Ethnic Giving Versus Mainstream Giving by Foreign-Born Korean Immigrants in California

Abstract

Based on a large-scale philanthropic survey conducted in California, this paper empirically examines the determinants of ethnic giving versus mainstream giving practices and the interactive relationships between the two observed among foreign-born Korean immigrants. The results of our bivariate probit regression analysis suggest several interesting findings. First, acculturation serves significant functions in immigrants’ decisions to give to mainstream organizations, but does not appear to affect ethnic giving decisions as profoundly. Second, U.S. educational experiences and gender are strong predictors of mainstream giving practices, whereas household incomes and religiosity figure significantly in terms of explaining ethnic giving practices. Additionally, citizenship is related weakly to ethnic giving practices. Finally, two distinctive giving practices are negatively interrelated, meaning that immigrants who donate to ethnic organizations are less likely to give to mainstream organizations, and vice versa.

Keywords

acculturation ethnic giving mainstream giving social capital

Introduction

Recently, the diversification of philanthropic giving has been the subject of increasing attention from nonprofits, for two significant reasons (Newman, 2002). First, the broadening of philanthropic giving can bolster nonprofit organizations’ financial base, which can be weakened by declines in individual generosity (Giving USA, 2009; Hodgkinson, 2002), cutbacks in public funding, and competition between nonprofit and for-profit organizations (Salamon, 2002). As a result, nonprofits’ abilities to cultivate and develop relationships with ethnic minorities in order to garner their donated financial resources may be an important pathway to increasing the financial sustainability of nonprofit institutions (Carson, 2000; Van Slyke, Ashley, & Johnson, 2007). Second, philanthropic involvement can provide ethnic minorities with an opportunity to connect to and work with the mainstream population toward common causes and collectivity (Uslaner & Coney, 2003). Such civic processes can be crucial to a healthy democratic society (Paxton, 2002; Putnam, 2000), and can bolster the institutional capacity of nonprofits that respond to heterogeneous demands (Van Slyke et al., 2007).

Despite the recent efforts of nonprofits to encourage ethnic minorities to become involved in philanthropy (Newman, 2002), philanthropic participation is still limited. Ethnic minorities tend to be less likely to make donations than whites (Frey & Meier, 2005; Osili & Du, 2005; Wong, Lien, & Conway, 2005). Additionally, a large portion of their donations go to ethnic organizations (ethnic giving) as opposed to mainstream organizations (mainstream giving) in the United States (Chao, 2001; Shao, 1995; Smith et al., 1999). This distinctive pattern of donation indicates that donations made by ethnic minorities tend to be targeted toward the welfare of the ethnic community rather than the welfare of the broader community and society at large. This isolated giving practice may not contribute to the kind of social capital that promotes common goals; rather, it may produce “unsocial capital” and reinforce prejudice against strangers (Levi, 1996; Putnam, 2000; Uslaner, 2002; Uslaner & Coney, 2003).

However, previous research that has propounded this theory of isolated or unsocial giving practices among ethnic minorities has not been supported by empirical evidence gleaned from systematic empirical data and analyses. Most such claims have been made on the basis of anecdotal evidence from small case studies or limited numbers of interviews (Chao, 1999, 2001; Smith et al., 1999). More importantly, the determinants of such giving practices, as well as the interactive relationships between the two distinct giving practices, remain unclear. Responding to this research demand, this article attempts to address the following important questions: Do the patterns of the distinctive donation practices, ethnic giving versus mainstream giving, really exist? What factors determine such distinctive giving practices? and what is the relationship between these two giving practices?

Based on the results of the Charitable Giving and Volunteering Philanthropic Survey, this research empirically assesses foreign-born Korean immigrants’ donation practices in the United States.

The principal foci of this study are (a) the immigrants’ acculturation processes, (b) their educational experiences, and (c) their social status. In particular, we adopt social capital as a conceptual link between these variables and giving practices. We also control for other variables that are regarded as relevant to donation practices.

Our paper begins with a brief introduction about Korean immigrants in the United States and develops hypotheses that relate major variables to immigrants’ distinctive giving practices—ethnic giving versus mainstream giving. We then turn our attention to the study’s research methods and analysis results. Finally, we present our conclusions and discuss the implications of this study.

Foreign-Born Korean Immigrants in the United States

Koreans are one of the fastest growing Asian immigrant populations in the United States (Pettrey, 2002). There were approximately 1.5 million diaspora Koreans residing in the United States in 2008, nearly two thirds of which were born in Korean and more than one third of which were U.S. citizens at birth (Terrazas & Batog, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). When foreign-born Koreans (i.e., immigrants) only are considered, the number increased from roughly 11,000 in 1960 to more than 1.0 million in 2008; this number accounts for 2.7% of all immigrants in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). The largest number of Korean immigrants (more than one third of all immigrants) resided in California in 2008, followed by New Jersey, Illinois, and Washington, D.C.

Korean immigrants’ academic achievement was also higher than that of other immigrants and the native-born (Terrazas & Batog, 2010). In 2008, 51% of foreign-born Korean adults (with age 25 and older) held a bachelor’s degree or higher, whereas 49% of all Asian Americans, 27.1% of all foreign-born adults, and 27.8% of all native-born adults did (Terrazas & Batog, 2010; U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). Despite their high level of educational attainment, Korean immigrants’ economic achievement remains low. In 2008, 56.7% of Korean immigrants (ages 18 and higher) owned a home. Although this figure is slightly higher than the rate of all immigrants combined (56.5%), it is still below the rate of native-born U.S. citizens (72%; Terrazas & Batog, 2010). In terms of Korean immigrants’ median household income (inflation-adjusted), it is estimated at US$50,000, which is a few thousand dollars lower than the figure for all American families (US$51,200) and much lower than all Asian American families (roughly US$59,000; Johnson, 2011).

Acculturation and Social Capital

Acculturation is the process by which immigrants adapt to a new cultural environment. This process results in changes in the immigrants’ original sociocultural patterns (Berry, 2003; Gordon, 1964; Redfield et al., 1936) and their ethnic identity (Phinney, 2003; Phinney et al., 2001). The level of this change is dependent upon immigrants’ interaction with and responses to a new culture, which are influenced largely by individual personality and sociohistorical background (Berry, 1997; Phinney et al., 2001). While sociocultural adaptation is associated with interactions that lead to some level of change in immigrants’ sociocultural behaviors, ethnic identity is associated with interactions that influence the psychological status of their identity (more details about ethnic identity will be provided later).

Sociocultural adaptation and ethnic identity, the salient components of the acculturation process that takes place when immigrants move to a new society, can help us to understand the patterns of immigrants’ interactions and connections. This pattern of interaction and connection is the building block for “social capital” and the key to understanding the structure of social relations. Social capital is generally understood as social goodwill and resources, including trust and reciprocity (Adler & Kwon, 2002; Lin, 1999; Putnam, 1995, 2000). Social capital is a concept that is broadly employed to explain a variety of situations wherein voluntary and coordinated actions can perform a significant role, including economic development, democratic governance, crime, public health, schooling, families, youth delinquency, and collective action problems (Adler & Kwon, 2002). It is also employed to explain philanthropic behaviors (Brooks, 2005; Brown & Ferris, 2007).

