 0 .48 0 1.00
Frequency 0 -.39 .90 -.39 4.03
Volunteering
Yes/No .11 0 .32 0 1.00
Frequency 0 -.18 .92 -.18 6.08
Community Center Activities
Yes/No .35 0 .48 0 1.00
Frequency 1 .66 0 4.59 0 30.00

 

92

Table 5 - Descriptive Statistics of Variables Used in Analyses

 

 

Variable Mean SD Minimum Maximum
Demographic
Age 46.26 14.78 19.00 78.00
Age of Immigration 34.51 14.66 12.17 66.17
Time at Development (years) 5.90 4.53 .58 16.08
Time in the United States (years) 11.63 5.93 3.75 22.50
Household Size 6.83 2.93 2.00 11.00
Social Psychological
Overall Sense of Community 2.41 .90 .57 4.50
Within-Group Sense of Community 3.41 1.05 .88 5.00
Cultural
Acculturation (Assimilation) 4.94 l .24 1 .00 6.00
Acculturation (Biculturalism) 5.24 .97 1.00 6.00
Acculturation (T raditionalism) 3.57 1.40 1.00 6.00
Cultural Norms for Participation .94 .24 0 1.00
Gender Norms for Participation 3.09 1.77 1.00 6.00
Household Participation .30 .46 0 1.00
Cultural Relevance of Participation 3.09 1.1 1 0 4.00
Resources
Language (subjective) 1.13 1.59 0 4.00
Language (objective) 6.69 3.45 0 10.00
Awareness 1 .3 1 1.22 0 4.00
Time 2.55 1.48 0 4.00
Adjustment ,
Psyc. Adjustment (Happiness) 2.62 1.27 0 5.00
Psyc. Adjustment (Distress) 2.13 1.50 0 5.00
Employment Status .44 .50 0 1.00
Total Years of Education 6.57 7.23 0 39.00
Years of Education — Thailand/Laos 2.32 3.66 0 15.00
Years of Education — United States 4.11 4.58 0 25.00
Educational Degree 1.22 .63 l 4.00

 

93

 

988.39

 

82 .8. 8. 8. 8. 8.- 2. 2.- 8.- .8. 8.- .mm. .3. S. .8. .8. 8883 2
388.332
8.2 2. 8. 2. 8. 8.- 8.- .8. 2.- 8.- ON. .8. 2. .8. .8: 8.8532
35%—um
82 8.- 8. 2.- 8. 22.. 8. 8. 2. 8.- 2.- 8. 8. 8.- .8330:
cow—«Eogm
8.2 8. 2. 8. 8. 2.- :.- 8.- MN. 8. 2. 2. 2. 28.25:...—
mar—oz
8.2 8.. E. :. 2.- 8.- 2.- .:.. 3.- 8. .8. .3. 88.0 2
2:32
82 2. 8.- 8.- 8.- 8. 2. 8. 8.- 8.- 8.- 335:
8888888
82 .8. 2.- 8. 2.- .8. 2.- :. 2.- 8.- 8885382.:
288.5328
82 8.- .3. 8. :. 8.- 8. 8. 8. 88232328
382335
82 8. 2. 8.- .8. .3..- om. 8. newness...»
Eco mo 028m
8._ .2... 2.- :. E. .8. .8. 880.5523»
3.838800%
82 8.- 2. 8. E. 2. 088.380»
new
8.— 8.- 2.- .8. .8.- 2888mm
.md
8.2 .8. 2.- 8. cases:
Eoqu~o>oD
8.2 8.- 8. age:
macaw-SE
82 .8. 8 .8. N
8.2 owe;
8 S 8 2 I 2 S = 2 a a 2. e m e m N 2 .32-5»

 

grammes-3.— ..e 333—5...— 28 its: nets—ouueu .. c 03.3.

94

95

 

 

no. V Q a
09— No.. amv: ummr EN. 2. No.1 *Nv. met cor o_. ON. :- mo.- 2... For own. amm. 055. an
00; a . oom- amm. 2. VN. £- ao. mo. w _ .1 :- 3 . ac. on. mm. c— .- Ncr gone-83¢. hm
w— h— cu m— v— Mn Na 3 A: a a b w m v n N u 033-3.?

 

8.253 e .35.

Table 7 - Correlation Matrix for Eight Participation Outcomes

 

 

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1 Overall Frequency 1.00
of Participation
2 Resident Council .61* 1.00
(yes/no)
3Resident Council .76* .92* 1.00
(frequency)
4Volunteering .90* .48* .61* 1.00
(yes/no)
5Volunteering .86* .45* .54* .95* 1.00
(frequency)

6 Community Center .16 -.06 -.07 .11 .15 1.00
(yes/no)
7 Community Center .34* .17 .12 .05 .10 .49* 1.00

(frequency)
SBreadthof .86* .71* .78* .78“ .78* .48* .34“ 1.00

Participation
‘p<.05
Overall Frequency of Participation
Initial analyses examined. the relationships between overall frequency of
participation (including resident council participation, involvement in community center
activities, and volunteering) and demographic, social psychological, cultural, and
resource variables. The results are presented below.

Demographic Variables. None of the five demographic variables included in the

 

analyses were significantly correlated with overall frequency of participation: age (r=-
.07, n.s.), age of immigration (r=-.06, n.s.), length of residence at housing development
(r=.l 1, n.s.), length of time in the United States (r=-.02, n.s.), and household size (r=.22,
us.) (see Table 8). However, these correlations were subsequently corrected for

attenuation due to measurement error of the participation scale. The low reliability of the

96

overall fi'equency of participation scale (alpha = .65) compromised the ability to observe
the true relationship between participation and the demographic variables. In addition,
the small sample size made it more difficult to observe significant correlations.
Therefore, because our interest is in the theoretical relationship between participation and
the demographic variables, it is appropriate to correct for attenuation using Hunter and
Schmidt’s method (1990). In this method, the observed correlation was divided by the
square root of the reliability of the participation scale. If the correlation was between two
scale variables, the correlation would be divided by the product of the square roots of
both reliabilities.

After such corrections, the relationship between household size and frequency of
participation was significant (r=.27, p<.05); individuals with large households were more
likely to participate frequently in the community. In order to further understand this
relationship, the correlations between number of adults in the household and number of
children in the household with participation were calculated. Individuals with a greater
number of adults living in their household were more likely to participate (r=.33, p<.05).
After correction for attenuation, this correlation increased (r=.4l, p<.05). However the
number of children in an individual’s household was not related to participation either
before (r=.l2, n.s.) or after correction for attenuation (r=.15, n.s.). Thus, it was not
necessarily the size of the household that was important, but rather the number of adults
living in the household. Individuals who live in large households with a greater number
of adults are more likely to participate, while individuals who live in larger households

with a greater number of children are not.

97

Table 8 — Correlations of Participation Measures and Predictors

 

 

Variable Overall RC RC Vol. Vol. CC CC Total
Freq. yes/no Freq. Jes/no Freq. yes/no Freq. Breadth
Demographic
Age -.07 -.03 .03 -.05 -.15 .15 -.13 .04
-.09 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Age of Immigration -.06 -.08 .03 -.07 -.12 .08 -.07 -.02
-,0 7 --- --- --- -_- --- --- ---
Time at .11 .30* 10 .14 .04 .09 -.01 22
Development . 14 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Time in the United -.02 .14 .02 .07 -.07 .21 -.14 15
States -.02 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Household Size .22 .31* .33* 10 04 -.05 -.02 .23
.2 7* --- --- --- --— --- --- ---
# of adults .33* .31* .46* .21 15 -.09 -.06 .30*
.41 * --- --- --- --- --- --- «-
# of children .12 .23 .25 .04 .02 -.03 .00 15
.15 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Social Psychological
Overall Sense of .06 .10 .05 .05 -.06 .17 .05 .16
Community .09 .12 .06 .06 -.07 .20 .06 ---
Within-Group Sense .11 .02 .13 .15 -.01 .19 -.02 .15
. of Community .15 .02 .14 .16 -. 01 .20 -. 02 ---
Cultural
Acculturation .07 .03 .07 .06 -.04 - 13 .08 -.03
(Assimilation) .09 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Acculturation .07 .06 15 .03 -.25 14 .09 10
(Biculturalism) .09 --- --- --- --- --- m «-
Acculturation .03 .03 12 .02 - 13 - 17 -.09 -.04
(Traditionalism) .04 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Cultural Norms for .10 .02 .06 .09 .05 01 .07 06
Participation .12 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Gender Norms for .25 .34* 17 12 .01 05 .32* .29*
Participation .31 * --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Men .40 .48* .56* 20 20 -.44* -.38 .27
.5 0* --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Women .17 .26 22 .07 .08 30 .43* 29
.21 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Household .13 20 .21 16 -.11 .03 - 13 22
Participation .16 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Cultural Relevance .23 .15 .16 .19 .14 .06 .17 .21
of Participation .36 * .19 .20 .24 .18 .08 .21 ---

 

98

Table 8 (cont’d)

 

 

 

Variable Overall RC RC Vol. Vol. CC CC Total
Freq. yes/no Freq. yes/no Freq. yes/no Freq. Breadth
Resources
Language .10 -.02 .15 .18 .04 .03 -.14 .10
(subjective) .13 -. 02 .16 .19 .04 .03 -.15 ---
Language -.01 .11 -.01 .02 -.04 -.10 -.05 .00
(objective) -. 01 .1 1 -. 01 .02 -. 04 -. I 0 -. 05 ---
Awareness of .49* .26 .47* .40“ .13 .10 .17 .43*
Opportunities .81* .34* .62* .53* .17 .13 .23 ---
Time .20 .12 .16 .15 .18 .02 .06 .18
.28* .13 .18 .17 .20 .02 .07 ---
"' p<.05

Note: Italics indicate correlation when corrected for attenuation due to measurement error of one scale.
Bold italics indicate correlation corrected for attenuation due to measurement error of both scales.

99

Although only one of the demographic variables was related to participation,
many were related to other variables in expected ways. Age and age of immigration were
highly correlated (r=.92). Although age and age of immigration were not related to
participation, they were both highly correlated with English ability (r=-.57, r=-.73),
English literacy (r=-.41, r=-.51), Hmong literacy (r=-.46, r=-.50), language resources to
participate (r=-.42, r=-.55), time resources (r=.33, r=.38), employment status (r=-.36,
r=-.28) and household size (r=-.46, r=-.42). Older respondents and those who immigrated
to the United States at an older age were less likely to be literate in Hmong or English, to
speak and comprehend English, to feel they had the English language resources necessary
to participate, to be employed, and to have large households, but more likely to have time
to participate.

Length of time in the United States was positively related to length of time at
housing development (r=.56). It was also related to English ability (r=.41), English
language resources to participate (r=.32), number of children (r=.35) and years of
education in the United States (r=.45). Length of time in the United States was negatively
related to a preference for assimilation as an acculturation strategy (r=-.33). The longer
respondents had lived in the United States, the more likely they were to speak and
understand English, have the language resources necessary to participate in their
communities, have a greater number of children, and have more education in the United
States. They were also less likely to believe in assimilation as a preferred acculturation

strategy.

100

In addition to its positive relationship with length of time in the United States
(discussed above), the length of time residents had lived at the housing development was
positively related to respondents’ years of education in the United States (F.43). Length
of time at the housing development was negatively related to endorsement of assimilation
(r=-.40). Thus, the residents who had lived at the housing developments for longer
periods of time were more likely to have a greater number of years of education in the
United States and less likely to support an assimilation acculturation strategy.

Household size was significantly related to age, (r=-.46), age of immigration
(r=-.42), number of children (F.42), English ability (r=.33), Hmong literacy (r=.28), an
acculturation strategy of traditionalism (r=.27), and endorsement of traditional gender
norms regarding participation (r=.4l). Individuals with a greater number of people living
in their household were more likely to be young, have immigrated at a younger age, have
a large nrunber of children, have better English skills, be literate in their native language,
endorse traditionalism (maintaining traditional culture values without attempting to
integrate American ways of life), and believe that it was more appropriate for men to
participate in the community than for women.

Social Psychological Variables. Two social psychological variables were
included in the analyses: overall sense of community and within-group sense of
community. Respondents’ mean within-group sense of community (M=3.41) was higher
than their overall sense of community within the housing development (M=2.41). This
difference was significant (t=-7.86, p<.05); residents felt more sense of community
among other Hmong residents than they did within the entire housing development. In
fact, 93% (50 of 54) felt an equal or greater sense of community within the Hmong

lOl

community than within their housing development. However, overall sense of
community was significantly correlated with within-group sense of community (r=.55,
p<.05), thus individuals who were high on one type of sense of community were likely to
be high on the other type as well.

Both overall sense of community and within-group sense of community differed
significantly across sites (E(2,51)=3.21, p<.05; E(2,51)=8.46, p<.05). Hmong residents at
LaRoy F roh had significantly lower overall sense of community (M=1.94) than residents
at Mt. Vernon (M=2.66, p<.05). In terms of sense of community among other Hmong,
residents at LaRoy F roh had lower within-group sense of community (M=2.58) than
residents at both Mt.Vemon (M=3.71, p<.05) and Hildebrandt (M=3.76, p<.05). Thus,
Hmong residents at LaRoy Froh experienced less overall sense of community within the
housing development and among Hmong residents.

Neither type of sense of community was significantly correlated with overall
frequency of participation (F06, n.s.; r=.11, n.s.). Subsequent corrections of these
correlations for attenuation due to measurement error of both scales did not result in
significant results (r=.09, n.s.; r=.15, n.s.). However, overall sense of community was
related to the happiness subscale of psychological adjustment (r=.47, p<.05). Individuals
with a higher overall sense of community within the housing development were more
likely to be happier with their crurent lives. Within group sense of community was also
related to the happiness subscale of psychological adjustment (r=.48, p<.05), as well as to
age (r=.34, p<.05), age of immigration (r=.31, p<.05), English ability (r=-.29, p<.05), and
endorsement of biculturalism as an acculturation strategy. Individuals with a high sense
of community among other Hmong residents were more likely to be older, to have

102

immigrated at a later age, and to value aspects of both Hmong and American cultures and
ways of life. They were less likely to be able to speak and comprehend English.

Cultural Variables. Five cultural variables were examined: acculturation, cultural
norms regarding participation, gender norms regarding participation, extent of
participation of other household members, and cultural relevance of existing participation
opportunities.

Acculturation. Acculturation was measured by three separate questions,
each assessing a different acculturative stance: assimilation (relinquishing traditional
values and adopting the values of the new culture), biculturalism (maintaining traditional
values while also integrating into the new culture), and traditionalism (maintaining
traditional values without any attempts to change or integrate into the new culture).
Respondents were less likely to highly endorse traditionalism (M=3.57) than
biculturalism (M=5.24; t=8.83, p<.05) and assimilation (M=4.94; t=4.98, p<.05),
although, on average, individuals expressed more agreement than disagreement with all
three items. None of these three items were significantly correlated with overall
frequency of participation (r=.07, n.s.; r=.07, n.s.; r=.09, n.s.). The correlations remained
non-significant after correction for attenuation (r=.09, n.s.; r=.09, n.s.; r=.04, n.s.).

Cultural Norma Cultural norms for participation were assessed in two
ways: overall cultural norms valuing participation and gender norms regarding
participation. Ninety-four percent of respondents felt that community participation was
important. This lack of variance in cultural norms regarding participation resulted in a
non-significant relationship with individual’s overall frequency of participation (r=.10,
n.s.). In terms of gender norms, the majority of men (64%) and women (55%) disagreed

103

with the belief that it was more appropriate for men to participate in the community than
for women. Initially, gender norms were not significantly related to overall frequency of
participation (r=.25, n.s.). However, after correction for attenuation due to measurement
error of the participation scale, this correlation was significant (r=.31, p<.05). Thus
individuals who had traditional gender norms were more likely to participate frequently in
the community. It also seemed important to examine this relationship separately for
women and men given that the issue involved the importance of men’s and women’s
participation. Separate analyses revealed that, after correction for attenuation, traditional
gender norms were significantly related to men’s community participation (r=.50, p<.05),
but not to women’s (r=.21, n.s.). Men who believed that it was more important for men
to participate in the community than for women were more likely to participate frequently
in the community, while women’s gender norms regarding participation did not affect
their frequency of participation. There were no gender differences in actual frequency of
participation (t=.75, n.s.).

Iiopaehold Participation. Only 30% of respondents reported that other
adults in their household participated in resident council meetings or elections. The
participation of other adults in the household was not significantly related to individuals’
overall frequency of participation (r=.13, n.s.). After correction for attenuation due to
measurement error of the participation scale, this correlation remained non-significant
(r=. 16, n.s.). Because within the Hmong community men participate formally in
decision-making and elections of leaders while women do not, it was expected that
participation by other household members might be related to an individual’s
participation differently for men and women. Therefore, the relationship between other

104

household participation and individual’s own frequency of participation was examined
separately for men and women. There was a trend indicating that men were more likely
to participate fi'equently if other adults in their household (in almost every case their
wives) participated (r=.35, p<.10). After correction for attenuation due to measurement
error of the participation scale, the correlation between household participation and men’s
frequency of participation was significant (r=.43, p<.05). However, women’s frequency
of participation was not related to the participation of other adults in their households
(r=.06, n.s.), even after correction for attenuation (r=.07, n.s.).

