HMONG VOTER EDUCATION FORUMS
DRAWING OUT HMONG VOTERS
A Project
Presented to the faculty of the Division of Social Work
California State University, Sacramento
Submitted in partial satisfaction of
the requirements for the degree of
MASTER OF SOCIAL WORK
by
Cindy Vang
SPRING
2013
© 2013
Cindy Vang
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
ii
HMONG VOTER EDUCATION FORUMS
DRAWING OUT HMONG VOTERS
A Project
by
Cindy Vang
Approved by:
__________________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Serge Lee, Ph.D.
____________________________
Date
iii
Student: Cindy Vang
I certify that this student has met the requirements for format contained in the University
format manual, and that this project is suitable for shelving in the Library and credit is to
be awarded for the project.
__________________________, Graduate Coordinator
Dale Russell, Ed.D., LCSW
Division of Social Work
iv
___________________
Date
Abstract
of
HMONG VOTER EDUCATION FORUMS
DRAWING OUT HMONG VOTERS
by
Cindy Vang
The study focused on voter education forums targeted at the Hmong population held prior
to the November 2012 elections as a basis for determining whether additional work and
services are needed to increase the civic engagement of Hmong community members. To
identify whether Hmong voter turnout increased as a result of the voter education forums,
thirty attendees of the voter education forums were surveyed following the November
2012 elections. Findings from the study indicate that there is a significant association
between Hmong participants who spoke English who viewed the information provided at
the voter education forums as valuable. More than half the participants surveyed were
not born in the United States and 90% (n = 27) of the attendees reported to have voted in
the November 2012 elections.
_______________________, Committee Chair
Dr. Serge Lee, Ph.D.
_______________________
Date
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
To my Mom and Dad: Ua tsaug ntau heev rau kuv Niam thiab kuv Txiv. From
the beginning, you two have always been my most vocal advocates and strongest
supporters. I honor you both with this project and I hope this daughter has made you
proud. I love you kuv Niam thiab kuv Txiv. Thank you.
To my sisters: Nancy, Judy, Xee and Mai Mee, not a day passes that I do not
count my blessings to have your love and guidance. Each one of you continues to inspire
me in your own ways. I love you all. Thank you.
To my brothers: Larry, Kee and Tseng, I know I don’t tell you three enough of
how much I appreciate you. Thank you my brothers for making this tomboy feel
comfortable playing with the “boys” growing up and not judging me. I love you all.
Thank you.
To Hmong Innovating Politics (HIP): From the start, I could feel the love and
commitment we all had for our community, which extended beyond the Hmong
community. I’m thankful that we are working hard to better our community and taking
care of each other as well. This one is for you too HIPsters. I love you all. Thank you.
To Michael Sieng: I remember all the times you emailed me, called me and used
any other means of communication to remind me of MSW application deadlines, check in
on me and entertain me during my most stressful moments. Your love and support
through the years is greatly appreciated. I love you. Thank you.
vi
To my MSW cohorts, particularly those who have been so supportive and
encouraging along the past two years (If you think I’m talking about you, you are
probably right) and during this research process. I hope we will all continue to have the
dinners, talks and group text messages even after graduation. I love you all. Thank you.
To Dr. Serge Lee: You have been an amazing advisor all year long with your
encouragement and guidance in my research project. Thank you for your constant
support to not stop here. Thank you.
To Dr. Susan Eggman: To have had you as a professor was a truly humbling
experience and I thank you for challenging me to step outside of my comfort zone. You
are an inspiration to this young social worker. Thank you.
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... .. vi
List of Tables ............................................................................................................. . xi
Chapter
1. STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM …………………………………………….1
Introduction…………………………………………………………………....1
Statement of the Research Problem…………………………………………...3
Study Purpose…………………………………………....................................4
Theoretical Framework ………………………………………….....................4
Definition of Terms ……………………………………………………..…….6
Assumptions …………………………………………………………….....…..6
Social Work Research Justification ………………………………..….....…....7
2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .............………………………………………8
Grass Root Social Work Organization and Political Engagements………….. 9
History of the Hmong .....................................................................................13
Hmong in the United States ........................................................................... 15
Who Votes in the United States ..................................................................... 16
Voter Turnout Strategies ................................................................................ 17
Drawing Out Minority Groups to Vote .......................................................... 20
viii
Summary ........................................................................................................ 22
3. METHODS ........................................................................................................... 26
Study Design ..…………………………………………………………...……26
Sampling Procedures …..…………………………………………...………....27
Data Collection Procedures ..……………………………………...…………..28
Instruments …………………..…………………………………...…………...30
Data Analysis …………………...………………………………..…………...30
Protection of Human Subjects ……………………………………..……….....31
4. STUDY FINGS AND DISCUSSIONS………………………………..…………..32
Overall Findings …………………………………………………..………......32
Specific Findings …………………………………………………..……….....37
Interpretations to the Findings …………………………………..…………….42
Summary …………………………………………………………..…………..46
5.
CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ………….……...47
Summary of Study …………………………………………………….……....47
Implications for Social Work …………………………………………..……...48
Recommendations for Future Research……………………………..………....49
Limitations …………………………………………………………..………...51
Conclusion ……………………………………………………..……………...51
ix
Appendix A. The Questionnaire …………………………………………….………53
Appendix B. The Consent Form…………………………………………….……….57
References ...................………………………………………………………………59
x
LIST OF TABLES
Tables
Page
1.
Gender of Participants.................................... .………………………………. 33
2.
Ages of Participants ............................................ ……………………………. 33
3.
Marital Status of Participants ..... ………….…………………………………. 33
4.1
Participant’s Born in the United States ................... …………………………. 34
4.2
Participants’ Birth Places ........................................ …………………………. 34
5.1
English Speaking Participants................................. …………………………. 35
5.2
Participants’ Primary Language .............................. …………………………. 35
5.3
Participants’ English Speaking Level ...................... …………………………. 35
6
Participants’ Highest Level of Education……………...……………………...36
7.1
Participants Registered to Vote at Voter Education Forums………………….37
7.2
Participant’s that Voted in 2012 General Election…………………………....37
7.3
Participant’s that Voted in Past Elections…………………………………......38
7.4
Number of Elections Participant’s Voted In………...…………………….….38
7.5
Outreach for Voter Education Forums……………..……………………..…..39
8.1
Participant’s Value Perspective of the Voter Education Forum(s)…….……..40
8.2
Voter Education Forum(s) Encouraged to Vote in 2012 General Election.......40
9.1
Number of Voter Education Forum(s) Participants Attended...………….…...41
9.2
Likelihood to Vote after Attending Future Voter Education Forum..…..……. 41
10(a) Age * Vote in the 2012 General Election…………….……………………….....42
xi
10(b) Chi-Square Tests………………………….……………………………………..43
11(a) English Language Speaker * Likelihood to Attend Future Voter Forum ….…...44
11(b) Chi-Square Tests………………………….……………………………………..44
12(a) Voter Forum Value * Speaks English .. ……………………………………….45
12(b) Chi-Square Tests ………………………….…………………………………….45
xii
1
Chapter 1
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
Introduction
On July 9, 2012, a group of seven Hmong American young adults gathered
together at Hmong Women’s Heritage Association to discuss the current situation of the
voting behavior of the Hmong community in Sacramento. What were some needs of the
Hmong community? What were some ways to advocate for the Hmong community?
After several hours of discussing and tossing around ideas, all seven of the attendees
decided to focus on one project for the next several months. The name for the project
became Project Xaiv, which translate to Project Elect in English. Project Xaiv aimed at
increasing the voter turnout of the Sacramento Hmong community as well as empowering
the Hmong community members around the idea of becoming more civically engaged.
Following several meetings, the group collaboratively named themselves Hmong
Innovating Politics (HIP) to establish an identity for the work they would be engaging in.
Sacramento is home to one of the largest concentration of the Hmong
communities in the United States, with the Sacramento, Arden-Arcade and Roseville
region comprising a population of 26,996 Hmong (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010).
According to the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau, the Hmong have the lowest rate of
educational achievement within the Asian ethnic groups with a high school diploma
attainment of 61%. Along with educational limitations, the Hmong have a 21% rate of
households where those over 14 years of age speak less than “very well” in English and
43% of those over the age of 5 years old are considered limited-English proficient (LEP).
2
Studies have shown that the socioeconomic well-being of an individual is a high indicator
of whether a person turns out to vote; therefore, a person who has a high level of
education and income will be more inclined to register and vote (Xu, 2005). With this
challenge ahead of them, the seven individuals who created Project Xaiv decided to focus
on presenting two non-partisan voter education forums strictly in the Hmong language for
the Hmong community in Sacramento.
The two forums would assist in registering eligible Hmong community members
to vote and each forum would concentrate on different goals. The forums were targeted
at all Hmong community members ages 18 years and older who were or had obtained
their U.S. citizenship. The first forum was held on September 15, 2012 at Yav Pem Suab
(Ya pe shua) Academy. The goal of the first voter education forum was to discuss the
importance of voting and the two different ways to vote: absentee ballot and voting at the
polls. The dialogue that came about during the first forum voiced the concerns of the
Hmong who had limited knowledge or could not read, write and/or speak English. Some
of the Hmong elders spoke of their lack of knowledge in understanding the voting
process and their embarrassment to ask for help; consequently, choosing not to register
and vote even though some had been naturalized for several years already. The second
voter education forum took place on October 20, 2012 at the same location and the focus
was on the actual ballot and the propositions that would be on the ballot. The presenters
were trained to present specific propositions that the group of Hmong individuals had
deemed were most crucial for the Hmong voters to understand and vote accordingly,
while general knowledge of the rest of the propositions were also presented.