The literature on social capital delineates two major structures of social relations (Alder & Kwon, 2002; Gittell & Vidal, 1998; Granovetter, 1973; Putnam, 2000; Woolcock, 1998): internal relations within a collectivity and external relations. The former is referred to as “bonding” (or “linking”) social capital—that is, social relations that actors maintain with other actors who already know one another. The latter is referred to as “bridging” (or “communal”) social capital, wherein actors interact and socialize with other actors beyond the boundary of the collectivity. These structures of social network ties and connections determine the types of opportunities and resources immigrants can obtain (Lin, 1999). Furthermore, social network ties perform a critical function in shaping and guiding immigrants’ decisions and actions.

In the following section, we focus special attention on social capital as a conceptual link between two major dimensions of acculturation, sociocultural adaptation and ethnic identity, and giving practices—ethnic giving versus mainstream giving. Additionally, the structures of social relations are linked to immigrants’ educational experiences and social status in an effort to explain such giving practices.

Sociocultural Adaptation

Although the immigration experiences of particular individuals and groups vary considerably, their experiences converge in initial hardship and efforts to survive in the host society, generally as the result of their lack of familiarity with the host culture and the language barrier (Chao, 2001; Lee & Moon, 2011). Foreign-born Korean immigrants’ immigration experience in the United States is not exceptional. Terraza and Batog (2010) reported on the higher level of language and cultural barriers among immigrants, which was regarded as the major stumbling block for their participation in the U.S. labor market (Norland, 2003) and the major cause of acculturative stress (“culture shock”; Oh, Koeske, & Sale, 2002). This culture shock can potentially result in depression, social anxiety, and alienation and other psychological problems (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987).

At the early stage of acculturation, it is quite natural for immigrants to reach out to their own ethnic community for help in obtaining information regarding jobs, housing, and schools; to find business financing; and to alleviate their isolation and loneliness (Chao, 2001). The ethnic community is the primary and most logical place for immigrants with a lack of sociocultural understanding about a new society to reconstruct the social ties and connections they lost in the relocation process. This strong reliance of immigrants on their ethnic community provides fertile ground for the building of thick in-group social networks or “bonding” social capital (Handy & Greenspan, 2009; Lee & Moon, 2011; Weisinger & Salipante, 2005). In this social network structure, people of the same nationality are frequently drawn to in-group social networks, while they withdraw from participation in philanthropic pursuits that promote causes relevant to the larger community and society (Dekker & Uslaner, 2001; Putnam, 1993; Uslaner & Conley, 2003). This bonding social capital also influences immigrants’ decisions regarding the ultimate recipients of their donations. Taking this into consideration, we developed the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1: Korean immigrants with a lower level of sociocultural adaptation to American society are more likely to donate to ethnic (Korean) organizations.

The progression of sociocultural adaptation (e.g., familiarity with local customs and language) provides immigrants with the opportunity to expand social ties and connections beyond their own ethnic enclaves (Uslaner & Conley, 2003). It also enables immigrants to look beyond their own ethnic group, reach out to people outside of their ethnic community, and partake of the social and political life of the larger society, while helping them loosen social ties to their in-group (Putnam, 2000). Basically, as sociocultural adaptation advances, immigrants are likely to shift from the structure of their social networks built upon internal relations to those built upon external relations (Putnam, 2000; Weisinger & Salipante, 2005). Thus, “bridging” social capital is more likely to emerge in this acculturation stage, which in turn encourages immigrants to look beyond their own ethnic community and engage in mainstream giving practices. Therefore, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 2: Korean immigrants with a higher level of sociocultural adaptation to American society are more likely to donate to mainstream (American) organizations.

Ethnic Identity

Ethnic identity is another important component of the acculturation process that occurs when immigrants move to a new society. The term refers to one’s self-label or group affiliation, which encompasses “various aspects, including self-identification, feelings of belongingness and commitment to a group, a sense of shared values, and attitudes toward one’s own ethnic group” (Phinney et al., 2001, p. 496). Ethnic identity differs from ethnicity, in that the former entails subjective feelings and perceptions regarding an individual’s belonging to a group or culture, whereas ethnicity is a characteristic ascribed by and defined by others.

Ethnic identity is understood as the result of interactions between and among individuals’ characteristics and attitudes toward the retention of their original culture, their particular socioeconomic circumstances, and the responses of the host society toward them (Phinney, 2003; Phinney et al., 2001). Ethnic identity tends to be strong when immigrants have a strong desire to keep their identities and when groups with distinctive ethnic and cultural origins are generally tolerated in the host country. However, when facing negative attitudes toward them or their ethnic group in the host society, immigrants may evidence various responses, ranging from abandonment of their own ethnic identity to insisting on and showing pride in it as a method of dealing with hostility toward them (Phinney et al., 2001, p. 494).

The influence of ethnic identity on giving practices can be mixed. First, immigrants with strong ethnic identity are likely to have ethnocentric tendencies, resistance toward the new culture and society, and strong solidarity with the ethnic community. Thus, their primary social ties and connections are likely formed around and within their own ethnic community. This sort of isolated and in-group social relationship promotes “bonding” social capital (Putnam, 2000; Weisinger & Salipante, 2005) or “thick trust” (Uslaner & Conley, 2003), which encourages immigrants to share resources with people within, rather than outside, their ethnic enclaves.

On the other hand, several scholars (Chao, 2000; Zhou, 2004) have pointed out that Asian cultural values and attitudes embodied in Asian ethnic identity play a positive role in immigrants’ incorporation into the mainstream community and their participation in charitable donation (Moon, 2009). Asian cultural values and attitudes that underlie “strong families, dutiful children, delayed gratification, education, hard work, discipline, respect for others, and moral obligation to the community” are invaluable assets for socioeconomic success (Zhou, 2004, p. 147). This socioeconomic success also increases the opportunity for immigrants to be connected and interact with people beyond their ethnic community, and fosters “bridging” social capital (Putnam, 2000; Weisinger & Salipante, 2005) or “thin” trust (Uslaner & Conley, 2003). In this social network structure, immigrants are more likely to donate to causes relevant to the broader community and society at large. Therefore, we suggest the following contradictory hypotheses:

Hypothesis 3a: Korean immigrants with a stronger ethnic identity are more likely to donate to ethnic organizations.

Hypothesis 3b: Korean immigrants with a stronger ethnic identity are more likely to donate to mainstream organizations.