Cultural Relevance. Most residents felt that there were culturally relevant
participation opportunities in their communities. Only 4% reported that there were no
relevant options, while 46% of respondents indicated that all opportunities were
appropriate and interesting to them. Although cultural relevance was not significantly
correlated with overall frequency of participation initially (r=.23, n.s.), after correction for
attenuation due to measurement error of both scales, a significant relationship between
the two was detected (r=.36, p<.05). Individuals who perceived opportunities for
participation in the community to be culturally relevant were more likely to participate.

Although not all cultural variables were significant, these results indicated that
some aspects of culture, in this case gender norms regarding participation, participation
by other household members, and the perceived cultural relevance of existing
participation opportunities, were related to frequency of participation in the community.
However, it was interesting to note that some of these relationships existed for men, but
not women. When men’s and women’s participation were examined separately,
traditional gender norms were positively related to men’s frequency of participation, but

105

not to Hmong women’s. In addition, men were more likely to participate if other
household members participated, but this was not true for women. In terms of cultural
relevance, participation was more likely to be frequent when Hmong respondents
perceived the participation opportunities in their communities as culturally relevant.

Resource Variables. Three resource variables were included in the analyses:
language, awareness, and time. F ifty—seven percent of Hmong residents felt that they had
absolutely none of the language resources required to meaningfully participate in their
communities, and a total of 82% of respondents identified language as a problem to
varying degrees. Probably because language was a barrier for so many respondents,
neither their perceived language resources nor their English language ability as evaluated
objectively by the researcher were significantly related to overall frequency of
participation (r=.10, n.s.; r=-.01, n.s.).

In terms of awareness of participation opportunities, 32% of respondents were
completely unaware of meetings and programs in the community, while 93% of residents’
awareness was limited to some extent. Individuals’ awareness was significantly related to
their frequency of participation (r=.49, p<.05). Correction for attenuation due to
measurement error of both scales resulted in a strong relationship (r=.81, p<.05).
Therefore, it is clear that the more aware Hmong residents are of the participation
opportunities in their communities, the more likely they are to participate frequently. It is
interesting to note that individuals’ awareness of participation opportunities was also
significantly related to their subjective appraisal of having the language resources
necessary to participate (r=.36, p<.05), but not to the objective measure of language
ability (r=.19, n.s.). Thus, individuals who were aware of participation opportunities in

106

their communities were more likely to believe that they had the language skills necessary
to participate, but did not necessarily speak and understand English better.

Sixty-five percent of Hmong residents experienced some time constraints
regarding their participation, 17% of whom indicated that they had no time to participate.
Although time resources were not initially significantly correlated with participation
(r=.20, n.s.), after correction for attenuation due to measurement error of both scales, a
significant relationship was detected (r=.28, p<.05). Thus individuals who felt they had
time to participate and that the times of meetings and events were convenient to their
schedules were more likely to participate.

Possessing certain resources was important in determining Hmong residents’
participation. Individuals who were aware of participation opportunities and had time to
participate were more likely to participate. Clearly language was also a resource issue for
respondents, although it was not significantly related to participation. Possible reasons
for this will be discussed below.

Intergroup Relations. Intergroup relations was the contextual variable assessed in
these housing developments. The staff and volunteers rated Mt. Vernon and Hildebrandt
as having very similar intergroup relations (M=3.51, M=3.47). The intergroup relations
at LaRoy Froh (M=3.03) were assessed as somewhat worse than those at the other two
sites. This converges with how residents described their sense of community, which was
significantly lower at LaRoy Froh (M=1.94) than at Mt. Vernon (M=2.66, p<.05). Sense
of community at LaRoy F roh was also lower than that at Hildebrandt (M=2.52, n.s.),
although not significantly. However, the ability to examine intergroup relations as a
contextual variable was limited by having only three different contexts (sites). The rates

107

of overall participation at the three sites, expressed in z—scores, were: LaRoy Froh -. 17,
Mt. Vemon -.06, and Hildebrandt .20. A one-way analysis of variance revealed that
participation of Hmong residents did not vary significantly across the three sites

(F (2,5 1)=l .58, n.s.). Therefore, the effect of intergroup relations on participation could
not be examined further.

Regression. A multiple regression analysis was performed in order to determine
which variables were most predictive of overall fi'equency of participation and how much
of the variance in participation rates could be explained by the variables included in this
study. To compensate for the small sample size, an exploratory multiple regression
model was utilized with an emphasis on amount of variance accounted for, rather than the
significance of beta weights. The five factors with the highest correlations to
participation (household size, gender norms, cultural relevance, awareness, and time
resources) were input in a series of multiple regressions, in order to obtain the best-fitting
model (see Table 9). Five factors were chosen because this was the maximum number
that could be appropriately used with a sample size of 54 (Shavelson, 1988). The most

parsimonious model that explained the most variance is discussed below.

Table 9 - Correlation Matrix for Variables in Regression Analyses

 

 

Variable P HP GN CR A T
Participation (frequency) 1.00
Household Size .22 1.00
Gender Norms .25 .41 * 1.00
Cultural Relevance .23 -.04 .03 1.00
Awareness .49* .09 .24 .35“ 1 .00
Time .20 -.05 -.02 -.27* -.02 1.00

 

‘p<.05

108

Twenty-eight percent of the variance of the dependent variable (participation) was
explained by a model that included awareness (B=.416, p<.05), time resources (0:.257,
p<.05), household size (13:.198, p<.10), and cultural relevance (13:.166, n.s.). Thus
demographic variables, cultural variables, and resource variables were all important in
predicting participation. The amount of variance accounted for was substantial,
especially with only four predictors and suggested that although the beta weights were not
all significant (two were and two were not), they probably would have been with a larger

sample (see Table 10).

Table 10 - Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Participation

 

 

 

Variable B SE B 9
Awareness .220 .066 .416
Time Resources .112 .053 .257
Household Size .044 .026 .198
Cultural Relevance .097 .076 .166
Note: R2 = .28

Different Types of Participation

Hmong residents’ overall frequency of formal participation in their communities
was related to demographic, cultural, and resource variables that were included in this
study, and 28% of the variance of frequency of participation was predicted by four of
these variables (awareness of participation opportunities, time resources, household size,
and perceived cultural relevance of existing opportunities). However, there are three
distinct types of participation available in the housing development communities (resident
council participation, volunteering, and community center activities) which were

aggregated for the initial analyses. It may be that Hmong residents who are involved in

109

these different types of participation are very different, especially given that these types of
participation may require different resources or abilities and have different benefits.
Therefore it is important to consider each type of participation separately. For each of the
three types, we can ask two questions: 1) Is there a difference between individuals who
engage in this type of involvement and those who do not? and 2) Do individuals’ levels of
involvement in each type of participation make a difference? Finally, it is also important
to examine breadth of participation. In other words, are people who are involved in more
types of participation different from those who are not?

Resident Council Participation. Each housing development has a resident council,
which is a forum for residents to work together to address community issues, to make
connections with other residents and resources in the community, and to plan community
events and celebrations. There are three main ways residents can be involved in the
resident council: attend meetings, vote in annual resident council elections for officers,
and hold a position on the resident council (i.e., president, vice-president, treasurer).
However, none of the Hmong residents held office on any of the resident councils, so
only attendance of resident council meetings and voting in resident council elections were
included in the analyses of resident council participation.

Involvement. Demographic, cultural, and resource variables were related to

 

resident council participation (see Table 8). People who were involved with the resident
council had lived for a longer time at their housing development (r=.30, p<.05), had
larger households (r=.3l, p<.05), had a greater ntunber of adults living in their household
(r=.31, p<.05), and were more likely to hold traditional gender norms valuing the
participation of men over women (r=.34, p<.05). In particular, men with traditional

110

gender norms were more likely to participate in the resident council (r=.48, p<.05), while
women’s gender norms were not related to their participation (r=.26, n.s.). After
correction for attenuation due to measurement error in the awareness scale, Hmong
residents who participated in the resident council were also more likely to be aware of
participation opportunities in their communities (r=.34, p<.05).

F rguency. Frequency of resident council participation was related to
demographic, cultural, and resource variables: household size (r=.33, p<.05), number of
adults living in the household (r=.46, p<.05), and awareness of participation opportunities
(r=.47, p<.05). After correction for attenuation due to measurement error in the
awareness scale, this correlation increased substantially (F.62, p<.05). In addition, men
who held traditional gender norms were more likely to participate frequently in the
resident council (r=.56, p<.05), while, again, women’s gender norms did not affect the
frequency of their participation in the resident council (r=.22, n.s.). Therefore, Hmong
residents who participated fiequently in the resident council were more likely to have
large households, more adults living in their households, and to be aware of participation
opportunities in their communities. Men who participated frequently in the resident
council were also more likely to have traditional gender norms valuing the participation
of men over women.

Volunteering. There were many opportunities for Hmong residents to volunteer
in their communities, including helping to plan or organize community events and
donating time or materials to events or programs in the community. However, few

respondents (11%) actually volunteered in their communities.

lll

Involvement. Although Hmong residents who volunteered were more likely
to be aware of participation opportunities (r=.40, p<.05), volunteering was not related to
any of the other variables in this study. After correction for attenuation due to
measurement error of the awareness scale, this correlation increased to .53 (p<.05).
Therefore, volunteering depended most on being aware of opportunities in the
community.

F reguency. Frequency of volunteering was not related to any variables
examined in this study (see Table 8).

Communigy Center Activities. Each housing development had a community
center which offered various programs and events. All three community centers had
Learning Centers with computers available for residents’ use. Some centers offered
English classes, health education classes, and exercise classes. There were also food,
clothing, and healthcare programs through which residents could access free food,
clothing, and immunizations. In addition, the community centers had large community
rooms, in which Halloween, Thanksgiving, Martin Luther King Day, and other
community-wide events were held. The community centers also had offices for the
housing development manager and community police officer, which made these
individuals more accessible to residents. Thirty-five percent of residents took part in
programs or activities at the community centers.

Involvement. There were almost no differences between Hmong residents
who did participate in commrmity center activities and those who did not (see Table 8).

The one significant finding was that men who held traditional gender norms that valued

112

men’s participation in the community more than women’s were less likely to participate
in community center activities (r=-.44, p<.05).

F reguency. Respondents who held traditional gender norms that valued the
participation of men over women were more likely to frequently participate in activities at
the community center (r=.32, p<.05). However, when this relationship was examined
separately for men and women, it was women who held traditional gender norms who
were more likely to participate frequently in community center activities (r=.43, p<.05),
while men’s frequency of participation in community center activities was not related to
their gender norms (r=-.38, n.s.). Frequency of participation in community center
activities was not significantly related to any other variables in the analyses (see Table 8).

Breadth of Participation. After considering the three types of participation
individually, it is also informative to examine breadth of participation. Were individuals
who were involved in multiple types of participation different from those who were
involved in fewer types? The answer is yes; breadth of participation, measured as a sum
of the different ways in which an individual participated in the community, was related to
demographic, cultural, and resource variables.

In terms of demographic variables, breadth of participation was positively related
to the number of adults in an individual’s household (r=.30, p<.05). Individuals with a
greater number of adults living in their household were more likely to participate in their
communities in multiple ways. Breadth of participation was also positively related to
cultural variables, in particular, traditional gender norms (r=.29, p<.05). When this
correlation was disaggregated by gender, neither men nor women with traditional gender
norms were more likely to participate in multiple ways in their communities. In fact,

113

neither correlation was significant: men (r=.27, n.s.), women (r=.29, n.s.). However, this
is probably due to the reduced sample size which resulted when these relationships were
examined separately for men and women. Thus, both Hmong men and women were
more likely to participate in their communities in multiple ways if they held traditional
gender norms. Resource variables were also important; in particular, breadth of
participation was related to awareness of participation opportunities (r=.43, p<.05).
Individuals who were aware of the participation opportunities in their communities were
more likely to be involved in their communities in multiple ways.

Given the unique relationships that exist between the different types of
participation and demographic, social psychological, cultural, and resource variables, we
can conclude that it is important to consider the many forms that formal participation in
the community can take. Therefore, it is also important to examine all eight types of
participation when considering how participation in the community is related to the
adjustment of the Hmong residents in the three housing developments.

Question 3 — Parflpauion and Adiustrnent

In order to examine the third research question and test the assumption that
participation was likely to lead to positive outcomes for the Hmong residents in the
housing developments, the relationships between the different measures of participation
and psychological adjustment and socioeconomic adjustment were explored.
Psychological Adiustrnent

Overall Frequency of Participation. The correlation between overall frequency of
participation and the happiness subscale of psychological adjustment was .20, which was
not significant. However, after adjusting for attenuation of the correlation based on

114

measurement error in both the participation and adjustment scales, the theoretical
correlation was .31 (p<.05), which suggests that the more Hmong respondents
participated in formal activities in their communities, the more well-adjusted they were.
However, psychological adj ustment as measured by the distress subscale was not
significantly correlated with participation, with or without correction for attenuation (r=-
.07, r=-.10, n.s.). Therefore, participation was not related to residents’ levels of distress
(see Table 11).

Resident Counciliarticipation. Whether or not Hmong residents were involved
with the resident council was not related to their psychological adjustment, either in terms
of happiness (r=.01, n.s.) or distress (r=-.12, n.s.). Subsequent correction for attenuation
due to measurement error of the adjustment scales did not alter the significance of these
relationships (r=.01, n.s.; r=-.14, n.s.). However, frequency of resident council
participation was related to psychological adjustment. There was initially a trend
indicating that fiequency of resident council participation was related to happiness (r=.24,
p<.10). After correction for attenuation, a significant relationship was detected (r=.30,
p<.05). Frequency of resident council participation was not related to distress either
before (r=-. 17, n.s.) or after correction for attenuation (r=-. 19, n.s.). Therefore,
individuals who fiequently participated in the resident council were more likely to be
happy, but not necessarily less distressed.

Volunteering. Volunteering was not related to psychological adjustment in any
way. Whether Hmong residents volunteered in their community at all was not
significantly correlated with happiness (r=.19, n.s.) or distress (r=-.02, n.s.). These
correlations remained non-significant after correction for attenuation (r=.23, n.s.; r=-.02,

115

n.s.). Frequency of volunteering was also not correlated with happiness (r=.08, n.s.) or
distress (r=.07, n.s.). After correction for attenuation, these correlations were still low
(r=.10, n.s.; r=.08, n.s.).

Community Center Activities. Hmong residents’ involvement in community
center programs and activities was not related to psychological adj ustment. Whether
respondents were involved in any activities at the community center was not significantly
correlated with happiness (r=.l4, n.s.) or distress (r=.15, n.s.). These correlations
remained non-significant after correction for attenuation (r=. 17, n.s.; r=.17, n.s.). Neither
was frequency of community center participation related to happiness (r=.00, n.s.) or
distress (r=.04, n.s.). Correction for attenuation had minimal impact on these correlations
(r=.00, n.s.; r=.05, n.s.). Thus, involvement in programs and activities at the community
center was not related to the psychological adjustment of Hmong residents.

Breadth of Participation. The correlation between breadth of participation and the
happiness subscale of psychological adjustment was .18, which was not significant.

After adjusting for attenuation of the correlation based on measurement error in the
adjustment scale, the theoretical correlation remained non-significant (r=.22, n.s.).
Psychological adjustment as measured by the distress subscale was not significantly
correlated with breadth of participation, with or without correction for attenuation (r=-.03,
r=-.05, n.s.). Therefore, participation in multiple ways in the community was not related
to residents’ levels of happiness or distress.

Although psychological distress was not related to any type of formal participation
in the community, Hmong residents who participated frequently in the community and
who were highly involved with the resident council were more likely to be happy. Thus,

116

type of participation is important. Resident council participation and the global measure
of participation were related to psychological adjustment, while volunteering and

participation in community center activities were not.

Table 11 — Correlations of Participation and Psychological Adjustment

 

 

Variable Overall RC RC Vol. Vol. CC CC Total

Freq. yes/no Freq. yes/no Freq. Jes/no Freq. Breadth
Psyc. Adjustment .20 .01 .24 . 19 .08 . 14 .00 .18
(Happiness) .31 * .01 .30* .23 .10 .1 7 .00 .22
Psyc. Adjustment -.07 -. 12 -.17 -.02 .07 .15 .04 -.03
(Distress) -.10 -.14 -.19 -. 02 .08 .1 7 .05 -. 03

 

‘p<.05

Note: Italics indicate correlation when corrected for attenuation due to measurement error of adjustment
scale. Bold italics indicate correlation when corrected for attenuation due to measurement error of
adjustment scale and overall frequency of participation scale.