3
Overall, the voter education forums were a strategy to mobilize the Hmong
community to increase the voter turnout. The idea of personal contact has shown to be an
effective approach to turn out voters compared to mail or automated phone calls (Bedolla
& Michelson, 2008); therefore, the voter education forums will be measured in how
effective they were from the perspective of the attendees and whether the forums
prompted Hmong community members to vote during the November 2012 general
elections, whether it was through absentee ballot or at the polls. This research aims to
measure the effectiveness of the voter education forums for future strategy to continue
turning out Hmong voters and continue the search for different methods to better draw
the Hmong community to participate in civic engagement activities.
Statement of the Research Problem
In the United States, Asian Americans constitutes the race with the lowest number
of registered voters at 55% and only 86% of those register voted in the 2008 elections
(U.S. Census Bureau, 2008). There are numerous reasons to explain the low voter
turnout as the Asian American population is comprised of various ethnic groups with
different histories and needs. The Hmong is one of the ethnic groups within this Asian
American race category. Along with other Southeast Asian refugees who resettled in the
United States as a result of the Vietnam War from 1975 to the 1980s (Tatman, 2004), the
Hmong began their lives in the United States and many naturalized after several years of
their arrival.
Keeping this issue of low voter turnout of the Asian American population in
mind, the voter education forums aim to educate and mobilize the Hmong community in
4
Sacramento around the November 2012 elections. By providing presentations in the
Hmong language and assistance with voter registration applications and the ballot, the
personal contact with Hmong voters may increase the voter turnout. While the goal of
the voter education forums are to turn out voters specifically for the November 2012
elections, the long-term vision is to empower the Hmong community to become more
civically engaged and continue to ask questions about elected officials and ballot
measures that are directly affecting them.
Study Purpose
The purpose of the study is to measure whether voter education forums are
effective strategies in increasing the voter turnout of the Hmong community in
Sacramento. The number of attendees at the voter education forums will be an indicator
of the interest from the Hmong community and the ongoing work that may be necessary
for further outreach. Along with increasing the voter turnout, the research will survey
some of the attendees to evaluate how effective the forums were and whether the
attendees would attend another voter education forum in the future. Despite the fact that
voter education forums are the main strategy utilized in this study, the researcher will
also consider other approaches to outreach to the Hmong community, as phone banking
and canvassing has proven to be effective strategies in other populations.
Theoretical Framework. This study will use the empowerment theory to discuss the
voter education forums and the social work commitment to the National Association of
Social Workers Code of Ethics (2008) in promoting social justice for underprivileged and
repressed persons and populations. There are several definitions of empowerment;
5
however, the definition that will be applied in this study is the intentional process in
which oppressed individuals and groups reflect and become critical of their situation and
attain greater access to necessary resources (Zimmerman, 1995). The voter education
forums operate as an intentional intervention by organizing Hmong community members
to engage and learn about the process of voting. The forum works as a space specifically
for the Hmong community who has historically been underrepresented in the political
sphere, focusing on drawing out the present concerns of Hmong individuals and drawing
on these concerns to become civically engaged as a method to create change. As Bryan
and Holcomb-McCoy (2010) relay the process of empowerment happens when a person,
group and community chooses to improve their environments.
Empowerment can also take on a different perspective when it is seen as the
handing of power from a person with power to a disempowered person (Bryan &
Holcomb-McCoy, 2010). While the voter education forums provide the attendees with
information about the voting process and the ballot, the forum also works to encourage
dialogue and learning from both sides. Bryan and Holcomb-McCoy (2010) encourages
the process of diminishing the role between an expert and a client where both sides share
their expertise with one another. The dialogue from the first voter education forum
became a reflection of diminishing the line between an expert and a client, as the
presenters asked the attendees questions to better understand their reasons for not voting.
By listening to their answers, the presenters were given an opportunity to look inside the
Hmong community and address their worries with voting.
6
The empowerment approach advocates the need for vulnerable populations to be
given information and abilities to analyze their issues and create strategies to address
these issues (Bryan & Holcomb-McCoy, 2010). The voter education forums are designed
to be non-partisan to allow the Hmong attendees an opportunity to make their own
decisions with regards to candidates and propositions on the ballot. While information is
transferred from the presenter to the attendees, the attendees are encouraged to ask
questions at any time to increase their understanding of the voting process.
Definition of Terms
Forum. Defined as a gathering of community members for discussions “limited to
issues affecting a defined locality or region” (Smith, 2008, p. 372).
Assumptions. The assumptions that will be considered in this study focuses on the
idea that the Hmong population does not care enough to vote. Historically, the number of
Hmong voters has been low; however, the reason behind the low voter turnout is not due
to a careless nature. The first voter education forum demonstrated the frustration from
Hmong community members who wanted to vote and did not have the language capacity
to participate in previous elections. By providing attendees with a detailed presentation
in the voting process and presenting the ballot in the Hmong language, non-English
speaking Hmong attendees were able to comprehend the process that would take place
with an absentee ballot compared to voting at the polls as well as a non-partisan
explanation of the different propositions on the ballot. For attendees who spoke English
and Hmong, the forum gave them a chance to hear the concerns of the elders in the
7
Hmong community, which strengthened the solidarity to take part in the November 2012
elections.
Social Work Research Justification. The National Association of Social Workers
Code of Ethics (2008) states that social workers are responsible for challenging social
injustice by taking part in activities that work to bring about change for oppressed
populations. While direct services have been vital in propelling some of the Hmong
community forward, the Hmong community still faces many problems that can be
addressed by bringing the community together on a larger scale. The voter education
forums are a step in organizing the Hmong population around the significance of voting
and how social workers can be a part of the movement to ensure that the Hmong people
are included in civic engagement activities.
8
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The act of voting has historically been a testament to the changing tides of the
people that make up the United States, whether these voters were born in the country or
naturalized. From African Americans to various racial groups, each has fought to be
included in the policy decisions that shaped their lives (Clayton, 2004). Their struggles
to gain the right to vote have directly affected those who came after as the policies that
they were able to advocate for became policies that have assured the right to vote for all
citizens over the age of eighteen in the United States today. As a recent refugee group,
many of the Hmong in Laos and Thailand migrated to the United States beginning in
1975 after the Vietnam War (Jambunathan & Stewart, 1997). With voting now one of
the most basic rights, eligible Hmong voters are now facing challenges of their own in
their quest to become civically engaged citizens. Some of the issues that plague the
Hmong population today are language barriers and lack of advocates for this emerging
community.
As a practice that prides itself on a history of advocating and organizing
underprivileged and underrepresented communities throughout the United States, the
field of social work needs to continue this approach in order to protect the rights of
populations they serve today. The direct work of social workers is imperative to the wellbeing of those they serve; however, direct services are intricately tied to macro policies
(Haynes & Mickelson, 2003). Policies trickle down and affect the lives of everyday
people. The dire situation in the United States currently calls for social workers to work
9
with communities all across the country to ensure that they are represented on a macro
level. There is no greater opportunity to make the voices of underrepresented populations
heard than during a general election.
The review of the literature will be divided into five themes: Social Work and
Political Engagement, History of the Hmong, Hmong in the United States, Who Votes in
the United States, and Voter Turnout Strategies. These themes will explore the important
role of social workers in building civic engagement for vulnerable communities,
specifically the Hmong and strategies that have been utilized in past elections to educate
and turn out voters.
Grass Root Social Work Organization and Political Engagements
Throughout the history of the United States, there have been advocates for
specific underprivileged communities. Some of these advocates are celebrated today in
the field of social work as the pioneers who paved the way for social workers. Jane
Addams (as cited by Haynes & Mickelson, 2003) is hailed as one of the models of early
social work in the United States and lived during two Progressive Era movements: the
Charity Organization Society movement and the settlement movement. According to
Haynes and Mickelson, Jane Addams along with other settlement house workers pushed
for better living situations and wages for the women they served at Hull House. Hull
House and the work done there became an example of the micro level social work that
could transcend to a macro level.
While schools of social work began launching by the 1930’s in the United States
to critically challenge the current social environment (Haynes & Mickelson, 2003), the
10
following decades had some setbacks and victories for social workers. The 1950s was
plagued by the witch hunts of Communists lead by Senator Joseph McCarthy, in which
many social workers were targeted for their work with underrepresented communities.
This preceding period set the stage for the call on change in the 1960s from people of all
ethnicities and women. Social workers became an integral part of this movement as they
organized alongside people and demanded for changes that they saw from their day to
day experiences with their clients. As elected officials did not prove effective in creating
the change necessary for the poor in the United States, new political alliances were
necessary (Cloward & Piven, 1966) and people began to organize in a collective effort
across the country. With the pressure from the people, Lyndon B. Johnson responded by
creating Medicare, Medicaid and the Head Start program during his presidency in the
1960s. These programs gave strength to the people as they insured that poor people were
receiving healthcare and people were given a chance to participate in the decision-making
process on their children’s school board. These actions empowered people all across the
nation and the policies and the social movement that took place in the 1960s left a lasting
effect in the United States.
After the 1960s, social work began to move away from a revolutionized and
activist stance as the field shifted focus to management and administrative work (Haynes
& Mickelson, 2003). Social work adapted by training and educating graduate level social
workers to take on specific roles that worked against the prior activism. Haynes and
Mickelson (2003) notes that master level social workers were being clinically trained,
while doctorate social workers became entrenched in research and teaching. The
11
decision to operate in this manner continues to present day as current professional social
workers do not participate in direct political activities, such as campaigning or speaking
directly with legislators (Wolk, Pray, Weismiller & Dempsey, 1996).