Education

Educational experience is one aspect of human capital considered important for determining immigrants’ decisions to donate (Brown, 1999; Lee & Moon, 2011; Gittell & Tibal, 2006; Moon, 2010). Educational experience is obtained from the host country or from the native country. The distinction between these two educational experiences predicated on our expectation that the impact on giving is likely to be different. In terms of native educational experiences, migration is likely to attenuate the positive effects of such experiences; upon relocation, immigrants abrogate the social networks and ties they have acquired through their educational achievements and status in their native countries. Those immigrants are likely to use native educational experience to connect to and interact with people within the ethnic community and rebuild social networks that underlie such interactions. For them, it is significantly easier and quicker to establish social networks through which they can obtain critical resources (e.g., information, assistance, emotional comfort and relief) to survive in a host country. Thus, it is natural for them to develop “bonding” social capital, which limits their social relationships with the ethnic community, and thus increases their chance of being asked for donations by community members. Therefore, immigrants who completed their higher education in their native country are more likely to donate to ethnic organizations than those who completed their higher education from the host country.

On the other hand, immigrants with a higher level of education earned in the host country likely find it easier to interact with the mainstream population and develop the social networks essential to economic and social opportunity than those with native educational experience. Their access to social networks resulting from their interaction with the mainstream population could prove highly instrumental for finding a job and socializing with people outside of their ethnic community. This type of social interaction fosters “bridging” social capital, in which those immigrants are likely to be asked to donate to mainstream organizations. Therefore, we hypothesize

Hypothesis 4: Korean immigrants with a greater level of education acquired from the native country are more likely to donate to ethnic organizations.

Hypothesis 5: Korean immigrants with a greater level of education acquired from the host country are more likely to donate to mainstream organizations.

Social Status

We also consider an individual’s social status, which is used as a proxy for measuring social capital, including marital status (Andreoni, Brown, & Rischall, 2003; Janoski, Musick, & Wilson, 1998; Mesch, Rooney, Steinberg, & Denton, 2006), employment status (Frumkin, 2006; Sundeen, Garcia, & Roskoff, 2009), home ownership, and parental status or number of people in a household (Wilson, 2000). Researchers have found that people with higher social status, including those who are married, own a home, and have full-time employment, are likely to have larger and broader social networks and more opportunities to interact with people. This general finding can be applied to the immigrant population; that is, immigrants with higher social status are more likely to maintain larger and broader social networks and thus interact with people beyond their own ethnic communities (Bryant, Jeon-Slaughter, Kang, & Tax, 2003; Wilson, 2000).

Hypothesis 6: Korean immigrants with higher social status are more likely to donate to mainstream organizations.

Research Method

This study employed data from the Charitable Giving and Volunteering Philanthropic Survey.¹ This web-based survey targeted Korean immigrants in California and was administered by a major Korean news media organization in the United States, the Korean Daily Newspaper and Joong Ang Broadcasting Corporation. The survey was made accessible through the main website of the newspaper and was advertised on the front page of the newspaper, in both the online and print versions, and through radio commercials. Additionally, newspaper subscribers were contacted and solicited for survey participation. The sample comprised 748 Korean immigrants with legal residency in California, including those with citizenship (423), permanent residency (317), and permanent residency-equivalent visas (EB-5) (8).

The web survey method was adopted in an effort to eliminate some of the typical challenges involved in administering mail or phone surveys to ethnic minority groups, most notably Korean immigrants (Moon, 2010). Such challenges include low survey response rates attributable to language barriers, frequent incorrect contact information (home addresses and phone numbers) for survey responses, and the costs of implementation of such a survey (Dillman, 2007). At the same time, web surveys carry their own disadvantages. The web survey method could potentially introduce a sampling error by systematically prohibiting individuals with limited computer skills (and knowledge) and web access from survey participation (Dillman, 2007). Individuals with higher socioeconomic status tend to be represented more prominently in the sample than those with lower socioeconomic status.

This limitation of the web survey method, however, can be minimized by the characteristics of our sampling population, which tends to have a higher level of educational attainment: more than 91% of Korean immigrants have a high school diploma or higher obtained in Korea or the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2007). Additionally, the Internet is among the most essential means of communication (with family, relatives, and friends in their home country) and information acquisition among Korean immigrants (Moon, 2010). This is not surprising, considering that South Korea boasts the highest household Internet penetration rate (94%) among member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.²

Empirical Model and Variable Measures

This study constructs a bivariate probit regression model³ to estimate two distinctive giving practices—ethnic giving versus mainstream giving. The study focuses specifically on two major areas: Korean immigrants’ acculturation measured in two dimensions—sociocultural adaptation and ethnic identity—and resources, including human and social resources. It also includes control variables, such as demographic characteristics, level of household income, and level of emotional attachment to the native country, religiosity, employment, and cultural shock. Details of the coding schemes for these variables are provided in Table 1.

Table 1.

Variable coding.

Variables	Coding
Mainstream giving	1 When respondent gives to a mainstream org.; 0 otherwise
Ethnic giving	1 When respondent gives to an ethnic org.; 0 otherwise
Sociocultural adaptation	Combined scale constructed using standardized values of the individual survey items measuring language use, socializing pattern, and food preference
Ethnic identity	Combined scale constructed using standardized values of the individual survey items that evaluate immigrants’ perception regarding Korean identity, commonality between Koreans in Korea and Koreans in America, importance of being able to speak Korean, and the importance of preserving Korean culture
Korean education	0 = no diploma; 1 = elementary school graduate; 2 = middle school graduate; 3 = high school graduate; 4 = 2-year associate college degree; 5 = 4-year college degree; 6 = master’s degree; doctoral degree = 7.
U.S. education	0 = no diploma; 1 = elementary school graduate; 2 = middle school graduate; 3 = high school graduate; 4 = 2-year associate college degree; 5 = 4-year college degree; 6 = master’s degree; doctoral degree = 7.
Household income	1 = US$0-24,999; 2 = US$25,000-US$49,999; 3 = US$50,000-US$74,999; 4 = US$75,000-US$99,000; 5 = US$100,000-US$149,000; 6 = US$150,000-US$199,999;7 = US$200,000 and higher
Marital status	0 = single; 1 = married
Home ownership	1 = home owner; 0 = otherwise
Employment	0 = unemployed; 1 = employed part-time; 2 = employed full-time
Number of people in a household	Continuous variable
Gender	1 = male; 0 = female
Culture shock	Combined scale constructed using standardized values of the individual survey items measuring the level of stress associated with being treated differently in social situations, feeling nervous about communicating in English, and feeling challenged due to cultural differences
Generation status	1 = lst generation; 2 = 1.5 generation
Years stayed in the United States	Continuous variable
Age	Continuous variable
Citizenship	1 = respondent has citizenship; 0 = otherwise
Religiosity	Frequency of attending religious services. 1 = do not attend; 2 = only major religious holidays; 3 = about once a month; 4= about once a week; 5 = more than once a week.
Frequency of visiting Korea	1 = more than once a year; 2 = once a year; 3 = once in the past 3 years; 4 = once in the past 5 years; 5 = more than 5 years ago; 6 = have not visited
Frequency of communication with family/friends in Korea	1 = more than once a week; 2 = about once a week; 3 = about once a month; 4 = once every several months; 5 = no contact