Socioeconomic Adiustrnent

For the most part, participation of any kind was not related to the socioeconomic
adjustment of Hmong residents (see Table 12). Overall frequency of participation was
not significantly correlated with total years of education (r=-.06, n.s.), years of education
in Thailand and/or Laos (r=-.03, n.s.), years of education in the United States (r=-.06,
n.s.), highest educational degree attained (Spearman r=-.21, n.s.), or employment status
(r=.20, n.s.). After correction for attenuation due to measurement error of the
participation scale, the correlations with total years of education (r=-.07, n.s.), years of
education in Thailand and/or Laos (r=-.04, n.s.), years of education in the United States
(r=-.07, n.s.), highest degree attained (Spearrnan r=-.26, n.s.), and employment status (r=-
.25, n.s.) remained non-significant.

Neither existence nor frequency of resident council participation or volunteering

was significantly related to any of the indicators of socioeconomic adjustment.

117

Participation in community center activities was negatively related to employment status
(r=-.27, p<.05), indicating that people who went to the community center were less likely
to be employed that those who did not go to the center. Frequency of community center
participation was not related to socioeconomic adj ustment. Finally, breadth of
participation was negatively related to employment status (r=-.32, p<.05). Thus people
who were involved in multiple ways in their communities were less likely to be employed

than those who were not.

Table 12— Correlations of Participation and Socioeconomic Adjustment

 

 

 

Variable Overall RC RC V01. Vol. CC CC Total

Freq. yes/no Freq. yes/no Freq. yes/no Freq. Breadth
Employment Status -.20 -.19 -.20 -.20 -.16 -.27* .05 -.32*

-. 25 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Years of Education — -.06 -.08 -.01 .01 -.07 -.23 -.16 -.14
Total -.07 --- --- --- --- --- --- --—
Years of Education — -.03 -.05 .04 .04 -.10 -.22 -.17 -.12
Thailand/Laos -.04 --- --- --- --- --- --- «-
Years of Education — -.06 -.06 -.04 -.01 -.02 -.22 -.13 -.13
United States -.07 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
Educational Degree -.21 -.20 -.21 -.15 -.15 .02 -.05 -.14

-.26 --- --- --- --- --- --- ---
*p<.05

Note: Italics indicate correlation when corrected for attenuation due to measurement error of overall
frequency of participation scale.

Profile of Active Participators
Because Hmong residents’ participation in many community activities was low, it
is important to conclude by looking at whom specifically were the people who did
actively participate. What, if anything, made them different from the other Hmong
residents interviewed? A profile of the 11% =6) most actively involved individuals

was created to try to understand more about the characteristics of Hmong participators in

118

these settings. These eight individuals had a z-score of 1.00 or above on the overall
frequency of participation scale, which indicates that their participation was at one
standard deviation above the mean participation of all respondents. All but one had been
to at least one resident council meeting in the last year and four had voted in the last
resident council election. Three had participated in activities at the community centers,
three had helped to organize or plan events at the centers, and three had donated time or
materials for events or programs at the community center in the last year.

In terms of demographic characteristics, active participators were somewhat
distinct fi'om the other respondents. Most were women (five of the six). Active
participators also tended to be younger (M=39.83) than other residents (M=47.09), and
had immigrated to the United States at a younger age (M=28.50) than other residents
(M=35.28) (see Table 13). In addition, active participators tended to have larger
households (M=8.33) than other respondents (M=6.65) and a greater number of adults
living in their household (M=2.83) than other respondents (M=2.25). The active
participators were also distinct in that only 33% were employed, whereas 46% of the
other respondents were working at the time of the interviews.

However, active participators had lived at their housing development an average
of only six months longer (M=6.3 8) than other residents (M=5.84), and the average
length of time that active participators and other residents had been in the United States
was approximately the same (M=11.33; M=11.67). None of the active participants had a
high school degree or GED, and their years of education (M=6.17) were approximately
equivalent to those of the other respondents (M=6.63). Half of the active participants
were literate in English and Hmong and half were not literate in either language. Thus

119

Table 13 - Descriptive Statistics for Active Participators and Other Residents

 

 

Variable Active Participators Other Residents
Mean (N=6) Mean (N=48)
Partrcrpatron .. ,
Resident Council Meetings (yes/no) .83 .27
Resident Council Meetings (frequency) 3.83 .49
Vote in Resident Council Election (yes/no) .67 .02
Community Center Activities (yes/no) .50 .33
Community Center Activities (frequency) 6.92 1.00
Plan/Organize Activities (yes/no) .50 .00
Plan/Organize Activities (frequency) .40 .00
Donate Time/Materials (yes/no) .50 .02
Donate Time/Materials (frequency) 5.83 .02
“Demographic Variables _ _ p _ .. . H i ,

Age 39.83 47.09
Age of Immigration 28.50 35.28
Time at Housing Development 6.38 5.84
Time in the United States 11.33 11.67
Household Size 8.33 6.65

Number of Adults 2.83 2.25
Sacral Psychological Variables .. " ‘ 7
Overall Sense of Community 2.63 2.38
Within-Group Sense of Community 3.71 3.38
Cultural Variables , , , , ,
Acculturation (Assimilation) 5.17 4.92
Acculturation (Biculturalism) 5.33 5.23
Acculturation (Traditionalism) 3.33 3. 60
Cultural Norms for Participation 1.00 .93
Gender Norms for Participation 4. 33 2. 94
Household Participation .33 2.9
Cultural Relevance 3. 83 3. 00
Resource Variables A i _, .
Language Resources (subjective) 1.92 1.03
Language (objective) 6.83 6.67
Awareness of Opportunities 3.17 1.08
Time Resources 3.00 2.49
Adjustment " i V
Psychological Adjustment (Happiness) 3.44 2.51
Psychological Adjustment (Distress) 2.17 2. 12
Employment Status .33 .46
Years of Education — Total 6.17 6. 63
Years of Education — Thailand/Laos 2.50 2.30
Years of Education — United States 3.67 4.17
Educational Degree 1.00 1.25

 

120

active participants tended to be female, younger, have immigrated at a younger age, have
larger households and more adults in their household, and be unemployed, but were not
necessarily more rooted in their local community or the United States or more educated.

Active participators also differed slightly from other residents on social
psychological variables; their overall sense of community (M=2.63) and within-group
sense of community (M=3.71) were higher than those of other respondents (M=2.38;
M=3.38). In terms of cultural variables, there were also important differences. Active
participators were more likely to endorse an assimilation strategy of acculturation
(M=5.17) than other respondents (M=4.92), but less likely to support an acculturation
strategy of traditionalism (M=3.33) than other respondents (M=3.60). Active
participators were also more likely to hold traditional gender norms valuing the
participation of men above women (M=4.3 3) than other respondents (M=2.94). Finally,
active participators were more likely to perceive existing participation opportunities as
culturally relevant (M=3.83) than were other respondents (M=3.00). In fact, all eight
active participators felt that the participation opportunities in the community were at least
somewhat culturally relevant and they all held cultural norms that valued participation,
although only half indicated that they would like to be more involved in the community.
This is probably because they were already active in their communities.

In terms of resources for participation, it is interesting to note that active
participators felt they had slightly more (although still very limited) language resources
for participation (M=1 .92) than other respondents (M=1-03), although their actual
objective English language abilities were almost the same (M=6.83; M=6.67). Active

participants were also more aware of participation opportunities (M=3.17) than other
121

respondents (M=1.08) and had more time to participate (M=3.00) than other respondents
(M=2.49). In addition, active participants were also more psychologically adjusted.
Their happiness was greater (M=3.44) than that of other respondents (M=2.51), although
their level of distress was approximately equivalent (M=2. 17) to that of other respondents
(M=2.12). Active participants did not seem to differ from other respondents in terms of
socioeconomic adjustment, except for being less likely to be employed, as discussed
above. Finally, in terms of context, it is interesting to note that two of the participators
lived at Mt.Vemon and four lived at Hildebrandt. None of the active participators lived
at LaRoy Froh, which had the lowest intergroup relations score and the lowest mean
overall sense of community score.

In summary, active participators were distinct from other respondents in terms of
demographic characteristics, social psychological attributes, cultural attitudes, resources
to participate, psychological adjustment, and the context in which they lived. They
tended to be female and younger, have immigrated to the United States at a younger age,
have larger households and more adults in their households, and have greater overall and
within-group sense of community. They were also more likely to support an assimilation
acculturation strategy and value the participation of men over that of women, and less
likely to support a traditionalist acculturation strategy. Active participators also tended to
perceive participation opportunities in their communities as culturally relevant, have
more language, awareness and time resources for participation, be happier, and live in
housing developments with better intergroup relations and higher overall sense of

community.

122

DISCUSSION

As refugees resettle in the United States and transition to their new lives here,
their integration into their new communities is central to this process — for themselves, for
their children, and for future generations. An important aspect of integration for these
individuals is participation in their communities (V rga, 1971). This study makes three
major contributions to our understanding of the participation experiences of Hmong
refirgees and their struggles to become integrated into their multiethnic communities.
First, the importance of participation for Hmong refirgees was confirmed by the findings
that individuals’ participation in their multiethnic communities was related to their
positive psychological adjustment and that it was highly valued by almost all Hmong
residents.

Second, this study provides strong converging evidence, across both quantitative
and qualitative data sources, that Hmong participation in multiethnic communities is
influenced by demographic, cultural, resource, and contextual variables. Thus, an
ecological perspective, which considered the unique factors relevant for a specific group
in a particular setting, was a useful approach to furthering our understanding of the
factors which facilitate and impede participation as well as important within-group
differences. A related finding was that different types of participation were related to
different variables, which emphasizes the complexity of participation and the importance
of making distinctions among various participation opportunities, as well as attending to

the unique attributes of individuals and settings.

123

Third, this study highlights the importance of providing disenfranchised
individuals and groups with opportunities to tell their stories and have their voices heard.
It was only when Hmong residents were given the opportunity to speak in the qualitative
section of the interviews, that we learned about their lack of meaningful participation, the
multiple barriers they faced, the relevance of contextual issues to their participation, their
desires to be more involved, and the disempowerrnent most experienced. If Hmong
residents did not have the chance to speak in their own words, our understanding of their
participation experiences would be incomplete and inaccurate.

P_articipatio_nj and Adiustrnent

Irnportantly, the findings in this study suggest that Hmong participation in
multiethnic communities is significantly related to positive psychological adjustment.
Hmong individuals who participated in their communities had higher scores on the
happiness subscale of the psychological well-being measure. In particular, overall
fi'equency of participation and fiequency of resident council participation were related to
positive psychological adjustment. This suggests that not all types of participation have
the same benefits. It seems that Hmong residents who are actively involved in their
communities, particularly those who are a part of a council working collectively to
improve the community, are the individuals who are most well-adjusted. This is
consistent with other research, which has found that the community members who were
most highly involved in voluntary associations experienced more benefits of participation
than others (Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, & Chavis, 1990).

In addition, participation in the resident council was the avenue in these

multiethnic housing developments that offered residents opportunities for decision-

124

making and influence within their communities, which is the form of citizen participation
that has been linked with most positive outcomes for individuals and communities (Florin
& Wandersman, 1990; Wandersman, 1984). Participation in the other activities in these
settings (volunteering and attending community center activities) may not have offered
comparable opportunities for control and influence, and thus may not have provided the
same benefits.

However, respondents’ levels of distress were not related to their participation.
This may be because as low-income individuals and recent refugees, most individuals
experienced a high level of distress. Participation might not buffer refirgees from daily
stressors and other sources of distress in their lives, particularly because much of
Southeast Asian refugees’ distress has been linked to their pre-arrival (in the United
States) experiences (Rumbaut, 1991b). Instead, participation may contribute to an
improved psychological state, in terms of happiness, as discussed above. Therefore, this
study provides some evidence for the importance of refugee participation, at least for the
particular Hmong individuals interviewed. Although other research has shown that
community participation is beneficial for refugees and irnnrigrants in helping them
integrate into the broader community (Vrga, 1971), this is one of the only studies to
examine the link between psychological adjustment and participation for refugees. Future
research should explore this relationship among other refugee populations and in other
settings.

In terms of socioeconomic adjustment, limited conclusions can be drawn. All of
the participants in this study had low incomes and were living in public housing. Thus,

variation in socioeconomic status was limited. Employment was actually negatively

125

related to breadth of participation and community center involvement, but it is likely that
this has more to do with the fact that residents who were not working had more time to
participate, which we know is an essential resource for participation (e. g., Wandersman,
J akubs, & Giamartino, 1981). For community center participation in particular, this
finding may also be because residents who were not employed were more likely to be
home when the community center was open and may have had more need for the free
food and clothing and other services provided at the community centers. However, given
that we know refugees in general, and Southeast Asian refugees in particular, struggle
economically (Bach & Argiros, 1991), and that socioeconomic adjustment is related to
psychological adjustment for Southeast Asian refilgees (Rumbaut, 1991b) and other
positive outcomes (e. g., Rumbaut, 1996), it would be important to further explore the
relationship among participation and socioeconomic adjustment among a broader range
of refugees, including those who are both thriving and struggling economically.

Overall, this study suggest that community involvement was beneficial for Hmong
residents in multiethnic housing developments, and was also highly valued by them.
Therefore, it is important to consider the findings regarding the unique factors related to
Hmong participation and the contributions these findings make both to our theoretical
understanding of participation and to the development of mechanisms for facilitating this
valuable process.

An Ecological Model of Participation

The quantitative and qualitative findings of this study provide strong convergent

support for an ecological model of participation. Hmong residents’ participation in their

multiethnic communities was related to individual and contextual characteristics

126

including demographic, cultural, resource, and contextual variables. Some of the
relationships detected are consistent with the findings of other participation research,
while others are unique to these Hmong individuals in their particular settings. The
specific results are discussed in further detail below.

Individual Variables

Several individual variables were related to Hmong residents’ participation in
their communities. Resource variables were the most important. In fact, awareness of
participation Opportunities explained 64% of the theoretical variance of participation,
although demographic and cultural variables were also important. Hmong residents who
were aware of existing participation opportunities, perceived them as culturally relevant,
had greater numbers of adults in their households, and had time to participate were more
likely to participate. In addition, men who held traditional gender norms (that their
participation in the community was more important than women’s participation) were
more involved in the community.

Demographic Vaflles. Overall, the majority of demographic variables included
in the analyses (age, age of immigration, length of residence at housing development,
length of time in the United States) were not related to Hmong residents’ overall
frequency of participation in their communities. These findings are consistent with other
participation studies that found that demographic variables were generally not predictive
of participation in neighborhood voluntary organizations (e.g., Smith, 1975;
Wandersman, Florin, Freidman & Meier, 1987).

However, household size was related to Hmong residents’ overall frequency of

participation in their communities. The greater number of people in an individual’s

127

household, the more likely he or she was to participate in the community. When this
relationship was examined separately for the number of adults and children in each
household, it became evident that the number of adults in the household was strongly and
positively related to participation while the number of children was not. Adults who live
in households with other adults may have more opportunities to participate because they
may have greater access to the resources and supports required for community
participation, such as childcare and time (Wandersman, J akubs, & Giamartino, 1981).
This would be expected because individuals in households with multiple adults are likely
to share many family responsibilities (i.e., earning income, cooking, cleaning).

Many participation studies have found that married people are more likely to
participate than single individuals (e. g., Florin, Jones, & Wandersman, 1986; Florin &
Wandersman, 1984; Wandersman, Florin, Friedman, & Meier, 1987; Wandersman,

J akubs, & Giamartino, 1981). Although this relationship has usually been interpreted as
an indicator of individuals’ rootedness in the community, married people may also
participate more because of the resources and supports available in their households. For
the Hmong in this study, this interpretation is also supported by the qualitative data, in
which many Hmong residents highlighted the issues of lack of time and childcare as
barriers to their participation.

Most research on participation has not specifically examined the relationship
between number of adults in a household and participation, most likely in part because it
has been assumed that there are usually only one or two adults in each household.
However, this is not the case for the Hmong households in this study, which had a range

of one to four adults, with almost one-third of households (30%) having three or four

128

adult household members. A comparison of the variables related to individuals’
participation in Israel and the United States revealed that individuals in Israel who lived
in households with a greater number of children under the age of 17 were more likely to
participate, while the number of children in individuals’ households in the United States
was not related to their participation (Wandersman, Florin, Friedman, & Meier, 1987).
This finding, taken together with the findings in this study, suggest that different variables
may be related to the participation of members of different cultures, in this case,
specifically those who have varied family structures.