Various studies on the political involvement of social workers from the last two
decades have presented similar trends. Samples taken from a chapter of the National
Association of Social Workers (NASW) revealed that social workers are mainly white
females who hold a master’s in social work (Ezell, 1994). Some of the earlier research
on social work political engagement revealed that social workers with greater levels of
education tended to be more active; however, Rome and Hoechstetter’s (2010) finding
disagree in that social workers with their BSW and MSW’s were respectively as active as
those who held a doctorate. Each research conducted indicated that social workers
practicing on a macro level were more likely to be more politically engaged through
voting and participating in political campaigns. On the other hand, social workers in
direct practice tended to be less politically involved, which may be attributed to the focus
on counseling and less on educating social workers on political processes (Wolk, Pray,
Weismiller & Dempsey, 1996). The call for curriculum on political participation for all
social workers is expressed as a crucial learning tool that the profession needs to return
to. Rome and Hoechstetter (2010) demonstrated in their research the dissatisfaction with
the current participation of social workers as 33.5% disagree with the statement of being
content with their level of political engagement.
Each research that was conducted to determine the political participation of social
workers defined political activity in various ways, from advocacy to specific activities.
12
The spectrum of meaning that political participation took on varied; however, voting was
a common political activity that each researcher sought to measure. Rome and
Hoechstetter (2010) reported that 95% of the 1,274 NASW members sampled had
participated in the voting process. Outside of voting, joining in group settings to work
toward policy change and organizing rallies ranked at the bottom of activities at 3.4% and
18.2% (Rome & Hoechstetter, 2010).
Social work through the words of Paolo Freire (Moch, 2009) identifies social
workers as being social agents who cannot remain neutral. Freire calls for a challenge to
the limits of social work practice, which Saleeby (2001) associates with the move
towards evidence-based practice. Saleeby views the shift away from a humanistic social
work practice to evidence-based practice as the weakening of collective understanding of
human problems through the use of a deficit model for individual evaluation. The
contemporary focus of social work towards evidence-based practice has come with
contentious debates.
Social work practice continues to move in the direction of evidence-based as a
method to distinguish social work as an effective and reliable field (Zayas, Drake &
Johnson-Reid, 2010). To keep up with the leading medical model of deficit-based
understanding, social work researchers and practitioners have sought ways to incorporate
existing social work theories, such as strengths-based practice (Graybeal, 2001). The
inclusion of client self-determination and creativity has become an issue in evidencebased practice as interventions in this contemporary practice is viewed as having been
thoroughly researched and experimented on specific sample populations that may not
13
meet the needs of diverse populations (Zayas, Drake & Johnson-Reid, 2010). Even with
opposition from some social workers, evidence-based practice is receiving support as a
strategy for practitioners and students to validate the use of theory and studies (Oko,
2006). While evidence-based practice gains momentum within the field of social work,
social workers with their personal knowledge of client needs must recognize the vital role
in the continuance of organizing communities to understand and challenge the policies
that directly affect them.
History of the Hmong
The origin of the Hmong is highly debatable among Hmong and non-Hmong
scholars. When and where the Hmong inhabited and their migration pattern is
controversial as written documentation was limited (Michaud, 1997). The Hmong were
residing in the southwestern provinces of China when they were forced south by the
ruling Han Chinese (Chan, 1994). Some researchers agree that the Hmong migrated from
China to modern day Laos, Burma, Vietnam and Thailand in the early nineteenth century
and settled in the mountainous regions (Michaud, 1997). There in the massif regions of
Southeast Asia, the Hmong raised farm animals and were nearly autonomous on
subsistence production where they grew their own rice and vegetation (Donnelly, 1997).
Throughout their time in Southeast Asia, the Hmong are believed to have
encountered European missionaries and explorers as early as the latter end of the
nineteenth century (Michaud, 1997). During this period, the French had colonized
Vietnam and Cambodia and was at war with Siam (modern day Thailand) to try to
expand their territories to include Laos (Chan, 1994). Eventually, the Franco-Siamese
14
Treaty of 1893 gave France the right to claim Laos where thousands of Hmong resided.
According to Chan (1994), excessive taxation from the French resulted in uprisings from
highlanders across Laos. In order to appease the Hmong who had held their own
uprising, the French provided the Hmong with a district in which they could
independently govern.
After World War II, the French worked to reclaim Laos while the Lao Issara
movement countered to maintain the country’s independence (Chan, 1994). Chan
explains the division of the Hmong as Hmong leaders took on opposing sides to aid the
French and the Lao. When the United States stepped in to halt the spread of Communism
in Vietnam, many Hmong chose to fight alongside the American military (Tatman,
2004). Thousands of Hmong became guerilla fighters in the Vietnam War resulting in
the deaths of 20% of Hmong men. By the 1970s, the Hmong guerilla soldiers were able
to establish a short, yet effective military counter on the Pathet Communist Lao
movement (Miyares, 1998). When the United States pulled out of the war, the Hmong
were left with no choice except to flee to neighboring Thailand for refuge or face
persecution from the Pathet Lao government. Using various methods to escape to
Thailand, many Hmong swam across the Mekong River to refugee camps in Thailand
where they awaited sponsorships to be resettled in another country (Miyares, 1998).
For the Hmong who were sponsored and settled in the United States, a scattering
policy was authorized in order to speed the acculturation process for the influx of
Southeast Asian refugees from the Vietnam War (Tatman, 2004). Tatman states that the
scattering policy deeply affected the Hmong who were highly dependent on the clan and
15
immediate family system as a source of support. About fifty thousand Hmong had been
resettled in the United States by the first half of the 1980s (Chan, 1994). Today, the
Hmong are highly concentrated in the Midwest and California (U.S. Census 2010).
Hmong in the United States
The Hmong numbered almost a hundred thousand during the 1990 U.S. census
bureau (Chan, 1994). In the U.S. census bureau conducted in 2010, the population of the
Hmong throughout the country had risen to 260,073 (APALC, 2011). Of the national
population, approximately 26,996 Hmong reside in the Sacramento, Arden-Arcade and
Roseville region making it the second metro region with the highest concentration of
Hmong in the United States (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010). According to Pfeifer, Sullivan,
Yang and Yang (2012), 41.8% of Hmong are foreign-born and 40.5% of Hmong in the
United States have not naturalized. The population of the Hmong continues to be one of
the youngest ethnic groups in the country with a median age of 20.4 in California and
19.7 in Minnesota.
While the Hmong American population continues to grow in the United States,
the number of Hmong American over the age of five who still speak a language other
than English is at 91% (APALC, 2011). Along with being one of the Asian ethnic groups
with a high percentage in retaining their native language, the Hmong American are also
one of the highest groups in those over five years of age who are limited English
proficient at 43%. The reflection of the struggles that the Hmong American continue to
encounter in the United States can also be reflected in the low number of high school
graduates in the Hmong American community as 61% of Hmong American graduate with
16
a high school degree and only 14% go on to attain a bachelor’s degree or higher
(APALC, 2011).
APALC (2011) reported that the per capita income of the Hmong American
population was the lowest among the Asian ethnic groups at $10,949; therefore, the
percentage of Hmong American living below the federal poverty level also ranks the
highest at 26%. The collection from the U.S. census bureau in 2010 also revealed that
the number of Hmong American seniors living in poverty was 20% (APALC, 2011).
Another indicator of the financial difficulties that Hmong American is facing is seen in
the 13% of the population who rely on cash public assistance. As Takei and Sakamoto
(2011) noted in their study, the poverty rates of the Hmong American population is the
highest within the Asian American group and has surpassed the white population as well.
The education levels and the poverty levels of the Hmong American population
are alarming and continue to be only two of several areas of challenge with Hmong
Americans. APALC’s (2011) analysis of the U.S. census bureau surveyed from 2007 to
2009 had the unemployment rate of Hmong Americans at 11% and 32% of Hmong
Americans living in overcrowded housing. These snapshots of Hmong Americans in the
United States continues to only capture some of the issues they face as the successes of
other Asian American ethnic groups hide the difficulties they continue to encounter
(APALC, 2011).
Who Votes in the United States
In the November 2008 general elections, the percentage breakdown of registered
voters who voted by racial groups were: Hispanic (84%), White (90%), African
17
American (93%), and Asian American (86%) (APALC, 2011). While the number of
voters may seem high, the percentage only captures those who are registered to vote, as
the number of those who are not registered to vote is high in Hispanic (59%) and Asian
Americans (55%) making up about half of the populations. McGrath (2012) states that
those who do not turn out to vote are mainly younger, less educated and low income
individuals within specific ethnic groups. On the other hand, white, high income earners
are more likely to vote, which directly influences their engagement and involvement in
the activities of their communities (McGrath, 2012).
The elections taking place in the late nineteenth century were at a high as an
estimated near 80% of the population turned out to vote in the 1880 and 1896 presidential
elections (McGrath, 2012). Tuckel and Maisel’s (2008) study on the voting behaviors of
naturalized and native born Americans in the early twentieth century revealed that urban
naturalized voters voted at a higher frequency than native born Americans.
Subsequently, voter turnouts have dwindled since then and have not reached such peaks.
During the last century, the voter turnouts ranged from 50% to 60% respectively
(McGrath, 2012) and this voting pattern continues presently.