Dependent Variables

The dependent variables include Korean immigrants’ ethnic giving practices and mainstream giving practices. To measure immigrants’ participation in ethnic giving, we asked respondents whether they had donated to ethnic (Korean) charitable organizations in 2008. In this question, several names of ethnic organizations were provided as examples to facilitate the respondents’ recognition of ethnic organizations, including the Korean American Coalition (KAC), Network of Korean American Leaders (NetKaL), and the National Association for Korean Americans (NAKA). In general, Korean immigrants do not experience difficulties in recognizing their ethnic organizations, since these organizations are typically hyphenated with the word “Korean”. With regard to measuring immigrants’ participation in mainstream giving, we attempted to determine whether respondents donated to mainstream (American) charitable organizations in 2008. On the survey, we simply indicated that mainstream organizations are “American” organizations tailored to serve Americans and the American community in general. In addition, several names of mainstream organizations are provided to facilitate the respondents’ understanding of the organizations, including the YMCA, Goodwill, the Red Cross, and the American Cancer Society. Those who answered “yes” were coded as one; otherwise, zero.

Independent Variables

First, to measure the acculturation that immigrants undergo, this paper focuses on two major dimensions—sociocultural adaptation and ethnic identity. Sociocultural adaptation indicates the level of adaptation as part of the immigrants’ responses to the social and cultural demands of the host country. To measure the level of adaptation, we employ multiple measures, including the frequency of Korean language use at home, at work, and with friends; Korean food preferences; and socializing with other Koreans. Each indicator was measured based on a 5-point Likert-type scale, with 1 representing strongly disagree and 5 strongly agree. We identify this acculturation dimension via the use of factor analysis. The Cronbach’s alpha of .72 indicates that the index was reliable and accurately represents an underlying dimension associated with sociocultural adaptation.

To evaluate ethnic identity, we employ an additive index of five measures designed to evaluate the level of immigrants’ perceptions regarding Korean identity, commonality with Koreans in Korea and Koreans in America, the importance of Korean language facility, and the importance of preserving Korean culture. A Cronbach’s alpha of .78 confirms the strong correlation between these measures and the reliability of the index, which represents an underlying dimension associated with ethnic identity. Detailed descriptions of the sociocultural adaptation and ethnic identity items are provided in Table 2.

Table 2.

Factor Analysis of Acculturation Survey Items (Principal Component Analysis, Promax Method).

	Acculturation dimensions
Items*	Sociocultural adaptation (Cronbach’s alpha = .72)	Ethnic identity (Cronbach’s alpha = .78)	Culture shock (Cronbach’s alpha = .71)
1. How often do you speak Korean at home? (reversed)	0.678	0.091	0.053
2. How often do you speak Korean at work? (reversed)	0.668	−0.255	0.160
3. How often do you speak Korean with your friends? (reversed)	0.792	−0.053	−0.033
4. How much do you interact and associate with Korean Americans? (reversed)	0.717	0.066	−0.062
5. How often do you eat Korean food at home? (reversed)	0.607	0.205	−0.060
1. How much do you identify as a Korean?	−0.177	0.722	0.035
2. How much do you feel you have in common with Koreans in Korea?	−0.070	0.559	0.082
3. How much do you feel you have in common with Koreans in America?	−0.171	0.567	−0.144
4. How important is it for you to be able to speak Korean?	0.027	0.808	−0.044
5. How important is it for you to preserve Korean culture?	0.167	0.863	0.114
1. I feel I am treated differently in social situations	0.093	0.075	0.779
2. I feel nervous about communicating in English	−0.286	−0.025	0.689
3. I feel challenged, due to differences between Korean and American-style cultural norms	0.061	0.038	0.853
Eigen Values	4.013	1.913	1.379
Percent of common variance	29.3	12.8	9.9
N = 748

Respondents were asked to answer the following questions (Responses ranged from strongly disagree = 1 to strongly agree = 5).

Human resources are measured by educational attainment level and household income level. In terms of educational attainment level, Korean educational experiences can be distinguished from American educational experiences. The respondents were asked to designate their highest level of education acquired from each country as of 2008. The level of educational attainment is an ordinal variable. The level of household income is an ordinal variable and is measured using the total gross household income before taxes for 2008. Respondents who indicated their income to be US$200,000 or higher were coded as seven, those with an income between US$150,000 and US$199,999 were coded as six, those with an income between US$100,000 and US$149,999 were coded as five, those with an income between US$75,000 and US$99,999 were coded as four, those with an income between US$50,000 and US$74,999 were coded as three, those with an income between US$25,000 and US$49,999 were coded as two, and those with an income less than US$25,000 were coded as one.

To evaluate social resources, we employ social status variables, including marital status, employment status, home ownership, and the number of people in a household. Marital status is a nominal variable. Married people were coded as one; otherwise, zero. Employment status is an ordinal variable and was measured by the respondents’ current employment status. The respondents with full-time employment were coded as two, part-time employment as one, and unemployed respondents were coded as zero. Home ownership is a nominal variable. The home owners were coded as one; otherwise, zero. The number of people in a household is a continuous variable and ranges from 1 to 12. The average number in a household is approximately three people.

Control Variables

First, this paper includes immigrant generation status, years lived in the United States, and citizenship as proxies to assess the degree of exposure to a new culture (Negy & Woods, 1992; Ryder, Alden, & Pualhus, 2000). These are typical proxies for measuring the level of acculturation and are known to be significant predictors of participation in philanthropic activities, including volunteering (Sundeen, Garcia, & Raskoff, 2009).

Years living in the United States is a continuous variable and is measured by the number of years immigrants have been living in the United States; the responses ranged from 2 years to 45 years.

Immigrant generation status is an ordinal variable. The 1.5 generation immigrants—those who were born outside the United States and immigrated as minors—were coded as two; the first generation immigrants—those who were born outside the United States and immigrated as adults—were coded as one. Approximately 77% of the survey respondents in our sample identified themselves as first generation; 23% identified themselves as 1.5 generation. Citizenship is a nominal variable; immigrants who are naturalized citizens are coded as one; otherwise, zero.

Second, we control for culture shock. As mentioned earlier, culture shock can degrade immigrants’ mental health and lower their economic productivity (Berry, Kim, Minde, & Mok, 1987). Thus, those with a higher level of culture shock are more likely to experience difficulty in their incorporation into American society than those with a lower level of culture shock. In this regard, a high level of culture shock may hamper participation in mainstream giving. We construct an additive index of culture shock based on three different survey items: (a) “I feel I am treated differently in social situations”; (b) “I feel nervous about communicating in English”; and (c) “I feel challenged, due to differences between Korean and American-style cultural norms.” The index measures the level of stress immigrants experience in the process of acculturation. The Cronbach’s alpha of .71 indicates the reliability of the index and represents an underlying dimension associated with culture shock.

