The Australian Centre for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Studies, qut
Download 4.28 Mb.
|
- Navigate this page:
- International context
- Facilitators and barriers to ethnic giving and volunteering
- Language
- Cultural differences
- Organisational environment
- Representation
- Ethnic vs mainstream giving
The role of cultural valuesAn established body of literature provides evidence that volunteering is influenced by cultural, political, religious and social contexts (Berger 2006; Grölund et al. 2001; Lim and MacGregor 2012; Prouteua and Sardinha 2015; Wang and Handy 2014). The cross-national differences in the culture of volunteer work can be attributed to different linguistic and cultural perceptions. For example, volunteering in the United Kingdom (UK) and the US is often perceived as unpaid labour, in Sweden it is often perceived as idealistic work, and in Germany volunteering can be understood as involvement in a board or another form of governance (Meijs and Karr 2004). While cross-cultural values cannot predict volunteer participation they provide insight into volunteer motivations (Dekker and Halman 2003). Religion is one central factor in shaping cultures and nations and has been found to increase levels of volunteering and influence the meaning of volunteering for an individual (Grölund et al. 2001). Research also suggests that religious affiliation and self-perceived religiosity influence philanthropic behaviour, such that religious activity is associated with increased volunteering and philanthropy (Berger 2006; Ruiter and De Graaf 2006). International contextIn view of the significance of culture and religion on volunteering and charitable behaviour it is important to understand voluntarism in a culturally-diverse society. While there has been substantial research on the characteristics and motivations of volunteers, these studies tend to reflect the mainstream population, with limited research on ethnic and minority groups (Young-joo and Moon 2011). This line of enquiry is particularly relevant given the increasingly culturally-diverse nature of our society. In 2010–11 around 100 million persons aged 15 years and older were living outside their country of birth in the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries). This was a 36% increase from 2000–01 (UN-DESA and OECD 2013). A number of international studies have sought to understand the patterns of immigrant volunteering and giving, and the factors that may facilitate or prevent their participation (Boenigk, Mew and de Kort 2015; Handy and Greenspan 2009; Leslie, Snyder and Glomb 2013; Moon and Choi 2012; Randle and Dolnicar 2012). However, ‘research on racial differences in volunteering is inconclusive because of differences in definitions of volunteering, methods of analysis, and subject populations’ (Musick, Wilson and Bynum 2000, 1562). Despite this, there are common themes in the literature that identify general facilitators and barriers to ethnic giving and volunteering. Facilitators and barriers to ethnic giving and volunteeringLength of stayRecent immigrants (those who migrated in the past 10 years) have a significantly lower likelihood of giving compared to those who have migrated in the past 30 years (Wang and Graddy 2008). A Canadian study into charitable giving among foreign-born respondents found that as the length of stay increased the average donation made by immigrants increased. Over time there was also a reduction in giving to religious institutions and an increase in the percentage of giving directed to other types of charitable organisations (Mata and McRae 2000). LanguageBeing unable to communicate freely in the host language is a major barrier to immigrants’ participation in volunteer activities (Handy and Greenspan 2009; Young-joo and Moon 2011). Language barriers may also underestimate the potential contributions of immigrant volunteers because of a lack of fluency. Cultural differencesFrom a nonprofit marketing perspective, an Australian study into whether cultural background affects volunteering behaviour found that cultural groups differ in terms of their attitudes, social norms and perceived control over volunteering (Randle and Dolnicar 2009). Volunteers in multicultural societies cannot be treated as homogenous and therefore the authors argue that marketing strategies aimed at mainstream volunteers may be ineffective and act as a barrier to attracting individuals from other cultural backgrounds (Randle and Dolnicar 2012). Organisational environmentWhile there is established literature on cultural diversity management in the private sector, particularly in relation to board diversity, less is known about how NPOs can encourage cultural diversity. A report produced by the Platform for European Red Cross Cooperation on Refugees, Asylum Seekers and Migrants (PERCO 2004) provides recommendations and a checklist for encouraging cultural diversity among the volunteer base. These include: changing the working culture of the organisation, diversifying the recruitment of volunteers, diversifying social welfare programs and working on the intercultural image of the organisation. RepresentationWhile the opportunities and constraints to migrant volunteering have been analysed in the context of mainstream volunteering there is growing recognition, particularly within Canada and the US, that ethnic minority and immigrant giving and volunteering practices are different from Western practices (Mata and McRae 2000). Studies suggest that minority groups give to different causes and volunteering activities (Wang, Yoshioka and Ashcraft 2013) and it is more common for ethnic groups and minorities to be involved in informal volunteering as opposed to formal volunteering (Wilson and Musick 1997). For example Wang et al. (2013) found that in the US, Hispanic migrants are more likely to engage in more informal volunteering than non-Hispanics. Formal volunteering is defined as ‘any contribution of unpaid time to the activities of organisations or established entities’. In contrast, informal volunteering is ‘any assistance given directly that is not through a formal organisation’ (Lee and Brudney 2012, 160). The implications of this are that ethnic volunteering may be underrepresented, as it does not fall within mainstream definitions of volunteering. In addition, philanthropy among US minority groups tends to go through non-mainstream and informal charities and, as a result, much of these donations are unreported on tax returns because they are not given to federally-approved charitable organisations (Drezner 2011). Ethnic vs mainstream givingQuestions