Voter Turnout Strategies
Since the early beginnings of elections in the United States, political parties have
gone as far as printing out their own election ballots and distributing them to voters as a
method to increase their chances of winning (McGrath, 2012). Today, such methods are
illegal and the voting process is observed more carefully to prevent fraud and ensure that
each person is only voting once. With the current voting process, there are various
18
methods with which community organizations, political parties and individuals may
influence the turnout of voters. According to Dale and Strauss (2009), the following
voter mobilization strategies were studied to be found effective: canvassing (8%),
volunteer phone calls (3%), commercial phone calls (0.55%), direct mail (0.6%), whereas
e-mails and robo calls were found to be ineffective. Below are some of the commonly
used strategies that have been researched.
With the technology currently, canvassing is now considered a grass roots
mobilization effort to turn out voters (Gerber & Green, 1999). Canvassing is seen as a
strategic way to utilize people of the same ethnicity and political affiliation to turn out
voters (Michelson, 2003) in some instances where language and cultural barriers come in
to play. In the various studies on canvassing, a list of registered voters was obtained in
order to directly contact them to vote in the upcoming elections (Michelson, 2003). With
the lists, groups of people were organized and trained to approach registered voters with
specific nonpartisan messages several weeks before an election. Canvassing involved
face to face interaction between the trained canvasser and a registered voter.
The strategy of canvassing increased the likelihood of registered voters turning
out to vote in each of the experiments; however, each study had mixed results with the
actual turnout of voters. Gerber and Green (1999) noted that canvassing in New Haven
where majority of the residents were non-English speakers and majority of the canvassers
were African American and Spanish speakers only increased voter turnout by 6%. On
the other hand, Michelson’s (2003) experimental canvassing on a Latino community in
the central valley had greater success as the Latino canvassers in this experiment had a
19
higher rate of face to face contact with registered voters. Overall, the studies agreed that
getting the message to registered voters in a face to face setting will mobilize voters to
participate in the voting process. Nonetheless, Arceneaux and Nickerson (2009) point
out that most if not all of the studies on canvassing is focused on reaching out to
registered voters, which leaves out those who are eligible to vote and are not registered.
With grass roots methods of mobilizing voters showing slight increases in voter
turnout, some have turned to mass media as a strategy to draw in higher participation of
voters. Schmitt-Beck and Mackenrodt (2010) contend that local media has the ability to
influence viewers with the types of messages they receive to become more political
engaged and involved. Local news has the opportunity to shape viewers perception of
specific political issues, which can ultimately lead viewers to become more active
participants in their communities as well (Schmitt-Beck & Mackenrodt, 2010).
Conversely, mass media can also have the opposite effect as voters may be turned off to
the political ideas presented.
Along with the changing tides of technology is the high propensity for people to
have cellphones on hand. In an experiment in 2006, Dale and Strauss (2009) studied the
effects of text messaging on a national level to measure whether an impersonal text
message would encourage registered voters to turn out to vote. Registered voters
received a text message the day prior to the election and the findings from the research
showed that the number of people who were more likely to vote increased by 3%.
Contrary to the belief that face to face strategies, such as canvassing, were the most
effective voter mobilization tactics the results from the study affirmed the growing
20
importance of text messaging as a way to build connectedness (Dale & Strauss, 2009).
While technology continues to change and Americans become busier with their everyday
lives, the imperative knowledge of creating and integrating old and new mobilization
strategies is crucial to understanding ways to outreach to different populations throughout
the United States.
Drawing Out Minority Groups to Vote
Various studies have been implemented in order to understand what can draw out
larger number of minority groups to vote and whether these strategies can apply to
various minority groups throughout the United States.
With specific minorities,
particularly, the Latinos whose vote is at the forefront of swinging state votes has
garnered interest during elections (Abrajano & Panagopoulos, 2011). In order to draw
out particular minority groups, researchers have employed traditional voter mobilization
strategies and incorporated new methods to tackle the need for higher voter turnout.
To engage the Black community in North Carolina in the 2008 presidential
election, the Institute for Civic Engagement and Social Change (ICESC) at the North
Carolina Central University worked in collaboration with community groups to draw out
Black voters (Hall, 2010). To accomplish this feat, ICESC held voter empowerment
workshops in specific locations throughout the state to create a domino effect within the
community where a person attending the workshop would spread the message of voting
onto another community member. Along with the workshops, ICESC utilized young
community members to outreach as well as the radio and churches to directly contact and
draw out Black voters (Hall, 2010). The efforts were met with success, as the voter
21
turnout increased from sixty-four (64) percent in the 2004 presidential election to seventy
(70) percent in the 2008 presidential election.
Wong (2005) focused on the Asian American vote, specifically targeting the
Chinese, Korean, Indian, Japanese and Filipino. Using postcards and telephone calls as
the main strategy, the research on this particular Asian American community in Los
Angeles County revealed an increase in the voter turnout after the implementation of
mailing the postcards and making phone calls days prior to the elections (Wong, 2005).
The campaign increased the voter turnout by two (2) to three (3) percent, which Wong
(2005) acknowledges to be a success as Asian Americans often do not turn out to vote
lessening the need to invest in get out the vote campaigns for Asian American
populations. An area of further research focused on the need for speakers of Asian
languages, as many of the Asian Americans contacted over telephone did not speak
English at all or very well.
The need for language capacity was addressed in the election of a new city
councilmember in New York City with the Latino population (Abrajano & Panagopoulos,
2011). Postcards in Spanish and English were sent out to two (2) separate groups with
social pressure messages to draw out voters. The research demonstrated an increase in
the Latino voter turnout; however, for Latinos who spoke both English and Spanish, the
preferred language of communication was English (Abrajano & Panagopoulos, 2011).
Voters who were contacted in English showed a higher turnout than voters who spoke
Spanish, even as voters speaking only Spanish increased as well.
22
Summary
The review of the literature began with an overview of the social work profession
and the engagement of social workers with the political process. Throughout the history
of social work in the United States, social workers have been highly involved in social
reform policies as well as mass community movements (Ezell, 1994). Some of the
earliest social workers served in settlement houses, such as Jane Addams, where they
were able to understand the needs and advocate for the communities they served (Haynes
& Mickelson, 2003). The evolution of social work over time showcased the struggle of
the practice to maintain the value of social justice versus the move towards
psychotherapy based work (Wolk, Pray, Weismiller & Dempsey, 1996). The 1960s civil
rights movement brought many social workers back to the ground work of the profession
as the social inequities of the time called for mass community organizing and advocacy
(Ezell, 1994).
The political engagement of social workers and the types of political activities
they chose to participate has been researched throughout the past few decades. The
consensus was similar across the board as majority of social workers who continued to
stay politically active were employed in the public sector and practiced on a macro level.
A point of disagreement for some researchers lied in the education level of social workers
and the connection to political engagement as the field of social work shifts towards more
evidence-based practices. Even so, each researcher realized the need for more
curriculums in increasing social work student’s knowledge of the political process and
the skills necessary to engage policymakers in relating their experience with
23
underrepresented and underprivileged clients to the macro level work that is directly
influencing their lives (Wolk, Pray, Weismiller & Dempsey, 1996).
Social workers understanding of the communities they want to serve are essential
to providing the needed resources; therefore, a deeper look at the history of the Hmong is
necessary to empathize and recognize where they currently are in the United States. The
Hmong originally lived in China prior to migrating to certain countries in Southeast Asia
(Michaud, 1997). Many of the Hmong who reside in the United States are refugees of the
Vietnam War (Chan, 1994). The Vietnam War tore apart Hmong families as some fought
on opposing sides and many lost loved ones throughout the journey to escape to Thailand
for refuge (Tatman, 2004). From his study, Tatman (2004) states that the Hmong along
with other Southeast Asian refugees were resettled in the United States using the
scattering policy, in which they were settled in various areas throughout the country in
the belief that this method would assist the new refugees to assimilate to American
culture.
Even as the United States worked to keep the Hmong population separate,
communities began forming where large populations of Hmong still reside today.
California and the midwestern states of Minnesota and Wisconsin are now home to the
largest concentrations of the Hmong population in the United States (U.S. Census 2010).
While groups of Hmong communities continue to maintain their presence, the relevance
of the current problems that the Hmong population faces remains alarming. The APALC
(2011) study of the Asian American population discovered that Hmong Americans were
24
the Asian ethnic group with the highest number for those living in poverty along with
high numbers for unemployment and low education attainment.
This literature review also focused on populations in the United States who vote
versus populations who do not vote in order to understand the disparity that lies in the
political activity of voting. While some research has shown that naturalized voters voted
at a higher rate than native voters in the United States in the beginning of the twentieth
century (Tuckel & Maisel, 2008) and more eligible voters turned out to vote around the
same period, the turnout of voters have dwindled down throughout the century. In the
United States, the population is diverse with persons of different racial and ethnic
backgrounds living among one another. APALC’s (2011) study revealed that Asian
Americans have the lowest number of registered voters and the turnout of Asian
American voters documented from 2007 to 2009 was low compared to other races.
With the current technology, the need to reach out to voters should not be too
difficult; however, the literature highlights the continual difficulty of grass roots
mobilization efforts, such as canvassing and volunteer phone banking to reach out to
registered voters. Among the methods that have been enacted, canvassing was
consistently seen as the most effective method as the face to face time with registered
voters tended to have a higher voter turnout (Dale & Strauss, 2009). While canvassing is
a commonly employed strategy, researchers continue to delve into other methods
utilizing the current technology to reach a broader range of registered voters. For
example, Dale and Strauss (2009) have argued for the effectiveness of text messaging as
a method to consider for future voter turnout strategies.
25
Political campaigns and researchers continue to draw on traditional voter
mobilization strategies along with culturally and language specific methods to increase
the turnout of voters from various racial and ethnic backgrounds. Each research
mentioned demonstrated an increase in voter turnout, with a particularly high rate of
growth in the voter mobilization of the Black community in North Carolina through the
voter empowerment workshops (Hall, 2010). With the research and outcomes reported,
these voter mobilization strategies show effectiveness in bringing out marginalized
communities and people of color.