Third, this article includes immigrants’ demographic characteristics, including gender, age, and religiosity. Literature on charitable giving suggests that females (Mesch et al., 2006; Mills, Pedersen, & Grusec, 1989), older adults (Mathur, 1996; Putnam, 2000), and people who identify themselves as being religious (Hodgkinson & Weitzman, 1996) are more likely to donate.

Gender is a nominal variable. Males were coded as one, and females were coded as zero. Approximately 33% and 67% of the respondents were females and males, respectively. Age is a continuous variable and ranges from 21 to 67 years old.

Fourth, we also control for the degree of immigrants’ emotional attachment to Korea. To measure this, we asked the survey respondents to indicate the frequency of their visits to Korea and communication with their family and/or friends in Korea. These are ordinal variables.

Finally, religiosity is an ordinal variable that measures the frequency of attending religious services. Immigrants who attended religious services more than once a week were coded as four, those who attended approximately once a week were coded as three, those attending approximately once a month as two, those attending only on major religious holidays as one, and those immigrants who did not attend religious services were coded as zero.

Empirical Analyses of Charitable Giving Practices

Table 3 offers descriptive statistics of each variable. Table 4 shows the frequency distribution of the respondents who donated to ethnic organizations versus mainstream organizations: 66% of Korean immigrants gave to ethnic organizations, whereas 42% donated to mainstream organizations. Among the respondents, those who were first-generation immigrants, employed full-time, and married exhibited higher rates of donations made to both ethnic and mainstream organizations than those in other socioeconomic categories.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics.

Variable	Obs.	Mean	SD	Min	Max
Ethnic giving	748	0.6618	0.4734	0	1
Mainstream giving	748	0.4225	0.4943	0	1
Sociocultural adaptation	748	4.1735	0.6448	1.6	5
Korean identity	748	4.0569	0.6169	1.4	5
Korean education	748	4.3570	1.4017	0	8
U.S. education	748	2.6110	2.6454	0	7
Household income	748	3.4238	1.4240	1	7
Marital status	748	0.8209	0.3837	0	1
Home ownership	748	0.4920	0.5003	0	1
Employment	748	1.5281	0.7555	0	2
N of people in a household	748	3.4118	1.4704	1	12
Gender	748	0.6725	0.4696	0	1
Culture shock	748	3.1399	0.7680	1	5
Generation status	748	1.2340	0.4236	1	2
Years stayed in the United .States	748	16.7914	8.2523	2	45
Age	748	43.9612	10.2133	21	76
Citizenship	748	0.5668	0.4958	0	1
Religiosity	748	2.5789	1.3818	0	4
Frequency of visiting Korea	748	3.8516	1.5291	1	6
Frequency of communication with family/friends in Korea	748	2.9211	1.2740	1	5

Table 4.

Frequency Distribution (%).

Variables	Total N = 748	Ethnic givers N = 495	Mainstream givers N = 316
Gave to ethnic orgs	66	100	0
Gave to mainstream orgs	42	0	100
Generation
lst generation	77	79	77
1.5 generation	23	21	23
Employment
Unemployed	16	16	15
Part-time	15	15	16
Full-time	69	69	70
Marital status
Single	18	17	20
Married	82	83	80
Gender
Female	33	33	35
Male	67	67	65
Home ownership
Renter	51	49	46
Home owner	49	51	54
Citizenship
Permanent resident	43	44	41
Citizen	57	56	59

Table 5 provides bivariate probit regression results that estimate giving to ethnic organizations versus giving to mainstream organizations, including both religious and nonreligious organizations. Overall, acculturation measures—sociocultural adaptation and ethnic identity, U.S. educational attainment, and gender—are highly significant in terms of explaining mainstream giving practices among Korean immigrants. Marital status is only weakly related to mainstream giving practices. On the other hand, household income, citizenship, and religiosity were found to be relevant in regard to estimating immigrants’ ethnic giving practices.

Table 5.

Bivariate Probit Results (Giving to Organizations, Both Religious and Nonreligious).

	Ethnic giving		Mainstream giving
	Coef.	SE	Coef.	SE
Sociocultural adaptation	0.1577†	0.0849	−0.3218****	0.0808
Ethnic identity	−0.0263	0.0784	0.2877****	0.0745
Korean education	0.0639	0.0411	0.0465	0.0384
U.S. education	−0.0190	0.0228	0.0523**	0.0208
Household income	0.1246***	0.0433	0.0179	0.0398
Marital status	−0.2803†	0.1547	−0.2541†	0.1433
Home ownership	0.0747	0.1131	0.1012	0.1054
Employment	0.0349	0.0752	0.0717	0.0700
Number of people in a household	−0.0070	0.0375	−0.0324	0.0362
Gender	0.0270	0.1182	−0.2703**	0.1092
Culture shock	0.0302	0.0743	−0.0666	0.0684
Generation status	−0.0634	0.1638	−0.1390	0.1542
Years stayed in the United States	0.0178†	0.0102	0.0100	0.0094
Age	0.0048	0.0080	0.0065	0.0074
Citizenship	−0.2589*	0.1262	−0.0654	0.1174
Religiosity	0.4204	0.0388	0.0260	0.0356
Frequency of visiting Korea	0.0133	0.0368	−0.0248	0.0344
Frequency of communication with family/ friends in Korea	−0.0204	0.0464	−0.0284	0.0437
Cons	−1.3969	0.5176	−0.3970	0.4802
ρ(rho)	−0.2849***	0.0621
Likelihood-ratio test of rho = 0	chi²(1) = 19.1999	Prob>chi² = 0.0000

Note: N = 748.

†

p ≤ .1. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .005. ****p ≤ .001.

Below are detailed descriptions of the empirical results regarding donation to both religious and nonreligious organizations. Immigrants’ sociocultural adaptation is positively and significantly related to mainstream giving practices. The marginal effect depicted in Table 6 indicates that an additional level of sociocultural adaptation increases the probability of donating to mainstream organizations by 6.8%, but reduces the probability of giving to ethnic organizations by 11.4%.

Table 6.

Average Partial Effects after Bivariate Probit (Giving to Nonprofits, both religious and nonreligious).