Social Psychological Variables. In this study, Hmong residents’ overall sense of
community was not related to their participation in multiethnic housing developments.
This finding is important given that, in other populations, sense of community is often the
strongest predictor of participation (e. g., Chavis & Wandersman, 1990) or at least
positively correlated with it (e. g., Florin, Jones, & Wandersman, 1986; Florin &
Wandersman, 1984; Hutcheson & Prather, 1988; McMillan & Chavis, 1986;
Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980). Although many residents reported high overall sense
of community within the development, they may not have been able to translate these
community sentiments into participation because of language, awareness, and resource
barriers. This highlights the importance of doing within-group analyses, which enable us
to understand unique factors that may be important for some individuals and groups, but
not for others.

Interestingly, within-group sense of community also did not facilitate or impede
Hmong residents’ participation in the broader community. In the current climate of fear

that individuals’ ethnic identifications are a divisive force within the increasingly

129

multiethnic United States (U .S. Commission on Civil Rights, 1992), this suggests that
having a strong sense of community within one’s ethnic group does not necessarily
inhibit broader community involvement. Instead, this within-group sense of community
has been linked to the well-being and adjustment of refirgees (e.g., Church, 1982), and
was associated with positive psychological adjustment in this study. Thus, it is important
and perhaps unique to certain refugee, immigrant, or ethnic groups, but is not necessarily
related to their participation in the broader community.

Sense of Community and Adjustment. Both overall sense of community
and within-group sense of community were related to positive psychological adjustment,
which suggests that Hmong residents’ sense of community within their geographic
community and among other members of their ethnic group are important to their well-
being. These findings are consistent with general research about sense of community and
its positive links to individual well-being and community development (e.g., Chavis &
Newbrough, 1986; Jason & Kobayashi, 1995), and the importance that refugees’ and
immigrants’ ethnic identities and groups have in their adjustment to new communities
(e. g., Bankston & Zhou, 1995; Fitzpatrick, 1966). Thus, overall sense of community in a
neighborhood and within-group sense of community among members of a specific ethnic
group are important constructs to understand and facilitate, especially when considering
the promotion of refugee adjustment. For the Hmong in particular, these findings
highlight the value of one of their cultural strengths — the importance they place on the
community and the high sense of community most feel, which this study has shown is

beneficial to their adjustment.

130

Cultural Variables. Several cultural factors were related to Hmong residents’
participation in their multiethnic communities. Specifically, residents who perceived the
opportunities in their communities as culturally relevant for Hmong people and men who
held traditional gender norms were more likely to participate. Acculturation, cultural
norms regarding participation, and participation of other household members were not
related to individuals’ participation.

CulturaLRelevance. Hmong residents who believed that the participation
opportunities in their communities were culturally relevant were more likely to
participate. We know that individuals are less likely to participate in community
interventions and projects that are not culturally relevant or appropriate (Marin, 1993;
Strawn, 1994). In addition, specific research with Southeast Asian refugees found that
they were less involved and committed to a tenants’ association and a collective rent
strike because the meetings and actions were organized in ways that were counter to their
cultural beliefs (Hein, 1995). The importance of these findings is made more apparent
when recognizing that many Hmong residents (54%) identified avenues of participation
in their community as having limited relevance. This suggests that if the relevance of
participation opportunities in the community were increased, participation among Hmong
residents might also increase. Participation opportunities will only be culturally relevant
if they consider the experiences, wants, and needs of all individuals in a community.

Gender Now Although many participation studies have found that
women are more likely to participate than men (e. g., Florin & Wandersman, 1984;
Wandersman, Florin, Friedman, & Meier, 1987; Wandersman, J akubs, & Giamartino,

1981), these gender differences were not evident among Hmong residents. However,

131

gender norms about participation were related to an individual’s participation. It is
interesting to note that after disaggregating this relationship by gender, traditional gender
norms were significantly related to men’s overall frequency of community participation,
but not to women’s participation. Men who believed that it was more important for men
to participate in the community than for women were more likely to participate. This was
not the case for women. Thus, men’s actions were consistent with their gender norms
regarding participation, but women’s were not.

It is difficult to definitively explain these findings. However, one possible
explanation may be related to the marital status of respondents. Twenty-eight percent of
the Hmong women interviewed had never been married or were separated or widowed,
while only one of the men interviewed was single. Thus, Hmong women’s participation
may be more affected by the constraints of their situation. For instance, some single
women may feel they need to participate because there is no man available to assume that
role, while others might be impeded fi'om participating because of the multiple
responsibilities inherent in being a single head of household. Thus women’s participation
may depend less on gender norms and more on these other factors.

However, since all but one of the men in this study was married, their
participation was not affected by the same constraints. Therefore, Hmong men may have
participated if they believed that they should be the member of the family to participate,
but may have deferred to their wife or other family member if they did not believe that it
was more important for men to participate than for women. Therefore, among married
Hmong couples, the man’s gender norms may be more determinative of who in the family

participates, while the woman’s gender norms may not be as relevant in these cases.

132

Thus, these explanations suggest why traditional gender norms may have affected the
participation of Hmong men, but not have impacted the participation of both single and
married Hmong women.

It is also interesting to note that although there were no differences between the
overall participation of single women and married women, only one of the nine single
women endorsed traditional gender norms, while 57% (13) of the married women did.
This may be a function of the role single women have assumed as head of the household,
in which they often must work outside the home to support their family. Thus, they are
probably more likely to have been exposed to more egalitarian gender norms, as well as
to have rejected traditional roles of men and women out of necessity. However, overall,
more women than men endorsed traditional gender norms that valued the participation of
men over women. This could be because some Hmong women (particularly those who
are married) are more restricted to their homes and have had less contact with Americans
in workplaces and the larger community (Rumbaut, 1991b), which results in less
exposure to more egalitarian gender norms.

In conclusion, it appears that cultural gender norms are shifting among many
Hmong individuals. As they have come into contact with different ideas about gender
norms, some individuals’ ideas about who should participate may have changed, while
others’ ideas may have not. These patterns of shifting gender norms and family structures
as well as their impact on individuals’ participation should be explored in more depth in
firture investigations.

Acculturation. The findings in this study suggest that acculturation was not

related to Hmong participation in the broader community. This is inconsistent with

133

previous research, in particular, that individuals who have a bicultural acculturation style
(embracing and adapting to some aspects of American society while maintaining their
own cultural identities and traditions) are more well-adjusted (Rumbaut, 1991b;
Szapocznik & Kurtines, 1980) and more able to adapt to their new communities
(Ramirez, 1984), and that acculturation is related to participation in recreation activities
(Y n & Berryman, 1996). Therefore, the finding that acculturation is not related to
participation in this study is somewhat suspect, and may most likely be due to
measurement error. The three acculturation constructs were single-item measures and
there was little variance in Hmong residents’ responses. Also, because responses to the
three items (assimilation, biculturalism, and traditionalism) were not mutually exclusive,
many individuals highly endorsed two (or sometimes all three) of the items. Although
these questions had been used to measure acculturation among Hmong and many other
Southeast Asian refugees in the past (e. g., Rumbaut, 1989), it became apparent during
data collection that the items were somewhat flawed because the assimilation item
referred to the respondents’ children, while the traditionalism item referred to the
respondents’ own lives. Many refugees and immigrants might value assimilation for their
children while believing that remaining rooted in their own culture is the preferred (or
only) possibility for themselves. Therefore, it would be important to explore
acculturation and its relationship to community participation in future studies with multi-
item measures, with items that referred both to individuals themselves and their children.
Culflal Norms for Participation. Finally, this study found that cultural
norms for participation and extent of household participation were not related to Hmong

residents participation in their multiethnic communities. Cultural norms for participation

134

were measured by a single dichotomous item. Furthermore, almost all Hmong residents
responded affirmatively to this item, indicating that their participation in the community
was important. These measurement limitations and limited variance probably explain
why cultural norms were not significantly related to participation.

Household Participation. In addition, Hmong residents’ participation was
not affected by the participation of other members of their household. However, it is
interesting to note that although 41% of individuals did not participate formally in the
community at all, only 19% (six) households did not have anyone participating in the
community. Of these six households, three were headed by single mothers and three were
two-parent households. It may be that in some families, the participation of one
individual served to open up avenues of participation for other family members, while in
other families, the participation of one individual may have represented the interests of
the whole family. Because of the collective nature of Hmong culture as well as the fact
that participation had not been examined at the household level previously, it seemed
important to explore how the participation of other household members affected an
individual’s participation. In the future, it would be instructive to firrther examine
household or family participation in order to more fully understand its effects on
individual participation.

Resource Variables. Both qualitative and quantitative data in this study provide
strong converging evidence that a lack of resources impeded Hmong participation in their
communities. From the qualitative findings, we learned that Hmong residents lacked a.
variety of resources needed to participate, including language, time, awareness, education,

motivation, and self-efficacy. From the quantitative findings, we learned that two of

135

these resources - awareness and time —- are significantly related to participation. Hmong
residents who were not aware of the opportunities for involvement in their conununities
and did not have time, did not participate. The findings are consistent with other
research, including that of Wandersman, J akubs & Giamartino (1981), who found that
time was the most important resource required for participation and that individuals who
are not aware of participation opportunities are less involved. The findings regarding
awareness are also supported by Guthrie & Hutchison (1995), who found that Asian
American residents of public housing developments did not participate, in part because
they were not aware of activities in their communities. Thus having the time to
participate and being aware of participation opportunities are clearly two important
resources required for participation.

However, it was surprising that language resources were not significantly related
to participation in the quantitative findings, given that in the qualitative responses Hmong
residents cited language more than any other resource as something that they needed in
order to participate but lacked. Several studies of participation have found that having
the perceived skills relevant to participation are related to individuals’ participation (e. g.
Florin, Jones, & Wandersman, 1986). For the Hmong in this study, English language
ability was one of these skills. Residents’ qualitative responses suggest that a significant
relationship between language and participation may not have been detected because for
some Hmong residents, their lack of English language ability completely precluded them
from participation, while others did participate, despite their inability to communicate
(although this participation was often frustrating and not necessarily meaningful). In

addition, it may be that some residents were able to participate despite their lack of

136

language resources by bringing their children or other people to translate for them. It
would be important to examine the relationship between language and participation
further to understand how some individuals circumvent this language barrier and
participate despite their lack of this resource. Language is rarely examined as a resource
for participation, so this study makes an important contribution to the literature by
highlighting a resource for participation that is increasingly relevant in the growing
number of multiethnic and often multilingual communities, but often lacking.
Within-Group Differences

The above discussion of individual variables related to participation provides
evidence of within-group differences. Although commonalities existed among Hmong
residents’ experiences, many differences were also apparent. First of all, these
differences are evident in the significant variability across most individual variables.
Hmong residents had different demographic characteristics, social psychological
attitudes, cultural values, and resources. Ftuthermore, some of this variability was related
to participation. In particular, Hmong who lived with a greater number of adults in their
household were more likely to participate. Men who valued the participation of men over
that of women were also more likely to participate. In addition, residents evaluated the
same avenues of participation as having different levels of cultural relevance, with those
who perceived greater cultural relevance being more likely to participate. Finally, Hmong
residents also possessed different time and awareness resources, which affected their
participation. For these reasons, it was important to look at participation within a specific
group and within a particular context, instead of assuming that all refugees or all Hmong

share the same experiences, characteristics, beliefs, or behaviors.

137

Contextual Variables

The context in which participation occurred was also clearly important. The
majority of evidence for this emerged from the qualitative findings rather than from the
quantitative. Although this may in part be due to the methodological limitations of
measuring context in this study, it also highlights the importance of acquiring an insider
perspective and listening to the voices of marginalized individuals and groups rather than

relying only on our own or the predominant definitions of issues.

 

Intergroup Relations. Although the constraint of having only three sites made it
impossible to detect differences in individuals’ participation due to contextual factors,
intergroup relations was clearly an issue for Hmong residents. Many residents mentioned
problems that they had with their neighbors who were members of other racial and ethnic
groups. Respondents also frequently discussed discrimination that occurred at the
community centers. The existence of intergroup conflict impacted individuals’
participation in several ways. Some residents did not want to participate because of poor
intergroup relations, while others felt that their involvement was not welcomed or valued.
This is consistent with other research which has found that negative intergroup relations
are prevalent in multiethnic communities (e.g., Guthrie & Hutchison, 1995; Merry, 1981)
and that they impede participation (e. g., Guthrie & Hutchison, 1995; Hein, 1995).

Other Contextual Issues. Although intergroup relations was the only contextual
variable measured quantitatively, the importance of other contextual variables was
highlighted in Hmong residents’ qualitative responses. Respondents said that they were
less likely to participate because they were not welcomed or asked to participate, they had

no voice in their communities, they were not informed of events or activities in the

138

community, existing participation opportunities were not always culturally relevant,
appropriate or effective, their communities were not safe, and supports that they needed
to participate, such as translators and childcare, were not provided. We know that
individuals’ participation is related to characteristics of the context in which it occurs
(e.g., Wandersman, 1981; Wandersman & Giamartino, 1980). Therefore, these findings
are consistent with existing research, yet extend our knowledge of the unique contextual
conditions which are relevant in multiethnic communities and for refugees, immigrants,
and other non-English speaking residents.

In conclusion, the findings from this study provide strong support for the
importance of an ecological model. There were clearly both individual and contextual
variables which were important in determining Hmong residents’ participation in their
multiethnic communities. An ecological perspective enabled individual within-group
differences to be revealed and the importance of context to be highlighted.

Different Types of Participation

Another important finding of this study is that different types of participation are
related to different factors. The housing developments had many avenues for formal
participation: resident council, volunteer opportunities, and community center activities
and events. The findings from this study suggest that we cannot assume that each type of
participation requires the same abilities or resources, or is beneficial in the same ways.
Re_sident Council Participation

In this study, participation in the resident council was related to demographic,
cultural, and resource variables. Specifically, residents who had lived in their housing

development community longer, had a greater number of adults in their household, and

139

were more aware of participation opportunities were more likely to participate in the
resident council. In addition, men who held traditional gender norms valuing the
participation of men over that of women were more likely to participate, while women’s
gender norms did not affect their participation.

Most of these results are consistent with the findings regarding overall frequency
of participation: However, the relationship between an individual’s participation and the
length of time he or she has lived at the housing development is unique to resident
involvement. This finding is consistent with research that suggests that individuals who
are more rooted in their communities are more likely to participate (e. g., Devereux,
Bronfenbrenner, & Harding, 1960; Florin, Jones, & Wandersman, 1986; Wandersman,

J akubs, and Giamartino, 1981). Resident council participation was the only form of
participation that was related to this indicator of rootedness. This may be because
individuals who are more attached and rooted in the community may be more likely to be
committed to working to improve their community with other residents through
involvement in the resident council.

Volunteering

Volunteering in the community was related to almost none of the variables
included in this study, probably because it was so rare (the rarest form of formal
participation among Hmong residents), which made it difficult to detect any significant
relationships between it and other variables. However, whether or not Hmong residents
volunteered was strongly related to awareness of participation opportunities, which
suggests that individuals need to know what is going on in their communities in order to

know where or how they can help.

140

Communig; Center Activities

Participation in events and activities at the community centers was also not related
to most factors in this study. This may because resident council participation is most
similar to formal participation studied in other research, while participation in community
center activities is conceptually different. Participation at the community centers was
probably more relevant to accessing resources and opportunities through established
programs than to being involved in decision-making and collective action, which is how
citizen participation is typically defined (Wandersman, 1984). Many different people may
need food, clothing, English classes, and other services. Thus, this type of participation
may be driven more by need than by the desire to be involved in the community. It may
be that none of the variables included in this study distinguish individuals who take
advantage of these programs and services from those who do not because the nature of
their tenancy in the housing developments suggests that many residents have low incomes
and need resources.

However, frequency of community center participation was related to traditional
gender norms. When this relationship was examined separately by gender, it was women
who held traditional gender norms who were more likely to participate frequently at the
community center, rather than men. It may be that Hmong women with traditional gender
norms have had less contact in the broader community and with individuals outside their
culture, and thus may rely more on resources and programs provided at the community
centers. In addition, it seems consistent with traditional gender norms that women go to
the community centers where they can access resources for the home (i.e., food, clothing)

and where programs for their children occur. Hmong men who value the participation of

141

men over that of women may define participation more as attending resident council
meetings where decisions are made, and may not perceive going to the community center
as an important aspect of their role.

Br_eadth of Participation

The number of different ways a resident participated in their community was also
examined in this study. This breadth of participation was related to awareness of
participation opportunities in the community, Hmong residents who were more aware of
participation opportunities were more likely to participate in multiple ways in their
communities. It seems clear that awareness of participation opportunities in the
community allows Hmong residents to know about the many avenues for participation in
their communities and to participate widely.