26
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
Study Design
This research project utilized the quantitative and qualitative exploratory design to
conduct a survey on the participants who attended the Hmong voter education forums
prior to the November 2012 elections. An exploratory design is appropriate for this
research as few if any studies have examined the perspectives of Hmong voters attending
a voter education forum during an election period. Numerous studies involving voter
engagement and activities have been documented by researchers on different ethnic
communities and statistics on the voter participation of the Hmong community is
available; nonetheless, research on the specific concerns and needs of the Hmong
community surrounding voter turnout have not been investigated.
Exploratory research allows for researchers to develop inquiries about an area that
may have very little research or have not been previously studied (Kreuger & Newman,
2003). This allows for researchers to expand the scope of initial research questions as a
more concrete research method may become necessary during the research process. As
majority of exploratory researches are still in the early stages of exploration, the findings
may not be conclusive (Kreuger & Newman, 2003). While exploratory studies regularly
utilize qualitative data to hone in on specific avenues to further explore, this particular
research is using a combination of both qualitative and quantitative data collection.
27
Sampling Procedures
The development of the voter education forums began in August of 2012 by
Hmong Innovating Politics (HIP). As the election grew closer, HIP decided to split the
forums into two separate forums with different goals. The initial forum focused on the
importance of voting and the education of the attendees on the various methods of voting.
Another goal of the first forum was to register as many attendees to vote as possible. HIP
and their volunteers were trained by a county staff to register people to vote several
weeks preceding the first voter education forum. The first voter education forum was
held on September 15, 2012 at the Yav Pem Suab (Ya Pe Shua)Academy.
The second forum had the intentions of engaging the attendees in dialogues
around the separate propositions in small groups to gain a better understanding of each
proposition’s values and impact. With the limitations of time, space and capacity of
volunteers, HIP honed in on six propositions that the group determined were most crucial
to the Hmong community. The six propositions that were discussed included:
Proposition 30, Proposition 31, Proposition 32, Proposition 35, Proposition 36 and
Proposition 38. Prior to the second forum, HIP and their volunteers were trained on the
propositions and their possible impacts by a Southeast Asian Resource Action
(SEARAC) staff member. After the group dialogues, the attendees were provided with
the option to have HIP and their trained volunteers assist with questions regarding the
propositions and the ballot. For the attendees who came with their election ballots,
assistance with filling out the ballot was provided. The second forum was held on
October 20, 2012 at the Yav Pem Suab (Ya Pe Shua) Academy.
28
The outreach for the voter education forums was varied and sporadic
depending on the availability of the HIP representatives and volunteers. Outreach to the
Hmong community was made at local Hmong supermarkets, the Hmong radio, the
Hmong non-profit agency Hmong Women’s Heritage Association and through word of
mouth. The first voter education forum turned out thirty-one (31) community members
and the second voter education forum had forty-six (46) community members in
attendance. Some of the attendees from the first voter education forum joined the second
voter education forum as well. The attendees to both forums were not solely Hmong and
included other Southeast Asian community members. From the number of attendees,
data was collected from thirty (30) of those who attended either one or both of the voter
education forums.
The researcher obtained the list of Hmong attendees during the two voter
education forums. Each subject was followed up via phone call for an in-person meeting
to enact the survey. The surveys were implemented solely by the researcher. Once the
surveys were completed and recorded into the SPSS, all the surveys were destroyed.
During the meeting, the subjects were asked to sign the informed consent forms along
with the completion of the survey.
Data Collection Procedures
Prior to data collection, this researcher obtained the form for the Human
Subject Protocol and completed the form with the assistance of her Thesis Project
Advisor, Dr. Serge Lee. This researcher underwent two revisions with Dr. Lee before the
29
Human Subject Protocol form was submitted to the Division of Social Work for review
and approval.
The research proposal was approved by the California State University,
Sacramento, Division of Social Work Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects
on October 24, 2012. The study was approved as “exempt” with “no risk” and the
approval number is 12-13-016 and will expire on 12-13-2015.
The participants of the study were recruited from this list of attendees of either
one or both of the voter education forums. All persons that signed in at the voter
education forums were required to be ages eighteen and older and had U.S. citizen status.
The surveys were implemented after the 2012 general elections on November 6, 2012.
The researcher’s initially contacted the participants to establish whether the participants
were able to meet at the Hmong Women’s Heritage Association office or at the
participant’s home to conduct the survey.
Prior to being able to participate in the research, the subjects were informed of
their rights as a participant in the research. The informed consent form entailed the
research procedures, the risks and benefits as well as the confidential nature of the
research. The subjects were then asked to sign the informed consent form before starting
the survey. As some of the subjects were not able to read or write in any language, the
researcher was present to interpret the survey as necessary, particularly, for subjects who
were not born in the United States and did not read or write in the English language. The
surveys took approximately 10-15 minutes to complete. The surveys were collected from
30
November 7, 2012 to February 28, 2013 to allow the researcher time to meet with the
subjects individually.
Instruments
The researcher developed the questionnaire with the assistance of her Thesis
project advisor, Dr. Serge Lee. The instrument used to measure the research was created
in a questionnaire format. The survey consisted of seventeen (17) close-ended questions
and one (1) open-ended question. Some of the multiple choice questions required the
subjects to fill in the blanks with specific answers. The first few questions were used to
collect demographics on the group being surveyed followed by questions with regards to
voting. The latter half of the survey used a rating scale to determine the effectiveness and
value of the voter education forums for those who attended. The qualitative questions
were mixed in with the quantitative questions to explore reasons why certain participants
had not registered to vote and/or had decided not to vote in prior elections.
Data Analysis
The data obtained from the surveys will be entered into SPSS. The names of the
subject were not entered into SPSS, nor will they be in the final report. Only the variables
of gender, age, marital status, place of birth, and income will be applied to distinguish the
voting patterns of those who attended the forum(s) and voted. The information from the
quantitative and qualitative questions will be utilized to identify the opinions of the
Hmong adults who attended the forum(s) and their perspective of the forum(s), which
will focus on whether the voter education forums were effective in accomplishing their
goals.
31
Protection of Human Subjects
The researcher presented to the California State University, Sacramento, Division
of Social Work Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects, the research proposal
containing the research question, hypothesis and sampling design. Within the research
proposal, the researcher explained the sample population of the participants who attended
the Hmong Voter Education forums. The researcher had no way of verifying whether
each person surveyed voted in the November 2012 general election, except by their
response on the surveys. Every subject surveyed was voluntary. Prior to starting the
interview, the participants were informed of the research process and the confidentiality
of the research. All participants signed a consent document stating that they understood
the nature of the research and were willingly providing information to further the
exploration of the research. The consent forms were presented in Hmong and English.
The researcher utilized a safe box to store the surveys after they were analyzed.
32
Chapter 4
STUDY FINDINGS AND DISCUSSIONS
This exploratory research examines the effectiveness of two voter education
forums to turn out voters for the November 2012 general elections for the Hmong
community in Sacramento, California. Designed specifically for the Hmong population,
the forums were conducted in Hmong and outreach was targeted at drawing out the
Hmong who resided within Sacramento. The analysis of the data collected will focus on
three key objectives discussed in chapter one: 1) gauging whether the voter education
forums were effective strategies to draw out Hmong voters by identifying whether
participants voted in the November 2012 general election, 2) explore the value of the two
voter education forums from the participant’s perspectives, and 3) identify whether
participants see the voter education forum as an effective strategy in their response to
attending future forums.
Overall Findings
This research surveyed thirty (30) participants from the two voter education
forums. Of the respondents, 46.7% (n = 14) were female and 53.3% (n = 16) were male
(see Table 1). The surveys split the age ranges into four age groups: 18 to 25 years old,
26 to 35 years old, 36 to 45 years old, and 46 years or older. From these groups, 30% (n
= 9) of the participants identified with the age range 18 to 25 years old, 26.7% (n = 8)
identified with the age group 26 to 35 years old, none of the respondents identified with
the age group 36 to 45 years old, and 43.3% (n = 13) (see Table 2).
33
Table 1
Gender of Participants
Frequency
Female
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
14
46.7
46.7
46.7
Valid Male
16
53.3
53.3
100.0
Total
30
100.0
100.0
Table 2
Ages of Participants
Frequency
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative Percent
18-25
9
30.0
30.0
30.0
Vali 26-35
d
46+
Total
8
26.7
26.7
56.7
13
30
43.3
100.0
43.3
100.0
100.0
Table 3
Marital Status of Participants
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Single
15
50.0
50.0
50.0
Married
Divorced
Total
13
2
30
43.3
6.7
100.0
43.3
6.7
100.0
93.3
100.0
34
Table 4.1
Participant’s Born in the United States
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes
13
43.3
43.3
43.3
No
Total
17
30
56.7
100.0
56.7
100.0
100.0
Table 4.2
Participants’ Birth Places
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
United States
13
43.3
43.3
43.3
Laos
Thailand
Total
13
4
30
43.3
13.3
100.0
43.3
13.3
100.0
86.7
100.0
The marital status of the participants is presented in Table 3. Of the thirty
participants survey, 50% (n = 15) marked as single, 43.3% (n = 13) marked as married,
and 6.7% (n = 2) marked as divorced (see Table 3). With regards to whether they were
born in the United States, 43.3% (n = 13) respondents marked “Yes” and 56.7% (n = 17)
respondents answered “No” (see Table 4.1). Of those who marked as not being born in
the United State, 43.3% (n = 13) stated being born in Laos and 13.3% (n = 4) stated being
born in Thailand (see Table 4.2).