	Ethnic giving=0; Mainstream Giving=0		Ethnic giving=1; Mainstream giving=0		Ethnic giving=0; Mainstream giving=1		Ethnic giving=1; Mainstream giving=1
	dy/dx	Std. Err.	dy/dx	Std. Err.	dy/dx	Std. Err.	dy/dx	Std. Err.
Sociocultural adaptation	0.012	0.018	0.114****	0.028	−0.068****	0.019	−0.058*	0.024
Ethnic identity	−0.032*	0.016	−0.080***	0.026	0.042*	0.018	0.071****	0.022
Korean Education	−0.018	0.009	0.000	0.014	−0.005	0.009	0.023*	0.011
U.S. education	−0.003	0.005	−0.017*	0.007	0.010***	0.005	0.010	0.006
Household income	−0.026***	0.009	0.019	0.014	−0.019**	0.010	0.026*	0.012
Marital status	0.075***	0.025	0.025	0.051	0.020	0.033	−0.120**	0.047
Home ownership	−0.027	0.023	−0.012	0.037	0.001	0.025	0.039	0.031
Employment	−0.016	0.016	−0.012	0.025	0.003	0.017	0.025	0.021
Number of people in a household	0.006	0.008	0.007	0.013	−0.003	0.008	−0.010	0.010
Gender	0.030	0.023	0.076*	0.038	−0.040	0.028	−0.067*	0.033
Culture shock	0.003	0.015	0.023	0.024	−0.014	0.016	−0.012	0.020
Generation status	0.030	0.034	0.024	0.055	−0.007	0.037	−0.047	0.045
Years living in the United States	−0.005*	0.002	0.001	0.003	−0.002	0.002	0.006*	0.003
Age	−0.002	0.002	−0.001	0.003	0.000	0.002	0.003	0.002
Citizenship	0.056*	0.025	−0.031	0.042	0.035	0.028	−0.061	0.035
Religiosity	−0.083****	0.009	0.072****	0.013	−0.067**	0.009	0.077****	0.011
Frequency of visiting Korea	0.001	0.008	0.009	0.012	−0.005	0.008	−0.004	0.010
Frequency of communication with family/friends in Korea	0.008	0.010	0.004	0.015	0.000	0.010	−0.011	0.013

Note: N = 748.

†

p ≤ .1. *p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01. ***p ≤ .005. ****p ≤ .001.

Ethnic identity is also strongly and negatively related to mainstream giving. Korean immigrants with a stronger ethnic identity are 4.2% more likely to donate to mainstream organizations, whereas they are 8% less likely to give to ethnic organizations.

In terms of education, Korean immigrants with a higher level of U.S. education tend to be more likely to donate to mainstream organizations. An additional level of educational attainment from the United States increases the likelihood of participation in mainstream giving practices by 1%, whereas it reduces the likelihood of participation in ethnic giving practices by 1.7%.

Female immigrants are more likely to donate to mainstream organizations than their male counterparts. The marginal effect provided in Table 6 indicates that females are 4% more likely to donate to mainstream organizations, whereas they are 7.6% less likely to donate to ethnic organizations.

On the other hand, household income is a positive and significant indicator for ethnic giving practices. Immigrants with higher household income are 1.9% more likely to donate to ethnic organizations, while they are 1.9% less likely to donate to mainstream organizations.

Immigrants who have not attained U.S. citizenship status (i.e., permanent residents) are more likely to give to ethnic organizations. Permanent residency increases the likelihood of ethnic giving by 3.1%, while reducing the likelihood of mainstream giving by 3.5%.

Immigrants who are more religious are more likely to give to ethnic organizations. An additional level of religiosity increases the probability of donating to ethnic organizations by 7.2%, while reducing the probability of donating to mainstream organizations by 6.7%.

With regard to interactive relationships between ethnic giving and mainstream giving practices, they are negative and highly significant, as indicated by the correlation coefficient for rho in Table 5. This finding indicates that immigrants who donate to ethnic organizations are less likely to donate to mainstream organizations, and vice versa.

Discussion and Conclusion

The factors influencing individuals’ decisions to donate to nonprofits have been relatively well researched and explored. However, there has been a dearth of research devoted thus far to understanding the patterns of distinctive giving practices observed among ethnic minorities; that is, ethnic giving practices versus mainstream giving practices. This paper empirically assesses the determinants of such giving practices and the interactive relationships between them by analyzing the large-scale survey data (n = 748) of foreign-born Korean immigrants in California. Our biprobit regression results indicate that both dimensions of acculturation are the most powerful predictors for mainstream giving practices, but they are not good indicators for ethnic giving practices. Additionally, education acquired in the host country (i.e., America), rather than in the native country (i.e., Korea), plays a positive and significant role in participation in mainstream giving practices. With regard to ethnic giving practices, household income and religiosity are significantly and positively related to them. Additionally, noncitizens are more likely to give to ethnic organizations than are citizens. Finally, with regard to the relationship between the two distinctive giving practices, they are negatively interrelated, meaning that immigrants who donate to ethnic organizations are less likely to give to mainstream organizations, and vice versa.

Sociocultural adaptation is positively and significantly related to immigrants’ mainstream giving practices. Basically, immigrants who are more adapted to and more familiar with U.S. society and culture are more likely to donate to mainstream organizations than those who are less well adapted. This finding is related to the fact that the former are more likely than the latter to meet and interact with people outside of their ethnic enclave. This type of social interaction breeds “thin” trust or “bridging” social capital, which provides a fertile ground for civic engagement with the mainstream community. On the other hand, lower levels of sociocultural adaptation do not necessarily lead to ethnic giving practices. This result is related to the fact that the lack of social and cultural understanding is a double-edged sword; although social and cultural alienation is useful in producing “bonding” social capital that encourages ethnic giving practices, it can also inhibit the economic stability required for donation to become a feasible consideration.

Another dimension of acculturation, ethnic identity, exerts a strong and positive effect on mainstream giving practices. This positive relationship is related to the positive socioeconomic and psychological benefits that immigrants with stronger Korean ethnic identity can enjoy by maintaining Korean cultural values and attitudes that emphasize hard work, education, strong families, and discipline; such cultural values and attitudes are generally regarded as valuable assets for socioeconomic success (Chao, 2001; Fukuyama, 1993; Zhou, 2004) and provide a strong sense of self-esteem and belonging (Zhou, 2004). These positive aspects provide more opportunity to interact and to connect with the mainstream population (that is, the accumulation of “bridging” social capital) and thus increase the chance of giving to mainstream organizations.

In addition to acculturation, U.S. educational experience plays a significant role in participation in mainstream giving practices. Several potential benefits associated with this educational experience can increase the likelihood of immigrants’ decisions to donate to mainstream organizations: expansion of social networks and increased job opportunities essential for economic stability. First, U.S educational experiences promote immigrants’ understanding of American culture and society, which can facilitate their opportunity to meet and interact with people outside their community. This newly established social network, to which immigrants previously had no access, can perform a positive function in bridging the gap between networks embedded in interpersonal relations among people in the ethnic community and those built upon interpersonal relations among people in the mainstream community (Burt, 1992). This bridging network provides immigrants with the opportunity to meet and interact with people beyond their ethnic enclave, which increases the chance of their being asked and recruited for donations. Second, the bridging network also facilitates access to job-related information and increased job opportunities for immigrants (Sanders, Nee, & Sernau, 2002). Additionally, U.S. educational training can equip immigrants with the skills and knowledge necessary for them to compete with others in the job market and subsequently achieve economic stability, which is regarded as an important antecedent for mainstream donation (Chao, 1999).

Third, gender is profoundly related to giving practices. Females are more likely to participate in mainstream giving practices than are their male counterparts. Generally speaking, this finding is consistent with the previous findings that females are more likely to give than males, regardless of their socioeconomic status (Mesch et al., 2006). However, the tendency of mainstream giving practices among immigrant women had not been previously researched. Possible reasons for this might be related to the recent increased participation of Korean immigrant women in the U.S. labor force, and their increased control over economic and social resources (Min, 2001). Korean immigrant women’s increased economic and social roles, combined with personal traits including caring, self-sacrifice, and empathy, can provide ample opportunities for them to contribute to mainstream organizations.