Breadth of participation was also related to traditional gender norms regarding
participation. However, in this case, both men and women with traditional gender norms
were more likely to participate in multiple ways in their communities. We know that men
with traditional gender norms were more likely to participate in the resident council and
overall in terms of frequency, while women with traditional gender norms were more
likely to participate at the community centers. Thus, because breadth of participation is a
measure of the number of different ways in which residents participate, these gendered
tendencies may have been aggregated in such a way as to capture the higher participation
of both men and women with traditional gender norms, even though it occurred in
different settings.

It is evident from the many different relationships discussed above that

participation is complex and that different forms of formal participation in the community

142

are related to different factors. This is an interesting contribution to our understanding of
participation. Most previous research has focused on neighborhoods with primarily one
avenue of formal participation —— neighborhood voluntary associations (e. g., Wandersman,
Florin, Friedmann, & Meier, 1987; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). However, Williams
and Ortega (1986) found that participation in different types of organizations was related
to different variables. The multiethnic housing developments in this study provided a
unique opportunity to examine many different types of community participation. From
this, we know that different people are attracted to different participation opportunities,
and that different types of participation are more beneficial than others.

In addition, it is clear that some factors are important across most types of
participation. Awareness of participation opportunities was related to many forms of
formal participation and is therefore an essential resource for participation. Having a
greater number of adults in a household seems to be another important resource required
across multiple types of participation. Finally, gender norms are also related to many
types of participation, although in different ways and for different people depending upon
the particular form of participation. This suggests that some factors, particularly
individuals’ resources, may be more globally related to participation, while other factors,
such as individuals’ attitudes and characteristics, are related differently to participation,
depending upon the form it takes.

Given all of these quantitative results, it is important to ask how they correspond
with Hmong residents’ own, descriptions of their participation experiences. Although the
quantitative findings indicate that many Hmong residents were involved in their

communities, they do not reveal the nature of this participation. An important aspect of

143

this study was providing Hmong residents with the opportunity to describe their
participation experiences in their own words.
Listening to the Voices of Hmong Residents

Developing an understanding of the participation experiences of 54 Hmong
refugees from their own perspectives was informative and important. Participation was
clearly something that most Hmong residents wanted, despite the fact that they were
precluded fi'om most meaningful participation opportunities and frustrated by numerous
barriers. This was evident in the quantitative analyses, but was best expressed by
respondents in their own words. When provided with the opportunity, Hmong residents
had a great deal to say about their participation experiences in multiethnic housing
developments.

First, they talked about the importance they placed on community participation.
This is not surprising, given the collective nature of Hmong culture and the emphasis
most place on the community rather than on the individual. The reasons Hmong residents
valued participation were consistent with this in that they discussed the importance of
participation for their community more often than they discussed individual benefits.
They felt that participation was important for the community because it involved working
together, helping others, maintaining good relations among community members, and
being a part of the community. Research in other communities has also found that
participation has numerous community benefits, such as improvements in social,
physical, and economic conditions of neighborhoods (Cassidy, 1980; Florin &
Wandersman, 1990) and increased power and decision-making influence of communities

(Speer & Hughey, 1995). Interestingly, the community benefits mentioned by Hmong

144

residents are different than those found in the literature. These differences could be due
to the inherent value most Hmong place on the community and collective interests, which
may lead to appreciating participation as a process for helping others and working
together with community members, rather than focusing on specific outcomes such as
improved conditions and influence within communities. Again, these findings emphasize
the importance of giving attention to particular individuals, cultures, and contexts
(Trickett, 1996).

Some of the Hmong residents mentioned that they participated both formally in
resident council meetings and community center events and informally by helping their
neighbors and the community. However, more than half of the respondents reported that
they did not participate at all. Given the value they placed on participation, this is
troubling, but not inconsistent with other findings regarding refugee and immigrant
participation (e.g., Guthrie & Hutchison, 1995; Hein, 1995). These findings are also
concerning because participation was related to positive psychological adjustment for
Hmong residents. Thus, many residents were excluded from a potentially beneficial
process.

Many Hmong residents tried to participate and were fi'ustrated by numerous
barriers, but many faced such extensive barriers that they were not even able to participate
at all. What was clear among both of these groups was that almost all of Hmong
residents were precluded from meaning‘id participation in their communities, even the
ones who did participate. Numerous explanations for this exclusion were offered by
Hmong residents. First of all, according to Hmong residents, their communities did not

support their participation. The Hmong residents faced discrimination, they were not

145

welcomed or asked to participate, they were not informed of events or activities in the
community, existing participation opportunities were not always relevant or appropriate,
and supports were not provided that Hmong residents needed to participate. Hmong
residents’ inability to participate was compounded by individual barriers they faced,
including language differences, time constraints, and lack of awareness of participation
opportunities.

Due in part to their difficulties in participating in their communities, Hmong
residents had many unmet needs or desires. These were also probably related to the fact
that existing participation opportunities were often not relevant to Hmong residents’
specific abilities and needs. Thus, when they were actually asked what they wanted,
Hmong residents’ ideas were prolific. They hoped for individual opportunities for
development, community enhancements, improved intergroup relations, increased
opportunities for their children, and additional material assistance. Although the research
on refugee adaptation is extensive, the focus is rarely on what refugees themselves want,
but more often on predefined areas of adaptation (i.e., economic, psychological, social,
cultural). However, from this study it is clear that the needs and wants of a refirgee group
often do not match the existing opportunities in the community.

Residents recognized that education was essential to their ability to thrive in the
United States and therefore expressed their hope for many educational opportunities.
This is important because education is a resource that is related to the positive adjustment
of refirgees (e.g., Rumbaut, 1996) and that opens up the possibilities and choices of all
people in the United States. Residents’ request for education also suggests that they are

not able to access existing educational opportunities in the Lansing community, such as

146

adult education. It would be important to explore the barriers that may be preventing
Hmong residents fi'om taking advantage of these opportunities, which might include lack
of transportation, childcare, and awareness.

Hmong residents also valued recreation opportunities and many recognized the
potential benefits of these types of activities for their own and other adults’ well-being
and health. The development of fun, recreational activities could be an avenue for
bringing people of different groups together in the community in a positive way, rather
than having participation opportunities that only address problems or individual deficits.
However, residents were aware of problems in the community, such as safety issues and
unresponsive managers at each development, which they hoped could be improved. They
also very much wanted ways in which to improve relations among community members.
Hmong residents did not merely complain about discrimination and harassment, but
wanted to work to end it and to improve intergroup relations. Individuals’ perceptions of
problems in their community have been found to be positively related to their
participation (e. g., Wandersman, Florin, Friedmann & Meier, 1987; Wandersman, J akubs
& Giamartino, 1981), which suggests that Hmong residents’ awareness of problems could
be a catalyst for their participation. It would be important to investigate in firture research
how residents’ desires to address community problems could be incorporated into
relevant participation opportunities.

Opportunities for their children were also very important to Hmong residents.
This would be expected, given that many refirgees and irnrrrigrants are aware that they
may never develop the language and other skills that their children will. Children learn

new languages more rapidly and adjust much more quickly to a new society than adults

147

(Rumbaut, 1991a). Therefore, many parents often feel that their children’s potential is
much greater than their own. Many Hmong parents also struggle with discipline issues in
the United States. As Hmong children become “Americanized”, their respect for their
parents is often diminished. Many children of refugees and immigrants recognize that
their parents are not as able to negotiate the new culture in the same way that the children
themselves are, and therefore may feel it is less important to listen to what their parents
have to say. In addition, most Hmong parents know that the physical discipline strategies
employed by many of them in Laos are not acceptable in the United States, but these
parents are often not made aware of alternatives, and thus feel that their hands are tied
when it comes to disciplining their children. It is likely that, for all of these reasons,
many Hmong parents requested classes that could teach their children to be good people.
It is important to understand the context from which this request arises as discussed
above. With such an understanding, the request for classes to teach their children to be
good people appears to involve a desire for programs that Hmong parents could
participate in to learn new discipline and parenting techniques. This might also be an
example of a program that could unite members of different ethnic groups in coming
together to focus on common concerns — their children.

Finally, many Hmong residents had material needs, such as food, clothing, and
school supplies. This is to be expected in low-income communities and should be
addressed through attempts to bring those material resources into the community or
connect residents with organizations and opportunities that can help residents meet their

needs. All of the unmet needs discussed by Hmong residents are important to understand

148

because relevant participation opportunities and community programs will consider these
desires and include them.
Defining Participation

This study also illustrated the importance of thinking about whom defines the
particular phenomenon targeted in research. In this study, it was evident that the Hmong
residents interviewed defined participation differently than the researcher. In the
qualitative open-ended section of the interview, 52% of respondents reported that they did
not participate in their communities. However, when residents were subsequently asked
about specific types of formal participation as defined by the researcher, such as going to
the community center, volunteering, and being involved with the resident council, only
41 % indicated that they did not participate at all in the community.

This discrepancy may be because some Hmong residents did not seem to define
going to the community center as participation unless the activities they engaged in there
also involved helping others. It also seemed that many Hmong residents did not really
feel that they participated in or were a part of the community when they were initially
asked the open-ended questions about their community involvement. However, when
they were asked later in the quantitative section about specific activities, they realized that
they were involved in some of them.

As researchers, it is important to recognize that phenomena we study are usually
understood and conceptualized differently by different people (e.g., Foster-Fishman,
Salem, Chibnall, Legler & Yapchai, 1998). We cannot assume that our definitions of
phenomena or our perspectives as researchers are at all congruent with those of our

participants. In fact, we can usually be fairly confident that we do not have shared

149

meanings or ideas, unless we work to develop these together with our research
participants (Kingry—Westergaard & Kelly, 1990). Thus, this incongruency between the
quantitative and qualitative data supports the idea that it is essential to let research
participants’ voices be heard and not to let researchers’ assumptions be the basis for all of
the research questions (Trickett, 1996). Therefore, although it is important to know
quantitatively how many Hmong residents were participating and what factors were
related to their participation, our understanding would be incomplete and perhaps
misleading if we also did not hear how Hmong residents defined their own involvement
and how frustrating and often meaningless much of their participation was.
Experiencing Participatiorrpla Meaningful and Empowering

Although more than half of Hmong residents interviewed did participate in their
communities, their descriptions of these participation experiences indicate that this
involvement was not necessarily meaningful or empowering. For instance, when
residents tried to participate and make suggestions, they usually felt excluded by language
differences and other barriers. They reported that the ideas they offered were not listened
to or acted upon. In addition, the prevalent discrimination and harassment mentioned by
residents was not reflected in the intergroup relations surveys filled out by leaders and key
staff at the housing developments. This discrepancy between the intergroup relations
problems experienced by Hmong residents and made known to staff reflects a major
problem and suggests that the voices and concerns of Hmong residents were not heard in
their multiethnic communities.

Many researchers have found it useful to conceptualize the positive outcomes of

participation within a framework of empowerment (e. g. Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988,

150

Zimmerman, 1995). This is primarily because there is considerable evidence that
participation in voluntary organizations can be an empowering process through which
participants develop higher competencies and self-confidence, and lower feelings of
helplessness (Florin & Wandersman, 1984; Zimmerman & Rappaport, 1988;
Zimmerman, 1995). However, if Hmong residents cannot report their problems to
housing development staff, they will not feel that they have control or influence in their
communities. Whether it is because they do not feel able to communicate as a result of
language differences or because they are frustrated with their managers and feel that it is
futile to report incidents of discrimination and harassment, they are clearly embedded in
contexts which do not support their empowerment. This disempowerrnent is also
reflected in Hmong residents’ responses to a particular question in the overall sense of
community scale, which states, “If I want something to change at (housing development),
I can help make it happen.” Almost 54% of Hmong residents said that this statement was
true for them never or rarely.

Taken together, the barriers faced by Hmong residents, their inability to report
problems, their lack of voice in the community, and their beliefs that they could not effect
change in their communities suggest that the settings in which they live were not
empowering and that they themselves were not empowered. Specifically, Hmong
residents usually lacked the skills (language ability), knowledge (awareness of
participation opportunities), and political efficacy (belief that they could make change)
which are considered to be essential aspects of psychological empowerment
(Zimmerman, 1995). Furthermore, their communities not only failed to foster the

development of any of these abilities, but also often served to silence their voices.

151

For Hmong residents, these conditions suggest that an empowering setting would
need to offer several opportunities. First, residents need opportunities to improve their
English skills so they can participate in their communities in whatever ways they chose
(e. g., formally, informally, socially, politically). They also need opportunities to define
meaningful collective action as a community, to be heard by their communities, and to
understand their potential roles in the democratic process in the United States. Providing
these opportunities would be an important step towards making meaningful and
empowering participation possible for Hmong residents.

Implications for Practitioners

Given that Hmong residents’ participation in their multiethnic communities was
not necessarily meaningful or empowering, yet was linked to their positive adjustment
and valued by them, it is important to consider what the implications of these findings are
for practitioners. As citizens in a country of immigrants, 'we all recognize to some extent
the struggles that refugees face to adjust to a new country. However, most of us do not
have a real understanding of this experience. Despite good intentions, the ways in which
many environments in our society preclude the participation of refugees and other people
with limited English ability is not evident to most of us. Because it is so easy to be
oblivious to and ignorant of the challenges refugees often face, we have to listen to what
they have to say and respect the uniqueness of their experiences. Listening to Hmong
residents about their attempts to participate, what services and activities they wanted their
community centers to offer and how they wanted to change their communities was an
important step in this process. Needs assessments are another mechanism through which

communities can find out what is important and relevant for their residents.

152

We cannot rely on the opinions of people who work with particular refugee
groups because we clearly cannot assume that staff or other outsiders understand Hmong
refugees’ experiences or the experiences of any refugee individuals or groups. However,
it is also important to remember that individuals cannot speak for or represent an entire
group. The within-group differences found in this study and the different experiences
described by Hmong residents illustrate that it is inappropriate to expect one Hmong
refugee to represent Hmong culture or the experiences of all Hmong refugees.

The findings of this study also emphasize the importance of recognizing the
strengths within a particular group or community. For instance, almost all of the Hmong
respondents valued community participation, probably in part because of the collective
orientation of their culture. Thus the potential for collective action is great, if it were
built upon this fundamental value. Hmong collective, clan-based culture and their shared
history also provide an incredibly extensive and strong support system, which, among
other benefits, has shown to be a protective factor for poor Hmong youth (Call & McNall,
1992). These strengths should be incorporated into a model of participation and the
creation of relevant participation opportunities. Often, research and interventions not
only fail to incorporate the strengths of the target communities, but actually work against
them. An example cited by Strawn (1994) is a perinatal outreach and education program
whose goal was to empower low-income women from diverse backgrounds by providing
them with access to resources and a social support network. Strawn states that, “the
social organization of disempowerrnent was embedded in the macro-environment and
filtered down to the interpersonal interactions between well-intentioned helpers and

communities” (p. 172). She attributes this to an emphasis on individual empowerment

153

that was counter to many of the women’s cultures, such as Southeast Asian and Latina
cultures.

Although the intervention was structured with careful attention to superficial
cultural and linguistic issues (i.e., the program included bilingual case workers, the
translation of all materials, and the recruitment of individuals in their own communities),
the researchers inadvertently imposed individual constructs of empowerment on
communities which had strengths (strong social support networks and collective
ideologies), which should have been incorporated into any effort to enable the women to
meet their needs and exercise control over their lives. Any intervention designed to
facilitate participation of the Hmong in multiethnic communities must be developed with
careful attention to the unique attributes of the Hmong.

The findings in this study also suggest that we should not assume that a lack of
presence in community settings means a lack of interest. Although many Hmong
residents did not participate in their communities very much, most wanted to be more
involved. Thus, it is also essential to pay attention to the unique supports individuals and
groups need to participate (e. g., do not use fliers to notify residents of events if almost
50% of targeted group is illiterate). As discussed below, providing appropriate supports
is an important part of addressing the barriers to participation faced by Hmong residents.
Addressing Barriers to Participation

Clearly, Hmong residents experience numerous barriers to their participation in
their multiethnic housing developments, including: language, lack of awareness, time
constraints, and discrimination and poor intergroup relations. These barriers can be

addressed from both individual and community perspectives. Most often, we focus on

154

about individuals’ deficits, what they need to acquire or do. However, it is important to
avoid placing most or all of the responsibility for participation on individual community
members because barriers within the larger community often preclude participation.
Community barriers exist if communities are not accommodating to the needs of its
residents, or if different groups have different access to opportunities to participate
(Williams & Ortega, 1986). These include both constraints that exist solely at the
community level and those that could be addressed by the community even if they might
also be solved at the individual level.