35
Table 5.1
English Speaking Participants
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Yes
22
73.3
73.3
73.3
No
8
26.7
26.7
100.0
30
100.0
100.0
Percent
Valid Percent
Total
Table 5.2
Participants’ Primary Language
Frequency
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
English
21
70.0
70.0
70.0
Hmong
Total
9
30
30.0
100.0
30.0
100.0
100.0
Table 5.3
Participants’ English Speaking Level
Frequency
Valid
Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Missing
15
50.0
50.0
50.0
Not well at all
Somewhat well
Well
Very Well
Total
1
3
4
7
30
3.3
10.0
13.3
23.3
100.0
3.3
10.0
13.3
23.3
100.0
53.3
63.3
76.7
100.0
36
The participants were surveyed on whether they spoke English and 73.3% (n =
22) of the respondents marked “Yes” while 26.7% (n = 8) of the respondents marked
“No” (see Table 5.1). To follow with those who did not speak English, 30% (n = 9)
marked Hmong as the language they spoke (see Table 5.2). When asked to mark their
level of English speaking, 50% (n = 15) did not answer, 3.3% (n = 1) responded as “Not
well at all”, 10% (n = 3) marked as “Somewhat well”, 13.3% (n = 4) marked as “Well”,
and 23.3% marked as “Very well” (see Table 5.3).
Table 6
Participants’ Highest Level of Education
Frequency Percent
None
Elementary
Junior High
Valid
High School
College and above
Total
7
23.3
1
1
5
16
30
3.3
3.3
16.7
53.3
100.0
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
23.3
23.3
3.3
3.3
16.7
53.3
100.0
26.7
30.0
46.7
100.0
With regards to education level, 23.3% (n = 7) participants marked “None”, 3.3%
(n = 1) marked “Elementary”, 3.3% (n = 1) marked “Junior High”, 16.7% (n = 5) marked
“High School”, 53.3% (n = 16) marked “College and above”.
37
Specific Findings
Voter Turnout
One purpose of the research is to study the effectiveness of the voter education
forum in turning out the Hmong community in Sacramento to vote in the 2012 general
election. The survey implemented contained five variables used to measure the voting
history of the participants and whether the participants voted in the 2012 general
elections as well as strategies used to draw out the participants.
Table 7.1
Participants Registered to Vote at Voter Education Forums
Frequency Percent
Missing
Valid
Yes
No
Total
3
10.0
15
12
30
50.0
40.0
100.0
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
10.0
10.0
50.0
40.0
100.0
60.0
100.0
Table 7.2
Participant’s that Voted in 2012 General Election
Frequency Percent
Yes
Valid No
Total
27
3
30
90.0
10.0
100.0
Valid
Percent
90.0
10.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
90.0
100.0
The respondents all marked that they were registered voters in the survey. When
asked whether the participants registered to vote at one of the voter education forums,
38
10% (n = 3) did not respond, 50% (15%) marked “Yes”, and 40% (n = 12) marked “No”
(see Table 7.1). Table 7.2 inquired into whether the participants had voted in the 2012
general election and 90% (n = 27) respondents indicated “Yes” while 10% (n = 3)
marked “No”.
Table 7.3
Participant’s that Voted in Past Elections
Frequency Percent
Yes
Valid No
Total
28
2
30
93.3
6.7
100.0
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
93.3
93.3
6.7
100.0
100.0
Table 7.4
Number of Elections Participant’s Voted In
Frequency Percent
1
2
Valid
4+
Total
Missing System
Total
10
5
10
25
5
30
33.3
16.7
33.3
83.3
16.7
100.0
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
40.0
40.0
20.0
60.0
40.0
100.0
100.0
When asked whether the participant’s had voted previously, 93.3% (n = 28)
responded “Yes” and 6.7% (n = 2) responded “No” (see Table 7.3). Of those who
answered yes to voting in past elections, 33.3% (n = 10) marked voting in 1 election,
39
16.7% (n = 5) marked voting in 2 elections, no respondent marked voting in 3 elections,
and 33.3% (n = 10) marked voting in 4 or more elections. From the thirty respondents,
five respondents chose not to answer the variable measuring the number of elections they
voted in (see Table 7.4).
Table 7.5
Outreach for Voter Education Forums
Frequency Percent Valid Percent
Hmong radio
Word of mouth
HWHA event
Valid Internet
Other agency
Friend
Total
6
18
1
1
1
3
20.0
60.0
3.3
3.3
3.3
10.0
20.0
60.0
3.3
3.3
3.3
10.0
30
100.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
20.0
80.0
83.3
86.7
90.0
100.0
In order to draw out the Hmong community members to the voter education
forums, 20% (n = 6) respondents indicated hearing about the voter education forums
through the “Hmong radio”, 60% (n = 18) respondents marked “Word of mouth”, 3.3%
(n = 1) reported “HWHA event”, 3.3% (n = 1) marked the “Internet”, 3.3% (n = 1)
specified “Other agency”, and 10% (n = 3) stated hearing about the voter education
forums through a “Friend” (see Table 7.5).
Value of Voter Education Forums
Another component to be evaluated in this research is the value of the information
the participant’s received at the voter education forum(s). The survey comprised of three
40
variables used to measure the value the participant’s placed on the material shared at each
of the voter education forums. All the participants indicated the information obtained at
the voter education forum(s) was helpful.
Table 8.1
Participant’s Value Perspective of the Voter Education Forum(s)
Frequency Percent
Somewhat valuable
Valid Very valuable
Total
4
26
30
13.3
86.7
100.0
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
13.3
13.3
86.7
100.0
100.0
Table 8.2
Voter Education Forum(s) Encouraged to Vote in 2012 General Election
Frequency Percent
Yes
Valid No
Total
29
1
30
96.7
3.3
100.0
Valid
Cumulative
Percent
Percent
96.7
96.7
3.3
100.0
100.0
To better understand the value perspectives of the participants on the voter
education forum(s), no respondent marked “Not valuable at all”, 13.3% (n = 4)
respondents marked the forum(s) as “Somewhat valuable”, and 86.7% (n = 26) marked
the forum(s) as “Very valuable” (see Table 8.1). The next variable measured whether
participant’s viewed the voter education forum(s) as encouraging of individual
41
participant’s to vote. From the thirty participants, 96.7% (n = 29) responded “Yes” and
3.3% (n = 1) indicated “No” (see Table 8.2).
Need for Future Voter Education Forums in the Hmong Community
The last component to be examined in the research is the need for future voter
education forums for the Hmong community. The survey set to explore this section of
the research by applying two variables to measure the necessity of the voter education
forums to increase the voter turnout rate and to identify whether participants attended one
or two of the voter education forums.
Table 9.1
Number of Voter Education Forum(s) Participants Attended
Frequency Percent
1
Valid 2
Total
24
6
30
80.0
20.0
100.0
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
80.0
20.0
100.0
80.0
100.0
Table 9.2
Likelihood to Vote after Attending Future Voter Education Forum
Frequency Percent
Somewhat likely
Valid Very likely
Total
3
27
30
10.0
90.0
100.0
Valid
Percent
10.0
90.0
100.0
Cumulative
Percent
10.0
100.0
42
The participants in the survey were asked to indicate whether they had attended
one or both of the voter education forums. From the thirty respondents sampled, 80% (n
= 24) marked attending one (1) forum and 20% (n = 6) marked attending two (2) forums
(see Table 9.1). The following question inquired into the likelihood of whether the
participants would vote after attending future voter education forums. The question
generated a response of no marking for “Unlikely at all”, 10% (n = 3) who indicated
“Somewhat likely”, and 90% (n = 27) who indicated “Very likely” (see Table 9.2).
Interpretations to the Findings
The research aimed to better understand whether voter education forums targeted
specifically at the Hmong community in Sacramento were effective in increasing Hmong
voters; therefore, it is crucial to look at the types of participants who attended and their
voting history. To better understand the likelihood of participants for future voter
education forums and their voting habits, the chi-square test of independence was used to
analyze the association with participants.
Table 10(a). Age * Vote in the 2012 General Election
18-25
Age
26-35
46+
Total
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
Count
Expected Count
Did you vote in the 2012 election
Yes
No
8
1
8.1
6
7.2
13
11.7
27
27.0
.9
2
.8
0
1.3
3
3.0
43
Table 10(b). Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2-sided)
(2-sided)
Pearson Chi-Square
3.457a
2
.178
.167
Likelihood Ratio
4.229
2
.121
.167
Fisher's Exact Test
3.259
.097
N of Valid Cases
30
a. 3 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected
count is .80.
Using the chi-square test of independence, Table 10(a) shows the different age
groups and the number of people in each group who marked whether they voted or not in
the 2012 general election. Table 10(b) displays that there is not a significant association
between the age group and whether they voted in the 2012 general elections or not (  2 =
3.457, df = 2, p > .178).
44
Table 11(a). English Language Speaker * Likelihood to Attend Future Voter Forum
Yes
Do you speak
English
No
Total
Count
Expected
Count
Count
Expected
Count
Count
Expected
Count
How likely will you attend a
future forum
Somewhat
Very likely
likely
1
21
Total
22
2.2
19.8
22.0
2
6
8
.8
7.2
8.0
3
27
30
3.0
27.0
30.0
Table 11(b). Chi-Square Tests
Value
df
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2(2-sided)
sided)
1
.099
.166
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
.166
Pearson Chi-Square
2.727a
Continuity
.928
1
.335
Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio
2.372
1
.124
.166
.166
Fisher's Exact Test
.166
.166
N of Valid Cases
30
a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
.80.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
Language was an important component of the voter education forum and Table
11(a) displays that of the thirty participant’s surveyed, 26.7% (n = 8) did not speak
English and 73.3% (n = 22) spoke English. Similar to gender, the chi-square test of
45
independence shows that there is not a significant association between participant’s who
spoke English and those who did not speak English in attending future voter education
forums (  2 = 2.727, df = 1, p > .099) (see Table 11(b)).