On the other hand, religiosity and household income are strongly positive determinants of ethnic donation. This result can be explained by the fact that a vast majority of Korean immigrants in the United States participate in ethnic churches; these churches perform a significant role in helping immigrants maintain social interactions and providing them with social services (Min, 1992). Thus, the more religious immigrants are, the more likely they are to be committed to and involved in ethnic religious institutions. Additionally, they are more likely to consider religious institutions as the primary places in which they can satisfy their social and religious needs, not to mention their social service needs. Therefore, this ethnic church-centered pattern of social interaction generates “bonding” social capital and encourages these immigrants to donate to ethnic organizations. Likewise, this social network built through ethnic churches makes immigrants with greater financial resources more visible and thus more likely to be pressured to contribute to the ethnic community, principally through ethnic churches. Donation, in this case, is one of the means by which they can improve their reputation in their ethnic community.

Finally, the finding of negative interactive relationships between ethnic giving and mainstream giving practices suggests that they are substitutes, rather than complementary. This result leaves us with a conundrum. Basically, increased mainstream giving means reduced ethnic giving, and vice versa. Obviously, the purpose of our study was not to encourage the diversion of immigrants’ ethnic giving practices to mainstream giving practices. Is there any way to address this crowding-out effect between the two giving practices? How can we attract more mainstream giving from immigrants, while not discouraging their ethnic giving practices? More specifically, how can we direct donation to where it is needed, rather than to where an ethnic boundary has been drawn? One possible area in which nonprofits might work is related to the building of trustful and reciprocal relationships between the ethnic and mainstream communities. This task can be accomplished through strategic and long-term partnerships between ethnic and mainstream organizations. One major area in which both types of organizations could mutually benefit from partnerships is in assisting immigrants in participating in American culture and society. In partnering with ethnic organizations, mainstream organizations could provide social services that directly respond to the needs of immigrants in terms of their adaptation to American society and culture, including language learning and legal services. These services are typically offered by ethnic organizations; however, more often than not they are not up to the mainstream standard. Ethnic organizations frequently lack the requisite resources (e.g., financial and human) and expertise to meet such demands. Another area for partnership might include the facilitation and sponsorship of cultural events wherein immigrant minorities have a chance to share their cultural heritage and values with the mainstream population, and enabling them to feel pride in their ethnic and cultural identity (Moon, 2010). These cultural events facilitate immigrants’ interaction with people outside of their community, and broaden social ties and connection. Overall, small-scale partnerships can help mainstream organizations garner trust and reciprocity from ethnic communities and ethnic organizations, and can provide fertile ground for larger scale partnerships in the future. As implied by our findings, partnerships that work toward promoting sociocultural adaptation and cultural and ethnic identity are beneficial in terms of attracting more immigrant participation in mainstream giving.

This study has limitations, which may also be the subject of future studies. First, this study relied on a web survey method for data collection. The method, which relies on the self-reporting of participation in donation on the web, limits the reliability of the responses and can therefore introduce potential bias into the sample. Future research, although it would prove costly, will require a mail survey method to be employed, in addition to a web survey. Another limitation of this study is related to the limited scope of our research inquiry, which was conducted only among Korean immigrants in California and was undertaken only in 2009. Future studies should compare Korean immigrant giving behavior to nonimmigrant giving practices, as well as to the donation behavior of other ethnic groups that share similar cultural values and attitudes, including Chinese, Japanese, and Vietnamese groups. It is also important to conduct longitudinal studies to determine the manner in which giving practices evolve over time and how partnerships between ethnic and mainstream organizations affect their communities. Third, this study did not consider the size of giving (as a percentage of income); rather, it was limited to a binary consideration of participation in giving. Future studies will need to evaluate the size of giving among Korean immigrants. In particular, it would prove useful to estimate the donation behavior of wealthy immigrants in terms of giving to mainstream versus ethnic organizations (for a general discussion of motivations among the wealthy, please refer to Schervish, 1992, and Schervish & Havens, 1997). Finally, this study does not take into consideration cases in which immigrants participate in both ethnic giving and mainstream giving. Although such cases were found to be rather rare in our study, it would be interesting to incorporate this possibility into our analysis, and differentiate such donation behavior from behavior targeted dichotomously into either ethnic or mainstream organizations.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The authors also gratefully acknowledge financial support from the Dorothy A. Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership at the Grand Valley State University

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korea Government (NRF-2010-A003-0072).

Notes

Author Biographies

Seong-gin Moon is an associate professor at the Department of Public Administration and Graduate School of Public Policy at Inha University in South Korea. His research focuses on public policy and nonprofit management, philanthropy, and voluntary environmental behavior. His works have been published in several journals, including Public Administration Review, Social Science Quarterly, and Voluntas.

Sang Ok Choi is an associate professor at the Department of Public Administration at Korea University in South Korea. His current research interests focus on the study of interorganizational relationships and nonprofit governance. His work has appeared in several journals, including Public Administration Review, Administration Review of Public Administration, and Administration & Society.

References

Adler

P. S.

Kwon

S. W.

(2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. Academy of Management Review, 27(1), 17-40.

Andreoni

Brown

Rischall

(2003). Charitable giving by married couples: Who decides and why does it matter? Journal of Human Resources, 38(1), 111-133.

Berry

J. W.

Kim

Minde

Mok

(1987). Comparative studies of acculturative stress. International Migration Review, 21, 491-511.

Berry

J. W.

(2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In Chun

K.M.

Organista

P.B.

Marin

(Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 17-38). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Brooks

A. C.

(2005). Does social capital make you generous? Social Science Quarterly, 86(1), 1-15.

Brown

(1999). Patterns and purposes of philanthropic giving. In Clotfelter

C. T.

Ehrlich

(Eds.), Philanthropy and the nonprofit sector (pp. 212-230). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Brown

Ferris

J. M.

(2007). Social capital and philanthropy: An analysis of the impact of social capital on individual giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36(1), 85-99.

Bryant

W. K.

Jeon-Slaughter

Kang

Tax

(2003). Participating in philanthropic activities: Donating money and time. Journal of Consumer Policy, 26(1), 43-73.

Burt

R. S.

(1992). Structural holes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

10.

Carson

E. D.

(2000, Fall). The new rules for engaging donors of color: Giving in the twenty-first century. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 29, 69-80.

11.

Chao

(1999). Asian-American philanthropy: Expanding circles of participation. In Cultures of caring: Philanthropy in diverse American communities (pp. 197-253). Washington, DC: Special report funded by the Ford Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and the Council on Foundations.

12.

Chao

(2001). Asian-American philanthropy: Acculturation and charitable vehicles. In Rogers

P. C.

(Ed) Philanthropy in Communities of Color: Traditions and Challenges (pp. 57-79). Indianapolis: ARNOVA.