have been raised as to whether the proportion of ethnic giving is directed towards ethnic organisations (ethnic giving) as opposed to mainstream organisations (mainstream giving). A study on Korean immigrants in the US found that mainstream and ethnic giving tend to be substitutes for each other, meaning increased mainstream giving results in reduced ethnic giving and vice versa (Moon and Choi 2012). The study, however, did not account for migrant length of stay in the country and greater research is needed across different cultural groups. Findings from a Canadian study comparing immigrants’ philanthropic behaviour and Canadian giving norms found that differences between native-born and foreign-born giving behaviours diminished with an individual’s age and length of residence in Canada (Hall et al. 2009). Therefore, while there is potential for a crowding-out effect between the two giving practices, studies over time may shed more light on ethnic giving as compared to mainstream giving. Research on diaspora philanthropy, though in its infancy, also provides insight into a particular form of giving in minority groups. Broadly defined and enacted in a variety of different ways, diaspora philanthropy is characterised by: ‘Charitable giving from individuals who reside outside their homeland, who maintain a sense of identity with their home country, give to causes or organisations in that country and give for public benefit’ (Johnson 2007, 5). While giving back to the culture or nation of a diaspora community is not new, it is a growing global phenomenon (Baker and Mascitelli 2011). Growth has been attributed to changing patterns of migration, technological changes and the creation of giving intermediaries (Johnson 2007). However, studies on diaspora philanthropy have largely focused on US-based diasporas (Sidel 2008), where the philanthropy landscape has been augmented with developed, faith-based giving circles, identity-based giving and other commercial charitable gift funds. Studies suggest that diaspora philanthropy is a complex mix of interaction between the country of origin values, religious socialisation, demographics and country of residence norms and behaviour (Brinkerhoff, 2014). While the motives behind donations and charitable giving have been investigated in the mainstream philanthropy literature little is known about the link between migrants and their home communities (Brinkerhoff 2014). A recent survey of the Coptic diaspora in the US, Canada, Australia and the UK found that the majority of the sample donated to church-based activities and that, over time, they do not necessarily lose interest in the country of origin as there are many options and mechanisms for maintaining engagement with the country of origin (Brinkerhoff 2014). However, research in the field is emergent and, while there is a growing body of knowledge, understanding the various forms and functions of diaspora giving and the institutional environment that facilitates this type of giving is incomplete. Research on diaspora philanthropy is limited to a few countries and little is known about the impact of diaspora philanthropy, who benefits and whether diaspora giving promotes equitable development or exacerbates social and economic equalities (Johnson 2007). In general, the majority of research on ethnic giving and volunteering stems from the US and Canada. Research programs such as the W.K. Kellogg Foundation Cultures of Giving, implemented between 2005–09 in the US, have sought to understand and support philanthropic giving within minority communities (see Table 5.1). Designed to understand the gaps in access to leadership, wealth and influence by communities of colour, the research particularly focuses on the growth in identity-based funds. While they range in scope and size, these funds are a collective investment by a community made up from solicited donations and contributions from community donors which are then redistributed to organisations and individuals within the community (W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2012). Many of these funds grew out of the Native Peoples movement in the 1970s and Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and are a growing and distinctive feature of the US philanthropic landscape. Substantial investment from large US-based corporations over the last 15 years has seen the growth of more than 400 culturally-specific funds, where finance is both raised and granted from and for their own populations (Berman 2012). D5 (D5 Coalition 2014) is another US initiative that seeks to address and understand diversity, equity and inclusion in philanthropy. Started in 2010, this five year coalition is a response to the growing recognition of the need to understand diversity in philanthropy and provide resources for NPOs to support diversity and inclusion. Table 5.1 Identity-based funds (W.K. Kellogg Foundation 2012) Included: Women’s funds, lesbian/gay/bi-sexual/transgender (LGBT), ethnic, tribal or race-based funds that: raise resources from community donors to give to community organisations and causes operate through a 501c3 organisation1 either their own or sponsoring organisation conduct giving domestically do not raise funds exclusively or primarily for their own or sponsoring organisation, and are tax-exempt nonprofit organisation in the US. Excluded: diaspora funds that conduct international grantmaking exclusively funds that operate informally, without a 501c3, which include many church funds voluntary associations that run funds intermittently or fundraise only for their own organisations, and private and/or family foundations of individuals or family-owned businesses. Examples of identity-based funds: Hispanics in Philanthropy
Native Americans in Philanthropy http://www.nativephilanthropy.org Asian American/Pacific Islanders in Philanthropy http://aapip.org/
Directory: wp-content -> uploads -> 2016 2016 -> 2017 afoCo Landmark Scholarship Program 2016 -> Instructions for the Preparation of Camera-Ready Contributions to the Conference Proceedings 2016 -> Step student Scholarships for Year 10-13 2016 -> The united church of canada 2016 -> Idan raichel biography – May 2016 Brief Producer, keyboardist, Lyricist, composer and Performer Idan Raichel 2016 -> An introduction to centre’s interventions expanding access to justice 2016 -> Sanchar Shakti 2016 -> Unit analysis should help here. We want number of bananas 2016 -> The Autobiography of Elder Joseph Bates 2016 -> The Great Heat and the Rhode Island Deep Water Bay Scallop (Argopecten irradians) Fishery 1875-1905 Download 4.28 Mb. Share with your friends:
|