Table 12(a). Voter Forum Value * Speaks English
Do you speak
English
Yes
No
How valuable was the
info from the forum
Somewhat
valuable
Very valuable
Total
Count
Expected
Count
Count
Expected
Count
Count
Expected
Count
Total
1
3
4
2.9
1.1
4.0
21
5
26
19.1
6.9
26.0
22
8
30
22.0
8.0
30.0
Table 12(b) . Chi-Square Tests
Value
Df
Asymp. Sig. Exact Sig. (2(2-sided)
sided)
1
.019
.048
Exact Sig.
(1-sided)
.048
Pearson Chi-Square
5.514a
Continuity
3.030
1
.082
Correctionb
Likelihood Ratio
4.840
1
.028
.048
.048
Fisher's Exact Test
.048
.048
N of Valid Cases
30
a. 2 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is
1.07.
b. Computed only for a 2x2 table
46
The necessity to measure the content in the voter education forums is presented in
Table 12(a) where English speakers and non-English speakers measure the value of the
information. As displayed in Table 3(b), the chi-square test of independence shows that
there is a significant association between being able to speak English and viewing the
information obtained from the voter education forum as valuable. (  2 = 5.514, df = 1, p <
.019).
Summary
The participants surveyed in the research were thirty individual attendees of either
one or both of the Hmong voter education forums held prior to the 2012 general
elections. The survey delved into the participant’s language capacity as well as voting
history in order to build a better understanding of the type of person coming to the
forums. The survey results presented a picture of participants across all age groups and
language capacity seeing the voter education forums as valuable and necessary.
47
Chapter 5
CONCLUSION, SUMMARY, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary of Study
This research aims to study the effectiveness of two voter education forums held in
Sacramento, California for the Hmong community. Seeing language as one of many barriers for
some Hmong voters, Hmong Innovating Politics (HIP) worked to create a space in which Hmong
community members could engage in the voting process and be educated on the various
propositions directly affecting the community. The overall objective of the study aimed to: 1)
measure whether the voter education forums drew out Hmong voters in the 2012 general
election, 2) gauge to see if participant’s saw the voter education forum information as valuable,
and 3) explore the need for future voter education forums.
From the thirty participants surveyed, a significant finding showed that fifteen of the
participants had registered to vote at one of the two voter education forums, while twelve
individuals were pre-registered and five chose not to mark a response. In the 2012 general
elections, 90% (n = 27) participants indicated that they had voted and 10% (n = 3) participants
had not voted. With the 2012 general elections completed, the participants response to voting in
an election was overwhelmingly high among those surveyed at 93.3% (n = 28) for those who
have voted in an election and 6.7% (n = 2) for those who had not voted in an election.
The value of the voter education forums were analyzed in several sets of questions
formulated to assess the participant’s perspectives. Of the participants, 13.3% (n = 4) saw the
voter education forums as “Somewhat valuable” and 86.7% (n = 26) marked the voter education
forums as “Very valuable.” With the variable measuring whether the voter education forums
48
encouraged the participant to vote or not, 96.7% (n = 29) responded “Yes” and 3.3% (n = 1)
indicated “No.”
The research also focused on whether participants would see future voter education
forums as essential to their participation in voting. For this particular variable, 10% (n = 3)
participants marked “Somewhat likely” and 90% (n = 27) of the participants marked “Very
likely.”
Implications for Social Work
Social workers function in various arenas as providers, advocates, and in
numerous positions to assist populations, particularly those who are underprivileged and
underrepresented. As direct service providers, many social workers may encounter
Hmong families and individuals; therefore, it is crucial that social workers are aware of
the civic disadvantages of this specific clientele and work to ensure that their needs are
met on various levels. From a micro perspective, social workers have an insight into the
needs of their Hmong clientele through the direct interactions. In order to begin the
process of client empowerment, social workers must begin to take part in grassroots
actions of organizing that has been an essential element to the field of social work.
Following the activism of the 1960’s, social workers began to move towards clinical
work (Haynes & Mickelson, 2003), creating a growing gap between the social work and
organizing.
To effectively create the necessary changes to impact the Hmong community,
organizing the population to meet in spaces, such as the voter education forums, can
begin the dialogue from their micro experiences to how macro policies directly affect
49
them. Social workers are not only prepared to work with vast groups of population on an
individual level; but, are prepared to work with groups and facilitate groups. These
specific skill sets are crucial to the development of the grassroots organizing that social
workers can take part in.
With the continuing cuts to many of the social services programs, social workers
are at the frontline of the situation assisting the Hmong community and other
communities with existing services. The Hmong voter education forums were able to tie
in the direct experiences of Hmong individuals to certain propositions on the 2012
general election ballot, creating a discussion on how macro policies can trickle down to
affect the lives of everyday individuals. Social workers study the direct impact of micro,
mezzo and macro level work; therefore, social workers are equipped with the necessary
understanding of the situation to tie in people’s stories to the current situation of
organizing for needed change. To create the change necessary, social workers must
collectively organize communities and bring them together to start and/or continue the
discussion on how these macro policies are directly affecting them. Each community
may assume that the struggles they face is unique to their own communities; however,
many of the struggles are shared struggles if these communities can be organized to share
their experiences with one another.
Recommendations for Future Research
As the study aimed to measure the effectiveness of the voter education forums,
the surveys were able to showcase the vast differences in ages and language capacity
present at the two events. This information displays that the need to be civically
50
engaged is not limited to just one age group in the Hmong population or a specific group
that may not be able to engage in an English language conversation. The need to study
the Hmong community and what strategies will work to draw out more voters for future
elections is crucial. The voter education forums are only one of several methods that
have been implemented on numerous populations throughout the United States to
increase the number of voters. Future research must consider canvassing, phone banking
and language appropriate mailers to the Hmong community to better understand whether
such outreach strategies can further increase the voter turnout for the Hmong population.
Another aspect that needs to be researched further is the barriers that may be
holding back Hmong voters. This particular study did not focus heavily on the reasons
why Hmong individuals had not participated in past elections with only one qualitative
variable asking for reasons for not voting, which sparked such answers as “lack of
motivation” and “no citizenship”. To begin the process of having more civically
engaged communities, studies will need to be conducted to assess what the barriers are
and begin to create solutions to close the gap in the identified barriers.
Created as a strategy to be culturally sensitive and language appropriate for the
Hmong community, the voter education forums began the exploration into how culturally
appropriate they are for the Hmong population. Further research can focus on the
sustainability of the impact of the voter education forums by conducting follow up
research on whether the participants in the initial voter education forums are continuing
to participate in future elections. This will evaluate whether the voter education forums
are effective in one of their initial objectives of developing the civic engagement of the
51
Hmong population. The need to understand the effectiveness of the voter education
forums is essential to start addressing the needs of the Hmong community and pushing
for the necessary changes.
Limitations
A limitation to the research was the small sample size of the participants. Of all
the participants who attended the voter education forums, the researcher was limited to
the time allotted to collect the data and did not have the capacity to survey all the
participants individually. Furthermore, the researcher was unable to reach several of the
participants through the phone numbers provided as many had changed phone numbers or
their lines were disconnected shortly after the voter education forums. Another limitation
in the sample size is the ability to accurately gauge and generalize the needs of the
Hmong community in becoming more civically engaged and vote with the sample
population that attended the voter education forums.
The focus of the voter education forums within the city of Sacramento was also
another limiting factor. To obtain more accurate findings, research into cities with
concentrations of Hmong populations can be explored. Through the study of more
sample size Hmong communities, the research can begin to hone in on how effective
voter education forums tailored specifically for the Hmong community is.
Conclusion
The research intended to evaluate the effectiveness of the voter education forums targeted
at the Hmong community and in doing so the research data showed a high number of the
participants indicated a high level of need for voter education forums. The Hmong voter
52
education forum is a step in the direction to increase the civic engagement of the Hmong
community. Through these forums, the Hmong community and numerous populations across the
United States can begin to connect and engage their everyday experiences to the policies and
policymakers who continue to shape their lives with the decisions they make.
53
APPENDIX A
THE QUESTIONNAIRE
54
HMONG VOTER EDUCATION FORUM SURVEY
1. What is your age category? Would you say…
a. 18-25
b. 26-35
c. 36-45
d. 46+
2. Please circle your gender
a. Female
b. Male
3. What is your current marital status? Would you say you are…
a. Single
b. Married
c. Divorced
d. Widowed
e. Separated
f. Other
4. Were you born in the United States?
a. Yes
b. No
4a. If no, how long have you been living in the United States?
_____________Years (Please fill in the blank)
4b. Where were you born? ___________________/Country
5. Do you speak English?
a. Yes
b. No
5a. If no, what language(s) do you speak?