13.

Decker

Uslaner

E. M.

(2001). Social capital and participation in everyday life. New York, NY: Routledge.

14.

Dillman

D. A.

(2007). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

15.

Frey

B. S.

Meier

(2005). Selfish and indoctrinated economists? European Journal of Law and Economics, 19, 165-71

16.

Frumkin

(2006). Strategic giving: The art and science of giving. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

17.

Fukuyama

(1993). Immigrants and family values. Commentary, 95(5), 26-32.

18.

Granovetter

M. S.

(1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 78, 1360-1380.

19.

Greene

W. H.

(2007). Econometric analysis (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

20.

Gittell

Tebaldi

(2006). Charitable giving: Factors influencing giving in U.S. states. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 721-736

21.

Gittell

Vidal

(1998) Community Organizing: Building Social Capital as a Development Strategy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

22.

Giving USA. (2009). Giving USA: The annual report on philanthropy for the year 2008. A publication giving USA foundation, researched and written by the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

23.

Gordon

M. M.

(1964). Assimilation in American life. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

24.

Handy

, & Greenspan. (2009). Immigrant volunteering: A stepping stone to integration. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 956-982.

25.

Hodgkinson

V. A.

(2002). Individual giving and volunteering. In Salamon

L. M.

(Eds.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 387-420). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

26.

Hodgkinson

V. A.

Weitzman

(1996) Giving and volunteering in the United States. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

27.

Janoski

Musick

Wilson

(1998). Being volunteered? The impact of social participation and pro-social attitudes on volunteering. Sociological Forum, 13, 495-519.

28.

Johnson

A. S.

(2011). Korean American philanthropy: Traditions, trends, and potential. San Francisco, CA: Give2Asia.

29.

Lee

Moon

(2011). Mainstream and ethnic volunteering by Korean immigrants in the United States. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 22, 811-830.

30.

Levi

(1996, March). Social and unsocial capital: A review essay of Robert Putnam’s making democracy work. Politics & Society, 24, 45-55

31.

Lin

(2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

32.

Mathur

(1996). Older adults’ motivations for gift giving to charitable organizations: An exchange theory perspective. Psychology and Marketing, 13(1), 107-123.

33.

Mesch

D. J.

Rooney

P. M.

Steinberg

K. S.

Denton

(2006). The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35, 565-587.

34.

Mills

R. S.

Pedersen

Grusec

J. E.

(1989). Sex differences in reasoning and emotion about altruism. Sex Roles, 20, 603-621

35.

Min

P. G.

(1992). The structure and social functions of Korean immigrant churches in the United States. International Migration Review, 26, 1370-1394.

36.

Min

P.G.

(2001). Changes in Korean immigrants’ gender role and social status, and their marital conflicts. Sociological Forum, 16, 301-320.

37.

Moon

(2009, November 19-21). Acculturation, resources, and formal charitable donation: The case of foreign-born Korean immigrants in the United States. Paper presented at the 38th Association for Research on Nonprofit Organization and Voluntary Action Conference, Cleveland, OH.

38.

Moon

(2010, November 18-20). Ethnic giving versus mainstream giving practices by foreign-born Korean immigrants. Paper presented at the 39th Association for Research on Nonprofit Organization and Voluntary Action Conference, Alexandria, VA.

39.

Moon

Downey

(2010). Philanthropic motives: The “who” and “why” of charitable giving and volunteering. In Agard

(Ed.), Nonprofit leadership handbook (pp. 781-788). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

40.

Negy

Woods

D. J.

(1992). The importance of acculturation in understanding research with Hispanic-Americans. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 14(2), 224-247.

41.

Newman

D. S.

(2002). Incorporating diverse traditions into the fundraising practices of nonprofit organizations. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 37, 11-21.

42.

Norland

(2003). The impact of Korean immigration. In Bergsten

C. F.

Choi

(Eds.), Diaspora in the world economy (pp. 61-72). Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

43.

Koeske

G. F.

Sales

(2002). Acculturation, stress, and depressive symptoms among Korean immigrants in the United States. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 511-26.

44.

Osili

U. O.

(2005). Immigrant assimilation and charitable giving. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 48, 89-104

45.

Paxton

(2002). Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review, 6, 254-277.

46.

Pettrey

J. G.

(2002). Cultivating diversity in fundraising. New York, NY: John Wiley.

47.

Phinney

J. S.

(2003). Ethnic identity and acculturation. In Chun

K. M.

Organista

P. B.

Marin

(Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research (pp. 63-81). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

48.

Phinney

J. S.

Horenczyk

Liebkind

Vedder

(2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 493-510.

49.

Putnam

R. D.

(1995). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65-78.

50.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

51.

Redfield

Linton

Herskovits

(1936). Memorandum on the study of acculturation. American Anthropologist, 38, 149-152.

52.

Salamon

L. M.

(2002). The resilient sector: The state of nonprofit American. In Salamon

L. M.

(Ed.), The state of nonprofit America (pp. 3-61). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

53.

Sanders

Nee

Sernau

(2002). Asian immigrants’ reliance on social ties in a multiethnic labor market. Social Forces, 81, 281-314.

54.

Shao

(1995, Summer). Asian American giving: issues and challenges. New Directions for Philanthropic Giving, 8, 53-64.

55.

Smith

Shue

Vest

J. L.

Villarreal

(1999). Philanthropy in communities of color. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

56.

Sundeen

R. A.

Garcia

Raskoff

S. A.

(2009). Ethnicity, acculturation, and volunteering to organization: A comparison of African Americans, Asians, Hispanics, and Whites. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 929-955.

57.

Terrazas

Batog

(2010). Korean immigrants in the United States. Washington, DC: Migration Policy Institute. Retrieved from www.migrationinformation.org

58.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2007). American community survey. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/acs/www

59.

U.S. Census Bureau. (2009). American community survey. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/acs/www

60.

Uslaner

E. M.

(2002). The moral foundation of trust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

61.

Uslaner

E. M.

Conley

R. S.

(2003). Civic engagement and particularized trust. American Politics Research, 31, 331-360.

62.

Van Slyke

D. M.

Ashley

Johnson

J. L.

(2007). Nonprofit performance, fund-raising effectiveness, and strategies for engaging African Americans in Philanthropy. American Review of Public Administration, 37, 278-305.

63.

Weisinger

Salipante

(2005). A grounded theory for building ethnically bridging social capital in voluntary organizations? Nonprofit Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(1), 29-55.

64.

Wong

J. S.

Lien

Conway

M. M.

(2005). Group-based resources and political participation among Asian Americans. American Politics Research, 33, 545-576.

65.

Wilson

(2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215-240.

66.

Woolcock

(1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151-208.

67.

Zhou

(2004). The assimilation, the Asian way. In Jacoby

(Eds.), Reinventing the melting pot: The new immigrants and what it means to be American (pp. 139-153). New York, NY: Basic Books.