Community barriers to participation are often failures within the community to
provide appropriate supports to overcome what may appear to be individual issues. For
instance, language barriers can be an individual obstacle, but should also be considered at
the community level, and in some cases, might be more effectively addressed from a
community perspective. Jong (1989) recognized the importance of language, and found
that organizing ethnically-based groups was initially necessary to provide opportunities
for participation to immigrants who were marginalized members of a community and
who were not fluent in the native language. This might be an important initial step
towards broader participation which could be explored at the housing developments in
this study. Guthrie and Hutchinson (1995) examined interaction and participation among
African Americans and Asian Americans at a housing development in San Francisco.
They noted that there were almost never any translators at community meetings and that
there was little effort by the staff at the community center in the project to include Asian

Americans in activities or programs. These barriers resulted in minimal participation in

155

community meetings and at the community center by Asian Americans. Unfortunately,
the circumstances at the three sites in this study parallel these findings.

Other community barriers include scheduling meetings at times that are
inconvenient for many residents and not providing childcare for residents with young
children. In order to address all of these barriers, communities must provide
opportunities for all residents to communicate the types of programs and services they are
able and interested in participating in and find effective ways to communicate the time,
place, and accessibility of events. Jong (1989) suggests that in situations in which
linguistic and cultural barriers are large, establishing ethnically-based groups may be
necessary to achieve greater participation and involvement of marginalized members of
the community.

Another major community barrier is poor intergroup relations and discrimination
against certain community members. Hmong residents stated that the discrimination and
negative relations among members of different ethnic groups discouraged and precluded
their participation. Why is it so important to consider intergroup relations and
discrimination? Participation in contexts of inequality is not empowering (Gruber &
Trickett, 1987). Inherent within settings that are characterized by negative intergroup
relations and discrimination is the unequal treatment of community members. Intergroup
relations has recently received significant attention in empowerment research. From the
standpoint of positive intergroup relations, Riger (1993) was one of the first to emphasize
that connection and cooperation among individuals and groups are important, and should

not be sacrificed for empowerment of specific individuals or groups over others. She

156

argued that empowerment has traditionally been shaped by individualistic values and
threatens to obscure the importance of sense of community and collective interests.

Fortunately, there is research which addresses contexts in which cooperation and
empowerment are not mutually exclusive, and where positive intergroup relations can
lead to the development of sense of community and participation and involvement of
community members who belong to different groups. Research by Bond and Keys
(1993) and Bartunek, F oster-Fishman, and Keys (1996) has shown that coempowerment,
defined as more than one group having decision-making power and influence in a given
situation, is possible when an organizational culture (or other context) that “supports (a)
the groups’ capacity for meaningful inclusion and (b) each group’s access to resources.”
(Bond & Keys, 1993, p. 40) is created.

Both Bond and Keys’ and Bartunek, Foster-Fishman, and Keys’ studies have
important implications for participation in multiethnic communities. They emphasize
strengthening within-group structures and affiliations, while also focusing on common
goals and issues. It is probably especially important to maintain the separate integrity of
groups constructed around race, and immigrant or refugee status. Members of these
groups often have very strong connections with their culture and salient reasons for
maintaining their cultural identities, which may be threatened by the hegemony of
“American” culture. Yet, individuals living in the same community, neighborhood, or
housing development must also recognize their interdependencies, especially when
limited resources require collective action. Therefore, participation opportunities which

focus specifically on Hmong residents, as well as those which encourage participation

157

and equal treatment among all residents, are both important. Otherwise, poor intergroup
relations are likely to preclude participation.

Too often the majority of the responsibility to overcome the barriers discussed
above is placed on individuals. However, communities can be proactive in creating
settings which facilitate participation by providing translators at meetings, posting fliers
and announcements in the native language of residents, creating alternative non-written
processes for notifying residents of events, providing childcare, taking action to reduce
prejudices, and making other accommodations. Often the individuals who have more
influence and ability to negotiate the system in settings where refugee participation has
the potential to occur, think they cannot do anything to remove or diminish these barriers,
and therefore leave it all up to those who understand the system the least. For instance, at
the housing developments, fliers that notify residents of the meetings were always in
English. Although staff were aware that many Hmong and other refugees who live there
could not read English and often were not literate in their native languages, there was no
attempt to translate fliers or notify residents in alternative ways. In addition, translators
were never provided at resident council meetings. Without these supports, this study has
shown that the important contributions of many community members are lost.
Recognizing Individual Agency and Strengths

Despite the emphasis here on the context and community barriers, it is also
important to recognize Hmong and other refugee groups as being comprised of active,
resilient individuals. Most Hmong and other refugees have survived and overcome
difficult circumstances; they are not helpless victims. The Hmong have faced challenges,

but have continued to actively work towards their own positive adjustment. They have

158

created mutual assistance associations in their communities so that they are not dependent
only on others for help. They have worked hard to preserve many aspects of their
traditional culture, and, as clearly evidenced in this study, they want to get involved in
their communities and share their knowledge and ideas. However, they need
communities ready to accommodate them and opportunities to develop the skills they
need to meaningfully participate. As one Hmong man said:

“If I understood English, I have things that I know, that I would like to change,

that I would like to make happen, but I can’t share them so I just keep them to

myself. Things like how to get along with each other and how to provide for our

families. I have a lot of opinions about these things and a lot of other things.”

The Hmong have much to contribute to the United States. One example of
potential contributions is the value they place on community. Jason and Kobayashi
(1995) cite Stein (1960) as linking a decline in sense of community to the urbanization
and industrialization of our society. The resettlement of the Hmong in the United States
is an interesting juxtaposition of two times and two cultures - they are pre-Industrial, rural
people, who have never before faced threats to their sense of community like
industrialization and individually-oriented U.S. culture. It is important to consider how
the strengths of their experiences and community cohesiveness could be preserved and
built upon to promote their own adjustment and enable them to become integrated into
their communities.

Limitations
One of the limitations of this study is that it is based on the assumption that the

link between participation and positive outcomes such as positive adjustment,

empowerment and community integration are relevant for the Hmong. As Trickett

159

(1996) points out, “Only through an investigation of phenomena in varying contexts can
we discern what is universal and what is culture- or setting-specific, and then only at a
particular historical moment” (p.214). However, many aspects of Hmong culture and the
specific circumstances of Hmong refugees’ resettlement in the United States suggest that,
although participation might not lead to individual empowerment for Hmong newcomers,
it may contribute to other important positive outcomes including a sense of collective
empowerment, integration in their new communities, increased English language ability
and other skills that might help them in their adjustment process, and connections to
community resources. This study examined and found a positive relationship between
participation and psychological adjustment for the Hmong, but because the information
obtained was based on interviews at a single point in time, the direction of this
relationship remains unclear. However, it should be noted that Hmong residents
identified both individual and community reasons why participation was important to
them. This suggests that participation is valued by the Hmong respondents. It would be
important in filture investigations to further examine, via longitudinal research, how
participation is related to adjustment and other positive outcomes for Hmong in
multiethnic communities.

It is also important to consider a related assumption underlying this study — that
participation in the broader community is the preferred mechanism for refugee
adjustment. Instead, it may be most important, after the disruption and relocation in
refugees’ lives, to strengthen their own communities first. Some researchers suggest that
the focus of programs and policies designed to facilitate refugee adjustment should be on

helping refugees rebuild their own communities (Athey & Ahearn, 1991). It may be that

160

this within-group community building is a precondition to being ready to meaningfully
participate in the larger community. This is exactly what Jong (1989) found in a
community that first created ethnically-based groups which, over time, enabled refugees
and immigrants to become involved in the broader community. However, decisions
about whether to focus participation within one’s own ethnic group or in the broader
community should be based upon wishes expressed by refugee individuals and groups
themselves.

It is also important to consider the relevance of the participation opportunities
explored in this study to Hmong residents. Are the avenues to community involvement
which are available in the community centers at the housing developments effective in
improving Hmong residents’ lives? Or would different types of collective action be more
worthwhile for them? It is possible that participation could have been more broadly
defined in this study, or that other forms of participation exist that are more beneficial.
This would be important to explore in future investigations.

Another potential limitation of this study is the weak psychometric properties of
some of the scales. Five variables were single-item measures (the three dimensions of
acculturation, and cultural and gender norms about participation). In addition, several
scales had somewhat low reliabilities. Therefore, the ability to detect significant
relationships between participation and many of the variables may have been
compromised. Correction for attenuation ameliorated this problem for scales with lower
than optimal reliabilities, but there was no method that could compensate for the single-

item measures.

161

Finally, the sample size of the study is limited by the small number of Hmong
households at one of the housing developments and the need to conduct interviews with a
similar number of households at each site. This small sample size limited the power of
statistical analyses which were performed with the data. However, this limitation was
balanced by the in-depth interviews a small sample size allowed, given the resources
available.

m

By using an ecological perspective to examine participation in context, this study
improved our understanding of participation in multiethnic communities and the
participation experiences of refugees and immigrants in general, and more specifically of
the Hmong. Hmong refugees very much wanted to be involved in their multiethnic
communities and struggled to do so, but were often precluded from meaningful
participation by individual and community barriers. Most significantly, they lacked the
language, time, and awareness resources that would enable them to participate. In
addition, no supports to address these issues existed in their communities. However,
Hmong residents who did participate seemed to benefit in terms of improved
psychological adjustment.

In addition to contributing to the literature on participation, improved awareness
of these issues is essential for designing effective programs or interventions that facilitate
participation. An essential component of such programs would be diminishing or
removing the numerous barriers experienced by refugees and others residents in
multiethnic communities. It is also important to develop methods for carefully

documenting the particular context in which an intervention will occur, so that other

162

researchers can make informed decisions about which aspects of past work are relevant to
their targeted community. We cannot afford to ignore participation in multiethnic
communities and the participation experiences of refugees, not only because of the
potential benefits to individuals and the community, but also because it is a mechanism
for bringing people together in multiethnic community organizations. It is only through
such efforts that the growing ethnic/racial tensions and conflicts that have accompanied
the diversification of communities can be addressed and that refugees can be accepted
into their new communities and allowed to make valuable contributions that will surely

benefit us all.

163

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

RESIDENT INTERVIEW

Background Questions

The first few questions are about yourself and your family.

A1. What is your marital status?
1- [1 single (never been married)
2- [I married
3- E1 divorced
4- I] separated
5- El widowed
A2. Gender:
1- 1] male 2- 1] female
A3. How old are you?
A4. When did you move to LaRoy Froh?
month year

A5. When did you move to the US?
month ___year
A6. How many children do you have?
__ children

A7. How many people live in your house
now?

people

A8. How many people who live in your
house now are over 18 years old?

people

164

A9. How are these people related to
you?

A10. Did you attend school in Laos or
Thailand?
0- I] no 1- [1 yes

All. How many years of formal
schooling did you have in Laos or

Thailand?

A12. Have you attended school in the
US?
0- [1 no 1- D yes

A13. What is the highest degree you
have received in the United States?

1- El none

2- III high school diploma/GED

3- El Vocational/Technical degree

4- El B.A./B.S.

5- El Graduate degree (please specify):

 

Al4a. Do you currently work?
0- [I no 1- El yes

A14b. If so, what do you
do?

 

Al4c. If so, how many hours per week?

A15a. Are you currently in school?
0- [I no 1- 1:] yes

Ale. If so, what type of
school?

A15c. If so, how many hours per week?

A16. Instead of working, do you mostly
take care of your children?

0- I] no 1- [1 yes
A17. What is your native language?

1- Cl Hmong
2- C] Other

 

A18. What language do you most often
speak at home?

1- E] Hmong
2- [:1 English
3- C] Other

 

A19. What language do you most often
speak outside your home?

1- El Hmong
2- [:1 English
3- El Other

 

A20. Can you read Hmong?
0- [1 no 1- [:1 yes
A21. Can you write Hmong?

0- 1:] no 1- 1] yes

A22. Can you read English?
0- [II no 1- El yes
A23. Can you write English?
0- C] no 1- D yes
A24. Where were you born?
1- [1 Laos
2- 1] Thailand

3- D United States
4- 1] Other

 

A25. How long do you and your family
plan to live at LaRoy Froh?

1- [1 would like to move as soon as
possible

2- [I hope to move in the next year

3- [:1 hope to move in next two years

4- I] hope to move in next five years

5- El we have no plans to move

6- I] don’t know

A26. How satisfied are you with living
at LaRoy Froh?

1- 1:] very dissatisfied

2- E] dissatisfied

3- E] somewhat dissatisfied
4- l] somewhat satisfied

5- El satisfied

6- [I very satisfied

A27. If you could change anything about
LaRoy F roh, what would you change?

Participation
Now, I’d like to talk to you about the activities you are involved with at LaRoy F roh.
B 1. You live here at LaRoy Froh. How do you participate in this community? In what

ways do you help out (your neighbors, the community)? What activities are you involved
in here? What meetings do you go to?

B2. Would you like to be more involved in the community here? 0- [I no 1- 1] yes
B3. In what ways do you want to be more involved?

B4. Do you think your participation here in the community is important? O-D no l-El yes
B5. Why or why not?

B6. In the last year, how many resident council meetings have you attended?

B7. Do you hold an elected or appointed position on the resident council?
0- Cl no 1- [II yes (please describe):

166

 

B8. Did you vote in the last resident council election? 0- I] no 1- [1 yes

B9. Does someone in your household other than you attend resident council meetings?
0- [1 no 1- [1 yes

810. If yes, how often?

 

B11. How are you related to this person?

 

812. Does anyone in your household other than you have an elected or appointed position
on the resident council?
0- C] no 1- E1 yes (please describe):

 

B13. If so, who?

 

B l 4. Did anyone else in your household vote in the last resident council election?
0- I] no 1- [1 yes

BIS. If so, who?

 

I am interested in reasons that may make it difficult for you to attend resident council
meetings. Please tell me whether the following are problems for you or not.

 

 

 

 

 

B16. Do you know what resident council meetings are? 0- [I] no 1- E] yes

B17. Do you have time to attend resident council meetings? 0- C! no 1- [1 yes

B18. Do you speak English well enough to attend resident 0— [:1 no 1- El yes
council meetings?

819. Do you think resident council meetings are important for 0- [1 no 1- 1:] yes

yourself or other Hmong people?

 

B20. Do you know when or where resident council meetings are 0- I] no 1- [3 yes

 

 

held?

B21. Do you understand what people are saying at resident 0- I] no 1- 1] yes
council meetings when everyone is speaking English?

822. Do you think that participating in the resident council is 0- 13 no 1- 1:] yes

worthwhile for Hmong people?

 

823. Are you able to attend resident council meetings at the time 0- [:1 no 1- [:1 yes

 

 

 

they are scheduled?

B24. Are there other reasons that make it difficult for you to 0- 1:] no 1- El yes
attend? What are they?

B25. Other #2: 0- 1:] no 1- CI yes

 

 

 

167

B26. How often do you go to the community center?

 

B27. What do you do at the community center? (check all that apply)

1- III I do not go to the community center.

2- [I Use the computers in the Computer Learning Center

3- [3 Attend special programs or events (for example, Thanksgiving potluck or
Martin Luther King, Jr. Celebration)

4- [I Study English

5- El Attend health education classes

6- D Other

7- [1 Other

 

 

B28a. In the last year, have you helped to plan or organize any events, services, or
activities at the community center? 0- El no 1- 1:] yes
B28b. If so, how many?

 

B29a. In the last year, have you donated time or materials to help with events or
services at the community center? 0- C] no 1- II] yes
B29b. If so, for how many events?

 

I am interested in reasons that may make it difficult for you to take advantage of services
or resources at the community center. Please tell me whether the following are problems
for you are not.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

B30. Do you know about the activities and services at the 0- [I no 1- D yes
community center?

B31. Do you speak English well enough to participate in 0- [1 no l- [:1 yes
everything that you would like to at the community center?

B32. Do you have time to go to the community center? 0- [1 no 1- [1 yes

B33. Does the community center have activities or services 0- [I] no 1- [1 yes
that are interesting for Hmong people?

B34. Do you know what day or time things happen at the 0- C] no 1- [1 yes
community center?

B35. Does the community center have activities or services 0- [1 no 1- [1 yes
that are appropriate for Hmong people?

B36. Is it difficult to go to the community center because 0- El no 1- El yes
everything that happens there is in English?

B37. Are you busy during the hours when the community center 0- C] no 1- El yes
is open?

B38. Are there other reasons you don’t go to the community 0- [I no 1- [:1 yes
center? What are they?

B39. Other #2: 0- 1:] no 1- El yes

 

 

 

168

B40. Would you be interested in studying ESL at your community center?
0- [I] no 1- 1] yes

B41. How often would you like to study?

 

B42. Are you a US. citizen? 0- [3 no 1- [:1 yes

B43. Would you be interested in taking citizenship classes at your community center?
0- El no 1- [1 yes

B44. What times are convenient for you to study?

B45. What programs, activities, or services would you like the community center to offer
for you or your children?

Hmong Community Participation
I am also interested in how you are involved with the Hmong community in Lansing.

C1. How often do you attend Hmong meetings in Lansing?

 

C2. Do you hold an elected position in the Hmong community? 0- [3 no 1- [3 yes

C3. If so, what is it?