__________________________________ (Please fill in the blank)
5b. If yes, how well do you speak English? Would you say your
English speaking ability is…
a. Not well at all
b. Somewhat well
c. Well
d. Very well
55
6. What is the highest level of education you attained?
a. None
b. Elementary
c. Junior High
d. High School
e. College and above
7. Are you currently registered to vote?
a. Yes
b. No
7a. If yes, did you register at the voter education forums?
a. Yes
b. No
7b. If no, why have you not registered to vote? (Please explain
below)
8. Have you previously voted?
a. Yes
b. No
8a. If yes, how many (primary, general) elections have you
participated
in?
a. 1
b. 2
c. 3
d. 4+
8b. If no, why have you never voted? (Please explain below)
9. How did you hear about the Hmong voter education forums?
a. Hmong Radio
b. Word of Mouth
c. HWHA Event
56
d. Other _________________(please fill in the blank)
10. During this voting cycle, how many Hmong voter education forum(s) did you
attend?
a. 1
b. 2
11. Did you find the Hmong voter education forum(s) helpful?
a. Yes
b. No
12. In case you attended at least one voter education forum, how valuable was the
forum to you? Would you say it was…
a. Not valuable at all
b. Somewhat valuable
c. Very valuable
13. Did attending the Hmong voter education forum(s) encourage you to vote this
November 2012 election?
a. Yes
b. No
14. Did you vote in the 2012 general election?
a. Yes
b. No
15. How likely that attending a voter education forum will make you vote again in
future elections?
a. Unlikely at all
b. Somewhat likely
c. Very likely
57
APPENDIX B
THE CONSENT FORM
58
Consent to Participate as a Research Subject
I, _______________________________ (print name) hereby agree to participate
in research conducted by Cindy Vang. During this research, I will be asked several
multiple choice and open-ended questions to identify whether voter turnout in the
November 2012 election increased in the Hmong population that reside in Sacramento
County as a result of voter education forum held in the Hmong language. The study will
focus on the November 2012 elections as a basis for determining whether additional
work/services are needed to increase the civic engagement of Hmong community
members. The survey questionnaire will take 5-10 minutes to complete.
I understand that my participation in this research is entirely voluntary. If I
decide to participate in this interview, I may withdraw at any point. In addition, I can
choose not to answer any specific question(s). If I have any difficulty completing the
survey due to language barriers, I understand that the researcher can assist me in
interpreting as she also speaks Hmong.
I understand that all the data from the research is kept confidential and will only
be used for the purpose of this study. I understand that there are no risks involved as the
researcher will ask the questions in a way that ensures my dignity and privacy.
I understand that my participation in this research will not affect any of the
services I am receiving. I also acknowledge that I will not be receiving any
compensation for participating in this study.
If I have any questions or concerns, I can contact the researcher at her email
address xxxxxx@gmail.com or her phone number (xxx) xxx-xxxx. In case I have
questions for your Master’s Project, I can contact your advisor, Dr. Serge Lee at (916)
278-5820, or email him at leesc@csus.edu. For additional services, I may contact
Hmong Women’s Heritage Association at (916) 394-1405 or Lao Family Community
Development at (916) 393-7501.
Participant Signature: ____________________________
Date: ___________________
Name of the interviewer/researcher: __________________ Date: ___________________
59
REFERENCES
60
References
Abrajano, M., & Panagopoulos, C. (2011). Does language matter? The impact of Spanish
versus English-language GOTV efforts on Latino turnout. American politics
research, 39(4), 643-663.
Anderson, D. K., & Harris, B. M. (2005). Teaching social welfare policy: A comparison
of two pedagogical. Journal of social work education, 41(3), 511-526.
Arceneaux, K., & Nickerson, D. W. (2009). Who is mobilized to vote? A re-analysis of
11 field experiments. American journal of political science, 53(1), 1-16.
Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC). 2011. Asian American Center for
Advancing Justice A Community of Contrasts Asian Americans in the United
States: 2011. Los Angeles, CA: Asian Pacific American Legal Center.
Bedolla, L., & Michelson, M.R. (2009). What do voters: Need to know?: Testing the role
of cognitive information in Asian American voter mobilization. American Politics
Research, 37(2), 254-274.
Bryan, J., & Holcomb-McCoy, C. (2010). Advocacy and empowerment in parent
consultation: Implications for theory and practice. Journal of counseling &
development, 88(3), 259-268.
Chan, S. (1994). Hmong means free life in Laos and America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple
University Press.
Clayton, D. (2004). A funny thing happened on the way to the voting precinct: A brief
history of disenfranchisement in America. Black scholar, 34(3), 42-52.
61
Cloward, R.A. & Fox Piven, F. (1966). The weight of the poor: A strategy to end
poverty. Nation, 510-17.
Dale, A., & Strauss, A. (2009). Don’t forget to vote: Text message reminders as a
mobilization tool. American journal of political science, 53(4), 787-804.
Davis, J. K. (2010). Voting as empowerment practice. American journal of psychiatric
rehabilitation, 13, 243-257.
Donnelly, N.D. (1997). Changing lives of refugee Hmong women. Seattle: University of
Washington Press.
Ezell, M. (1994). Advocacy practice of social workers. Families in society: The journal
of contemporary human services.
Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. (1999). Does canvassing increase voter turnout? a field
experiment. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 96, 10939-10942.
Gerber, A. S. & Green, D. P. (2000). The effects of canvassing, telephone calls, and
direct mail on voter turnout: A field experiment. The American political science
review, 94(3), 653-663.
Graybeal, C. (2001). Strengths-based social work assessment: Transforming the dominant
paradigm. Families in society, 82(3), 233-242.
Hall, J. A. (2010). The campus, the community, and voter mobilization. National civic
review, 99(2), 43-47.
Hamilton, D. & Fauri, D. (2001). Social workers' political participation: Strengthening
the political confidence of social work students. Journal of social work
education, 37(2), 321-332.
62
Haynes, K. S. & Mickelson, J. S. (2003). Affecting change social workers in the political
arena. (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Jambunathan, J., & Stewart, S. (1997). Hmong women: Postpartum family support and
life satisfaction. Journal of family nursing, 3(2), 149.
Lee, G. Y. (2007). Diaspora and the predicament of origins: Interrogating Hmong
postcolonial history and identity. Hmong studies journal, 8.
McGrath, M. (2012). Election reform and voter turnout a review of the history. National
civic review, 38-43.
Michaud, J. (1997). From southwest china into upper Indochina: An overview of Hmong
(Miao) migrations.Asia Pacific viewpoint, 38(2), 119-130.
Michelson, M. R. (2003). Getting out the Latino vote: How door-to-door canvassing
influences voter turnout in rural Central California. Political behavior, 25(3), 247263.
Mink, G. & Solinger, R. (2004) Welfare: A documentary history of U.S. policy and
politic. (pp. 249-259) NY: NY University Press.
Miyares, I. M. (1998). The Hmong refugee experience in the United States: Crossing the
river. New York: Routledge.
Moch, M. (2009). A critical understanding of social work by Paolo Freire. Journal of
progressive human services, 20(1), 92-97.
NASW Code of Ethics (2008). Code of ethics of the national association for social
workers. Washington D.C.: NASW.
63
Neuman, W.L. & Kreuger, L.W. (2003). Social work research methods: Qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Boston : Allyn and Bacon
Oko, J. (2006). Evaluating alternative approaches to social work: A critical review of the
strengths perspective. Families in society, 87(4), 601-611.
Pfeifer, M.E., Sullivan, J., Yang, K., & Yang, W. (2012). Hmong population and
demographic trends in the 2010 Census and 2010 American Community Survey.
Hmong studies journal, 13(2),1-31.
Pimpare, S. (2008). Respect: The price of relief. A people’s history of poverty in America.
(pp.141-164; footnotes 280-285). NY: The New Press.
Rome, S. H., & Hoechstetter, S. (2010). Social work and civic engagement: The political
participation of professional social workers. Journal of sociology and social
welface, XXXVII(3), 107-128.
Saleebey, D. (2001). The diagnostic strengths manual. Social work, (46)2, 183-187
Schmitt-Beck, R. & Mackenrodt, C. (2010). Social networks and mass media as
mobilizers and demobilizers: A study of turnout at a German local election.
Electoral studies, 29(3), 392-404. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2010.03.011
Takei, I. & Sakamoto, A. (2011). Poverty among asian americans in the 21st
century. Sociological perspectives, 54(2), 251-276.
Tatman, A. W. (2004). Hmong history, culture, and acculturation: Implications for
counseling the Hmong. Journal of multicutural counseling and development, 32,
222-233.
64
Thompson, J. J. (1994). Social workers and politics: Beyond the hatch act. Social
work, 39(4), 457-465.
Tuckel, P. & Maisel, R. (2008). Nativity status and voter turnout in the early twentiethcentury urban united states. Historical methods, 41(2), 99-107.
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012, March). The Asian population: 2010. Retrieved September
28, 2012 from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-11.pdf.
Wolk, J. L. (1996). Political activity in social work: A theoretical model of
motivation. International social work, 39, 443-455.
Wolk, J. L., Pray, J. E., Weismiller, T., & Dempsey, D. (1996). Political practica:
Educating social work students for policymaking. Journal of social work
education, 32(1), 91-100.
Wong, J.S. (2005). Mobilizing Asian American voters: A field experiment. Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 601, 102-114.
Xu, J. (2005). Why do minorities participate less? The effects of immigration, education,
and electoral process on Asian American voter registration and turnout. Social
science research, 34(4), 682-702.
Yang, K. (2009). Commentary: Challenges and complexity in the re-construction of
hmong history. Hmong studies journal, 10, 1H-17H.
Zayas, L., Drake, B., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2011). Overrating or dismissing the value of
evidence-based practice: Consequences for clinical practice. Clinical social work
journal, 39(4), 400-405.
65
Zimmerman, M.A. (1995). Empowerment theory, research, and application. American
journal of community psychology, 23(5), 569.