 

C4. Does anyone else in your household attend Hmong meetings in Lansing?
0- [1 no 1- [3 yes

C5. If so, who?

 

C6. Does he/she have an elected position in the Hmong community? 0- D no 1- 13 yes

C7. If so, what is it?

 

C8. How often do you attend Hmong New Year?

 

C9. How often do you attend the Hmong annual picnic?
1 69

 

Sense of Community in Housing Development

I am interested in what you think about LaRoy F roh. Please think about the whole
community (all of the residents - White, Black, Hmong, Vietnamese, Latino) when
answering these questions. Decide if you think each statement is true never, rarely,
sometimes, often, most of the time, or all of the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never Rarely Some- Olten Most of All of
Times the time the time
D1. 1 am willing to help my neighbors or other 0 l 2 3 4 5
residents at LaRoy F roh when they need help.
D2. It is easy to make friends and meet people at 0 1 2 3 4 5
LaRoy F roh.
D3. If I want something to change at LaRoy Froh, 0 l 2 3 4 5
I can help make it happen.
D4. The beliefs of residents at LaRoy Froh O l 2 3 4 5
sometimes affect my opinions and actions.
D5. My values are similar to the values of the 0 l 2 3 4 5
other residents of LaRoy Froh.
D6. 1 usually stop and talk with other residents of 0 1 2 3 4 5
LaRoy F roh when I see them.
D7. I feel like I belong here at LaRoy F roh. 0 l 2 3 4 5
D8. Residents at LaRoy Froh are good at working 0 l 2 3 4 5
together to solve problems.

 

Within-Group Sense of Community

I am also interested in what you think about the other Hmong people who live at LaRoy
Froh. Please decide whether you think each statement is true never, rarely, sometimes,
often, most of the time, or all of the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Never Rarely Some- Often Most of Aiol‘
times the time the time
D9. I am willing to help other Hmong people 0 l 2 3 4 5
when they need help.
D10. It is easy to make friends and meet other 0 l 2 3 4 5
Hmong people at LaRoy Froh.
D11. If Iwant something to change for the Hmong 0 l 2 3 4 5
at LaRoy F roh, I can help make it happen.
D12. The beliefs of other Hmong at LaRoy Froh 0 l 2 3 4 5
sometimes affect my opinions and actions.
D13. My values are similar to the values of the O 1 2 3 4 5
other Hmong at LaRoy Froh.
D14. I usually stop and talk with other Hmong O 1 2 3 4 5
people at LaRoy F roh when 1 see them.
D15. I feel like I belong when I’m with other Hmong O 1 2 3 4 5
at LaRoy Froh.
D16. Hmong residents at LaRoy Froh are good at O 1 2 3 4 5
working together to solve problems.

 

170

 

 

Adjustment

Now I have a few questions about your life in the last month.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the last month, hOW often... Never Rarely Some- Often Most of All of
times the time the time

E1. Have you felt under strain, stress, pressure? 0 l 2 3 4 5

E2. Have you felt cheerful and light-hearted? 0 l 2 3 4 5

E3. Have you felt anxious, worried, upset? 0 l 2 3 4 5

E4. Has your daily life been full of things that 0 l 2 3 4 5
Were interesting to you?

E5. Have you felt sad, discouraged, hopeless, 0 l 2 3 4 5
worthless?

E6. Have you felt happy or satisfied with your 0 1 2 3 4 5
present life?

 

 

 

Culture

I also have a few questions about living in America.

 

Please tell me how much you agree or
disagree with the following six questions.

Disagree

Agree

Strongly Disagree Somewhat Somewhat Agree Strongly
Disagree

Agree

 

E7. The schools should help our children
learn American ways of behaving and

become more like the American children in
the neighborhood.

 

E8. We may adapt ourselves to American
society in order to earn a living, but we must
stay together as a group to preserve our own
culture.

 

E9. The American way of life may be good
for others, but not for me.

 

E10. It is important for me to be involved in
activities here in my community.

 

 

E11. It is more appropriate for men to
participate in the community than for women.

 

 

English Language Abilig

I also want to ask you a few questions to find out how much English you know. First, I’ll
ask you each question in English. Try to answer the question in English if you can. If
you don’t understand the question, then I will ask you in Hmong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Comprehension Speaking
F1. How old are you? 0- [3 no 1- E] yes 0- I] no 1- El yes
F2. How many daughters do you have? 0- [:1 no 1- 1:] yes 0- [I no 1- [1 yes
F3. How long have you lived in the United 0- I] no 1- 1:] yes 0- I] no 1- El yes
States?
F4. Tell me the places you have lived in 0- [1 no 1- [:1 yes 0- D no 1- El yes
the United States.
F5. Did you vote in the last election? 0- C] no 1- [:1 yes 0- C] no 1- [1 yes

 

 

 

171

 

 

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

MANAGER SURVEY

As communities in the United States are becoming increasingly integrated and diverse,
members of different racial and ethnic groups have more opportunities to interact with
each other. Specifically, I am interested in the relations among residents who live in
multiethnic communities and the impact these relations have on community involvement.
As the manager of LaRoy Froh housing development, you are able to observe the
interactions and relations among the residents here. Based on your experience, please
indicate your level of agreement with each of the following statements.

 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Dim Disagree Disagree Agree Agree fl

 

1. African Americans, Caucasians,
Latinos and Asian Americans all get 1 2 3 4 5 6
along together at LaRoy Froh.

 

2. The residents of LaRoy Froh treat each

 

other the same, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

3. Most Asian/Asian American people at
LaRoy Froh get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6

other than with other residents.

 

4. Most of the problems among residents
at LaRoy Froh are between people who 1 2 3 4 5 6
belong to the same ethnic group.

 

5. The residents of LaRoy Froh respect

 

each other, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
etlmicity.

6. Most African American people at
LaRoy Froh get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6

other than with other residents.

 

7. Most of the problems among residents
at LaRoy Froh are between people who 1 2 3 4 5 6
are members of different races or ethnic

groups.

 

8. Residents of LaRoy F roh interact
mostly with other people in their ethnic 1 2 3 4 5 6

group.

 

9. The residents of LaRoy Froh are
accepting of each other, regardless of 1 2 3 4 5 6
race or ethnicity.

 

 

 

 

172

 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

 

10. Most Caucasian people at LaRoy Froh

 

get along better with each other than 1 2 3 4 5 6
with other residents.

11. Relations among residents at LaRoy
Froh between residents of different 1 2 3 4 5 6

racial and ethnic groups are good.
12. Most Latino people at LaRoy Froh get

 

 

along better with each other than with l 2 3 4 5 6
other residents

13. One of the biggest problems at LaRoy
Froh is relations among residents of 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

 

different races or ethnic groups.

 

13. What is the total number of resident incident reports at LaRoy Froh in the last three
months?

incidents
14. Of these incidents, how many involved problems between residents of two or more
racial or ethnic groups (as opposed to a problem among residents of the same racial or

ethnic group)?

incidents

Thank you for your time and assistance!

173

 

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX C

AMERICORPS/VISTA VOLUNTEER SURVEY

As communities in the United States are becoming increasingly integrated and diverse,
members of different racial and ethnic groups have more opportunities to interact with
each other. I am interested in the relations among residents who live in multiethnic
communities and the impact these relations have on community involvement. As an
AmeriCorpsNISTA volunteer, you have spent a lot of time at Mt.Vemon, Hildebrandt,
and LaRoy Froh and have had the chance to observe the interactions and relations among
the residents at all three sites. Based on your experience, please indicate your level of
agreement with each of the following statements.

 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

 

1. Afi'ican Americans, Caucasians,
Latinos, and Asian Americans all get 1 2 3 4 5 6
along together at LaRoy Froh.

 

2. Afiican Americans, Caucasians,
Latinos, and Asian Americans all get 1 2 3 4 5 6
along together at Mt. Vernon.

 

3. African Americans, Caucasians,
Latinos, and Asian Americans all get 1 2 3 4 5 6
along together at Hildebrandt.

 

4. The residents of LaRoy Froh treat each
other the same, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

 

5. The residents of Mt. Vernon treat each
other the same, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

 

6. The residents of Hildebrandt treat each
other the same, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

 

7. Most Asian/Asian American people at
LaRoy Froh get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6
other than with other residents.

 

8. Most Asian /Asian American people at
Mt. Vernon get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6
other than with other residents.

 

9. Most Asian /Asian American people at
Hildebrandt get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6
other than with other residents.

 

 

 

 

174

 

Stroneg Somewhat Somewhat
Dlsafle Disagree Disagree Agree

Agree

Stroneg
Aim

 

10.

Most of the problems among residents
at LaRoy Froh are between people who
belong to the same ethnic group.

1 2 3 4

5

6

 

11.

Most of the problems among residents
at Mt. Vernon are between people who
belong to the same ethnic group.

 

12.

Most of the problems among residents
at Hildebrandt are between people who
belong to the same ethnic group.

 

13.

The residents of LaRoy Froh respect
each other, regardless of race or
ethnicity.

 

14.

The residents of Mt. Vernon respect
each other, regardless of race or
ethnicity.

 

15.

The residents of Hildebrandt respect
each other, regardless of race or
ethnicity.

 

16.

Most African American people at
LaRoy Froh get along better with each
other than with other residents.

 

17.

Most African American people at Mt.
Vernon get along better with each other
than with other residents.

 

18.

Most African American people at
Hildebrandt get along better with each
other than with other residents.

 

19.

Most of the problems among residents
at LaRoy F roh are between people who
are members of different races or ethnic

groys.

 

20.

Most of the problems among residents
at Mt. Vernon are between people who
are members of different races or ethnic

groups.

 

21.

Most of the problems among residents
at Hildebrandt are between people who
are members of different races or ethnic

groups.

 

 

22.

Residents of LaRoy Froh interact
mostly with other people in their ethnic
group.

 

 

175

 

 

Stroneg Somewhat Somewhat
Dlggru Disagee Disagree Agree

Agree

Stroneg
ASL.

 

23.

Residents of Mt. Vernon interact
mostly with other people in their ethnic

group.

1 2 3 4

5

6

 

24.

Residents of Hildebrandt interact
mostly with other people in their ethnic

group.

 

25.

The residents of LaRoy F roh are
accepting of each other, regardless of
race or ethnicity.

 

26.

The residents of Mt. Vernon are
accepting of each other, regardless of
race or ethnicity.

 

27.

The residents of Hildebrandt are
accepting of each other, regardless of
race or ethnicity.

 

28.

Most Caucasian people at LaRoy F roh
get along better with each other than
with other residents.

 

29

. Most Caucasian people at Mt. Vernon
get along better with each other than
with other residents.

 

3O

. Most Caucasian people at Hildebrandt
get along better with each other than
with other residents.

 

31.

Relations among residents at LaRoy
F roh between residents of different
racial and ethnic grows are good.

 

32.

Relations among residents at Mt.
Vernon between residents of different
racial and ethnic groups are good.

 

33.

Relations among residents at
Hildebrandt between residents of
different racial and ethnic groups are
good.

 

34.

Most Latino people at LaRoy F roh get
along better with each other than with
other residents.

 

35.

Most Latino people at Mt. Vernon get
along better with each other than with
other residents.

 

 

36.

Most Latino people at Hildebrandt get
along better with each other than with
other residents.

 

 

 

176

 

 

 

 

residents of different races or ethnic
groups.

 

 

Stroneg Somewhat Somewhat Stroneg
Disagree Disagree Disafl Agree Agree Ag
37. One of the biggest problems at LaRoy
Froh is relations among residents of 1 2 3 4 5 6
different races or ethnic groups.
38. One of the biggest problems at
Mt.Vemon is relations among residents 1 2 3 4 5 6
of different races or ethnic groups.
39. One of the biggest problems at
Hildebrandt is relations among 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

Thank you for your time and assistance!

177

 

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX D

RESIDENT INITIATIVES COORDINATOR SURVEY

As communities in the United States are becoming increasingly integrated and diverse,
members of different racial and ethnic groups have more opportunities to interact with
each other. I am interested in the relations among residents who live in multiethnic
communities and the impact these relations have on community involvement. As the
Resident Initiatives Coordinator, you have spent a lot of time at Mt.Vemon, Hildebrandt,
and LaRoy Froh and have had the chance to observe the interactions and relations among
the residents at all three sites. Based on your experience, please indicate your level of
agreement with each of the following statements.

 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

 

1. African Americans, Caucasians,
Latinos, and Asian Americans all get 1 2 3 4 5 6
along together at IARO)’ Froh.

 

2. African Americans, Caucasians,
Latinos, and Asian Americans all get 1 2 3 4 5 6
along together at Mt. Vernon.

 

3. Afi'ican Americans, Caucasians,
Latinos, and Asian Americans all get 1 2 3 4 5 6
along together at Hildebrandt.

 

4. The residents of LaRoy Froh treat each
other the same, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

 

5. The residents of Mt. Vernon treat each
other the same, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

 

6. The residents of Hildebrandt treat each
other the same, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

 

7. Most Asian/Asian American people at
LaRoy Froh get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6
other than with other residents.

 

8. Most Asian /Asian American people at
Mt. Vernon get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6
other than with other residents.

 

9. Most Asian /Asian American people at
Hildebrandt get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6
other than with other residents.

 

 

 

 

178

 

Stroneg Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree

 

10. Most of the problems among residents
at LaRoy Froh are between people who 1 2 3 4 5 6
belong to the same ethnic group.

 

11. Most of the problems among residents
at Mt. Vernon are between people who 1 2 3 4 5 6
belong to the same ethnic group.

 

12. Most of the problems among residents
at Hildebrandt are between people who 1 2 3 4 5 6
belong to the same ethnic group.

 

13. The residents of LaRoy Froh respect
each other, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

 

14. The residents of Mt. Vernon respect
each other, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

 

15. The residents of Hildebrandt respect
each other, regardless of race or 1 2 3 4 5 6
ethnicity.

 

16. Most African American people at
LaRoy Froh get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6
other than with other residents.

 

17. Most African American people at Mt.
Vernon get along better with each other 1 2 3 4 5 6
than with other residents.

 

18. Most African American people at
Hildebrandt get along better with each 1 2 3 4 5 6
other than with other residents.

 

19. Most of the problems among residents
at LaRoy Froh are between people who 1 2 3 4 5 6
are members of different races or ethnic

groups.

 

20. Most of the problems among residents
at Mt. Vernon are between people who 1 2 3 4 5 6
are members of different races or ethnic

groups.

 

21. Most of the problems among residents
at Hildebrandt are between people who 1 2 3 4 5 6
are members of different races or ethnic

groups.

 

 

22. Residents of LaRoy F roh interact
mostly with other people in their ethnic 1 2 3 4 5 6

group.

 

 

179

 

 

Strongly

Somewhat Somewhat
Disagree Disagree Disagree

Agree

Agree

Strongly
Agree

 

23.

Residents of Mt. Vernon interact
mostly with other people in their ethnic

group.

1

2 3

4

5

6

 

24.

Residents of Hildebrandt interact
mostly with other people in their ethnic

group.

 

25.

The residents of LaRoy Froh are
accepting of each other, regardless of
race or ethnicity. ‘

 

26.

The residents of Mt. Vernon are
accepting of each other, regardless of
race or ethnicity.

 

27.

The residents of Hildebrandt are
accepting of each other, regardless of
race or ethnicity.

 

28.

Most Caucasian people at LaRoy Froh
get along better with each other than
with other residents.

 

29.

Most Caucasian people at Mt. Vernon
get along better with each other than
with other residents.

 

30.

Most Caucasian people at Hildebrandt
get along better with each other than
with other residents.

 

31.

Relations among residents at LaRoy
Froh between residents of different
racial and ethnic groups are good.

 

32.

Relations among residents at Mt.
Vernon between residents of different
racial and ethnic groups are good.

 

33.

Relations among residents at
Hildebrandt between residents of
different racial/ethnic groups are good.

 

34.

Most Latino people at LaRoy Froh get
along better with each other than with
other residents.

 

35.

Most Latino people at Mt. Vernon get
along better with each other than with
other residents.

 

 

36.

Most Latino people at Hildebrandt get
along better with each other than with
other residents.

 

 

180

 

 

 

 

 

residents of different races or ethnic
groups.

 

 

Strongly Somewhat Somewhat Strongly
Disagree Disagree Disagree Agree Agree Agree
37. One of the biggest problems at LaRoy
Froh is relations among residents of l 2 3 4 5 6
different races or ethnic groups.
38. One of the biggest problems at
Mt.Vemon is relations among residents 1 2 3 4 5 6
of different races or ethnic groups.
39. One of the biggest problems at
Hildebrandt is relations among 1 2 3 4 5 6

 

Thank you for your time and assistance!

181

 

LIST OF REFERENCES

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ahearn, F.L., Jr. & Athey, J .L. (Eds.). (1991). Refugee children: Theory. research.
and services. Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Alderfer, C. (1986). An intergroup perspective on group dynamics. In J. Lorsch
(Ed.), H_andbool_< of organizational behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Allen, J .P., & Turner, E. (1990). Where diversity reigns. Amerim Demographics,
8, 34-38.

Antunes, G. & Gaitz, CM. (1975). Ethnicity and participation: A study of
Mexican-Americans, Blacks, and Whites. American Journal of Sociology. 80(5). 1192-
121 1.

Babchuk, N. & Thompson, R.V. (1962). The voluntary associations of Negroes.
Amean Sociological Review, 2i 647-655.

Bach, R.L. & Argiros, R (1991). Economic progress among Southeast Asian
refugees in the United States. In Adehnan, H. (Ed.), Refugee policy. (pp.322-343).
Toronto: York Lanes Press, Ltd.

Bankston, C.T. & Zhou, M. (1995). Religious participation, ethnic identification,
and adaptation of Vietnamese adolescents in an immigrant country. Sociolog Quarterly,
36(3), 523-534.

Bartunek, J.M., Foster-Fishman, P.G. & Keys, CB. (1996). Using collaborative
advocacy to foster intergroup cooperation: A joint insider-outsider investigation. Human

Relations, 49(6), 701-733.

Benson, J .E. (1990). Good neighbors: Ethnic relations in Garden City trailer
courts. UrbanAnthropolcgv. 19(4). 361-386.

Berry, J .W. (1991). Refugee adaptation in settlement countries: An overview with
an emphasis on primary prevention. In Ahearn, F.L. & Athey, J.L. (Eds.), Refugee
children: Theory. research, and services (pp. 20-38). Baltimore: John Hopkins University
Press.

182

Berry, J .W. (1986). The acculturation process and refugee behavior. In Williams,
C.L. & Westermeyer, J. (Eds.), Refirgee mental health in resettlement countries (pp.25-
37). New York: Hemisphere.

Berry, J .W. (1976). Human ecology and cognitive style: Comparative studies in
culturafimd psychological adaptation London: Sage.

Bobo, L. & Gilliam, Jr., FD. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and black
empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84 ( 2). 377-393.

Buckner, J .C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood
cohesion. Ameriaan Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771-791.

Call, K.T. & McNall, M. (1992). Poverty, ethnicity, and youth adjustment: A
comparison of poor Hmong and non-Hmong adolescents. In Meeus, W., de Goede, M.,
Kox, W., & Hurrelmann, K. (Eds.), Adolescence. care—ers. and cultures, (pp.373-392).
Berlin: W. de Gruyter.

 

Cassidy, R. (1980). Grassroots urban renewal. Qaest, 81, 51-86.

Chavis, D.M., Hogge, J .H., McMillan, D.W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of

community through Brunswik’s lens: A first look. Journal of Communig Psychology, 14,
24-40.

Chavis, D.M. & Newbrough, J .R. (1986). The meaning of “community” in
community psychology. Journal of Communig Psychology, 14 (4), 335-340.

Chavis, D.M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban
environment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American J oumal

of Communig Psychology, 18, 55-81.

Cho, SK. (1995). Korean Americans vs. African Americans: Conflict and
construction. In M.L. Anderson & RH. Collins (Eds.), Race, class, and gender. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co.

Church, A.T. (1982). Sojourner adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 91. 540-571.
Cohen, S.M. & Kapsis, RE. (1978). Participation of Blacks, Puerto Ricans, and
Whites in voluntary associations: A test of current theories. Social Forces. 56(4). 1053-

1071.

Corbin, J. & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons,
and evaluative criteria. Qualitative Sociology. 13 ( 1). 3-21.

183

Devereux, E.C., Bronfenbrenner, U., & Harding, J. (1960). Community
participation as a research problem. The Journal of Social Issues. 4. 1-6.

Dunham, H.W. (1986). The community today: Place or process. Journal of
Communigg Psychology, 14, 399-404.

Durkheim, E. (1964). The division of labor in society. New York: Free Press.

Edmondson, B. (1996). The minority majority in 2001. American Demggrphics.
1_Q, 16-17.

F adiman, A. (1997). Heroes’ welcome. Civilization. 4(40). 52-61.

Fass, S. (1986). Innovations in the struggle for self-reliance: The Hmong
experience in the United States. International Maggation Review. 20. 351-380.

Fischer, CS. (1982). To dwell among friends. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

Fischer, C.S., Jackson, R.M., Stueve, C.A., Gerson, K., Jones, L.M., &
Baldassare, M. (1977). Networks and places: Social relations in the urbaa setting New
York: Free Press.

Fitzpatrick, J .P. (1966). The importance of ‘community’ in the process of
immigrant assimilation. The International Migration Review, 1(1). 5-15.

Florin, P., Jones, E., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Black participation in voluntary
associations. Joml of Voluntary Action Research. 15. 65-85.

Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1990). An introduction to citizen participation,
voluntary organizations, and community development: Insights for empowerment through

research. American Journal of Communig Psychology, 18, 41-53.

 

Florin, P., & Wandersman, A. (1984). Cognitive social learning and participation

in community development. American Journal of Communigl Psychology, 12(6), 689-
708.

 

Fried, M. (1982). Residential attachment: Sources of residential and community
satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues. 38. 107-119.

Foster-Fishman, P., Salem, D.A., Chibnall, S., Legler, R. & Yapchai, C. (1998).

Empirical support for the critical assumptions of empowerment theory. American J oumal
of Community Psychology, 26(4), 507-536.

184

Goode, J. (1990). A wary welcome to the neighborhood: Community responses to
immigrants. Urban Anthropology, 19 (1-2 ), 125-153.

Greenblatt, A. (1995). History of immigration policy. @1067.

Gruber, J. & Trickett, E.J. (1987). Can we empower others? The paradox of
empowerment in the governing of an alternative public school. American Journal of

Communng Psychology, 15, 353-371.

Guthrie, P. & Hutchinson, J. (1995). The impact of perceptions on interpersonal
interactions in an African American/Asian American housing project. Journal of Black
Studies 25 377-395.

 

Haines, D.W. (1989). Introduction. In Haines, D.W. (Ed.) Refugees as immigrants
(pp.1-23). New Jersey: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Hein, J. (1995). From Vietnam. Laos, and Cambodia: A reflagee experience in the
United States. New York: Twayne Publishers.

Hirayama, K.K., Hirayama, H., & Cetingok, M. (1993). Mental health promotion
for Southeast Asian refugees in the USA. International Social Work, 36, 119-129.

Humphreys, K. & Woods, MD. (1993). Researching mutual help group
participation in a segregated society. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 29 (2).
1 8 1-201 .

Hunter, J .E. & Schmidt, FL. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error
and bia_s in research findings; Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Hutcheson, Jr., J .D., & Prather, J .E. (1988). Community mobilization and
participation in the zoning process. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 23, 346-368.

Idelson, H. (1995). Immigration: Bridging gap between actions and ideas. Q)
1065- 1 O7 1 .

Jason, L.A. & Kobayashi, RB. (1995). Community building: Our next frontier.
The Journal of Primary Prevention. 15(3). 195-208.

J ong, W.D. (1989). The development of inter-ethnic relations in an old district
Rotterdam between 1970 and 1985. Ethnic and Racial Studies. 12. 257-278.

Kelly, J .G., Azelton, L.S., Burzette, R.G., & Mock, LC. (1994). Creating social

settings for diversity: An ecological thesis. In E.J. Trickett, R.J. Watts, & Birman, D.
(Eds.), Human divers_i_ty. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass Publishers.

185

Kieffer, CH. (1984). Citizen empowerment: A developmental perspective.
Prevention in Humg Services. 3. 9-36.

Kingry-Westergaard, C. & Kelly, J .G. (1990). A contextualist epistemology for
ecological research. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F. Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching
communig psychology: Issues of theory and methods. (pp.23-31). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.

Lee, B.A., Campbell, K.E., & Miller, 0. (1991). Racial differences in urban
neighboring. Sociological Forum. 6. 525-550.

Lien, P. (1994). Ethnicity and political participation: A comparison between
Asian and Mexican Americans. Political Behavior. 16 ( 2). 237-264.

Marin, G. (1993). Defining culturally appropriate community interventions:

Hispanics as a case study. Journal of Communigy Psychology, 21, 149-161.

McMillan, D.W. & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and
theory. Journal of Communig Psychology, 14, 6-23.

Merry, SE. (1980). Racial integration in an urban neighborhood: The social
organization of strangers. Human Organization, 39, 59-69.

Merry, SE. (1981). Urban danger: Life in a neighborhood of strangers.
Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Mirowsky, J. & Ross, CE. (1986). Social patterns of distress. Annual Review of
Sociology. 12. 23-45.

Newbrough, J .R. & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Psychological sense of community, I:
Foreword. Journal of Comqu Psychology, 14, 3-5.

Olsen, ME. (1970). Social and political participation of Blacks. American
Sociological Review. 35(9. 682-697.

Ramirez, M. (1984). Assessing and understanding biculturalism and
multiculturalism in Mexican-American adults. In J .R. Martinez, Jr. & R.H. Mendoza
(Eds.), Chicano PsychologL Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Rumbaut, RC. (1996). Ties that bind: Immigration and immigrant families in the

United States. In A. Booth & J .F. Dunn (Eds.), Family-school links: How do they affect
educational outcomes? Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.

186

Rumbaut, R.G. (1991a). The agony of exile: A study of the migration and
adaptation of Indochinese refugee adults and children. In Ahearn, Jr., F .L. & Athey, J .L
(Eds.), Refugee children: Theory. research, and services (pp.53-91). Baltimore: John
Hopkins University Press.

Rumbaut, R.G. (1991b). Migration, adaptation, and mental health: The
experience of Southeast Asian refugees in the United States. In Adelman, H. (Ed.),
Refugee policy: Canada and the United State_s (pp.381-424). Toronto: York Lanes Press
Ltd.

Rumbaut, R.G. (1989). Portraits, patterns, and predictors of the refugee adaptation
process: Results and reflections from the IHARP Panel Study. In Haines, D.W. (Ed.),
Refugees as immigrants: Cambodian_s. Laotianys_,_and Vietnjamese in America (pp.138-
190). Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Rumbaut, R.G. & Weeks, J .R. (1986). Fertility and adaptation: Indochinese
refugees in the United States. International Migration Review. 20 ( 2). 428-465.

Rumbaut, R.G. (1985). Mental health and the refugee experience: A comparative
study of Southeast Asian refugees. In T.C. Owan (Ed.), Southeast Asian mental health:

Treatment, prevention, services, training, and research (DHHS Publication No. ADM 85-
1399). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Mental Health.

Sagy, 8., Stem, E., & Krakover, S. (1996). Macro- and Microlevel factors related
to sense of community: The case of temporary neighborhoods in Israel. American J oumal

of Comqu Psychology, 24 (5), 657-676.

Sarason, SB. (1986). The emergence of a conceptual center. Journal of

Communig Psychology, 14(4), 405-407.

Schneider, B., & Rentsch, J .R. (1988). Managing climates and cultures: A futures
perspective. In J. Hage (Ed.). Futures of organizations, (pp. 181-200). Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

Scott, G.M., Jr. (1982). The Hmong refugee community in San Diego: Theoretical
and practical implications of its continuing ethnic solidarity. Anthropological Quarterly,
55(3), 146-160.

Shavelson, R.J. (1988). Statistical reasoning for the behavioLal sciences (2nd ed.).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Shinn, M. (1990). Mixing and matching: Levels of conceptualization,
measurements and statistical analysis in community research. In P. Tolan, C. Keys, F.

Chertok, & L. Jason (Eds.), Researching community psychology: Issues of theog and
methods (pp. 111-126). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

187

Speer, P.W. & Hughey, J. (1995). Community organizing: An ecological route to
empowerment and power. American JoumaL of Community Psychology. 23. 729-748.

Strawn, C. (1994). Beyond the buzzword: Empowerment in community outreach
and education. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science. 30. 159-174.

Szapocznik, J ., & Kurtines, W.M. (1980). Acculturation, biculturalism and
adjustment among Cuban Americans. In A.M. Padilla, (Ed), Acculmtion: Theory.
models and some new findings. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Tittle, CR. (1989). Influences on urbanism: A test of predictors from three
perspectives. Social Problems. 36. 270-288.

Tomeh, AK. (1974). Formal voluntary organizations: Participation, correlates,
and interrelationships. Sociological Inquiry, 43. 89-122.

Trickett, E.J. (1996). A future for community psychology: The contexts of

diversity and the diversity of contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology. 24
(2), 209-229.

Trickett, E.J. (1994). Human diversity and community psychology: Where
ecology and empowerment meet. American Journal of Communig Psychology, 22, 583-
592.

Trickett, E.J., Watts, R., & Birman, D. (1994). Toward an overarching framework
for diversity. In E.J. Trickett, R. Watts, & D. Birrnan (Eds.), Human diversity:
Perspectives on people in context. (pp. 7-26). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers.

Trickett, E.J., Watts, R., & Birman, D. (1993). Human diversity and community

psychology: Still hazy after all these years. Journal of Communig Psychology, 21 , 264-
279.

Tzeng, O.C.S. (1994). Effects of contact, conflict, and social identity on
interethnic group hostilities. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(2), 259-
276.

United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (1998). Refugees and Others of
Concern to UNHCR: 1997 Statistical Overview. Geneva: Author.

United States Committee for Refugees (1996). World Refugee Survey 1996.
Washington DC: Immigration and Refugee Services of America.

188

US. Commission on Civil Rights (1992). Racial and ethnic tensions in American

communities: Povefl, inequality, and discrimination — A national persmctive (Executive
summary and transcript of hearing). Washington, DC: US. Commission on Civil Rights.

US. Commission on Civil Rights (1988). Recent activities against citizens and
residents of Asian descent. Washington, DC: Clearinghouse Publication No. 88.

Vrga, D., Jr. (1971). Differential associational involvement of successive ethnic

immigrations: An indicator of ethno-religious factionalism and alienation of immigrants.
Social Forces. 50. 239-248.

Wandersman, A. (1984). Citizen participation. In K. Heller, R.H. Price, S.
Reinharz, S. Riger, A. Wandersman, & T. A. D'Aunno (Eds.), Psychology and
communig change: Challenges of the future (pp. 337-379). Pacific Grove, CA:
Brooks/Cole.

Wandersman, A. (1981). A framework of participation in community
organizations. The JournaL of Applied Iflravioral Science. 17 (1). 27-58.

Wandersman, A. (1980). Community and individual difference characteristics as
influences on initial participation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 8, 217-
228.

Wandersman, A., Florin, P., F riedmann, R., & Meier, R. (1987). Who
participates, who does not, and why? An analysis of voluntary neighborhood
organizations in the United States and Israel. Sociological Forum. 2. 534-555.

Wandersman, A. & Giamartino, GA. (1980). Community and individual
difference characteristics as influences on initial participation. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 8(2), 217-228.

Wandersman, A., Jakubs, J .F . & Giamartino, GA. (1981). Participation in block
organizations. Communig Actiop. 40-47.

Washnis, G.J. (1976). Citizen involvement in crime prevention. Lexington, MA:
Lexington Books.

Westermeyer, J. (1991). Psychiatric services for refugee children: An overview. In
Ahearn, F.L., Jr. & Athey, J .L. (Eds.), Refugee children: theory. research..and services
(pp.127-162). Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.

Westermeyer, J ., Neider, J ., & Callies, A. (1989). Psychosocial adjustment of

Hmong refugees during their first decade in the United States. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease. 177(3).132-139.

189

Williams, C.L. & Westermeyer, J. (Eds.), Refilgee mental health in resettlement
countries (pp.25-37). New York: Hemisphere.

Williams, J .A., Babchuck, & Johnson. (1973). Voluntary associations and
minority status: A comparative analysis of Anglo, Black, and Mexican Americans.
American Sociological Review. 38. 637-646.

Williams, J .A. & Ortega, S.T. (1986). The multidimensionality of joining. Journal
of Voluntary Action Research. 15. 35-44.

Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology. 44.
1-24.

Yang, P. & Murphy, N. (1993). Hmong in the ‘90s: Stepping towards the fUtUIC.
St. Paul, MN: Hmong American Partnership.

Ying, Y. & Akutsu, PD. (1997). Psychological adjustment of Southeast Asian
refugees: The contribution of sense of coherence. Journal of Communig Psychology,
25(2), 125-139.

Yu, P. & Berryman, BL. (1996). The relationship among self-esteem,
acculturation, and recreation participation of recently arrived Chinese immigrant
adolescents. Journal of Leisure Research, 28(4), 251-273.

Zimmerman, MA. (1995). Psychological empowerment: Issues and illustrations.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 581-599.

Zimmerman, M.A., & Rappaport, J. (1988). Citizen participation, perceived

control, and psychological empowerment. American Journal of Community Psychology,
L6, 725-750.

190

 

 

 

 

q." }