2014 Diaspora Philanthropy Copts NVSQ

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/261628700
Diaspora Philanthropy: Lessons From a Demographic

Analysis of the Coptic Diaspora
Article in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · November 2013

DOI: 10.1177/0899764013488835
CITATIONS READS
34 731
2 authors, including:
Jennifer M Brinkerhoff
George Washington University
116 PUBLICATIONS 3,733 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Governance (beyond cross-sector work) View project
Digital Diasporas View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Jennifer M Brinkerhoff on 27 June 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly
http://nvs.sagepub.com/
Diaspora Philanthropy: Lessons From a Demographic Analysis of the

Coptic Diaspora
Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2014 43: 969 originally published online 21
May 2013
DOI: 10.1177/0899764013488835
The online version of this article can be found at:

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/43/6/969
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action
Additional services and information for Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://nvs.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/43/6/969.refs.html
>> Version of Record - Nov 14, 2014
OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 21, 2013
What is This?
Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014
488835
research-article2013
NVS43610.1177/0899764013488835<italic>Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly</italic>Brinkerhoff
Article
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
2014, Vol. 43(6) 969–992
Diaspora Philanthropy: © The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permissions:
Lessons From a Demographic sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0899764013488835
Analysis of the Coptic nvsq.sagepub.com
Diaspora
Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff1
Abstract
Research on diaspora philanthropy is in its infancy, primarily focused on individual
country case studies, and often prone to over-generalization. Based on an extensive
survey of the Coptic diaspora in three countries of residence (CORs), this article
analyzes the experience and potential of a minority and faith-based diaspora. The
survey findings inform a nuanced reading of diaspora philanthropy as practiced and
understood. Placing this experience in the context of knowledge to date suggests
several findings about diaspora philanthropy. Diasporas are extremely heterogeneous.
Members of minority diasporas do not necessarily target their giving only to their
fellow minorities in the country of origin (COO). COR giving norms may be integrated
alongside faith-based and heritage culture giving norms, possibly displacing the latter
at least at the margins. Despite integration in the COR, even over long periods of
time and across generations, diasporans may retain a strong interest in philanthropy
targeted to the COO.
Keywords
diaspora, philanthropy, faith, minority, Egypt
The new millennium has witnessed an increasing recognition and interest among
researchers, policymakers, and diasporans themselves of the potential role diasporas
can play in contributing to the development of their countries of origin (COOs). While
1George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff, Public Administration and International Affairs, George Washington University,
805 21st Street, NW Suite 601, Washington, DC 20052, USA.
Email: jbrink@gwu.edu

970 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 43(6)
this interest was initiated with an almost exclusive focus on the impressive volume of
remittances, it has broadened to include a burgeoning interest in diaspora philanthropy.
U.S. private philanthropy to developing countries was estimated at US$37.5 billion in
2009, surpassing U.S. Official Development Assistance (Center for Global Prosperity,
2011). These flows include diaspora philanthropy, which is sometimes directed to
countries and locations without broad appeal to more traditional foundations and
donors. Diaspora philanthropy can reach into places and respond to crises that may not
otherwise be adequately addressed by the broader international community.
Furthermore, it may come with its own implementation mechanisms and advantages,
including knowledge of and access to local organizations. When a diaspora is reli-
giously based, the related faith-based institutions can provide important reach to
needs, dissemination of resources, and sometimes execution of projects to support
philanthropic aims. In short, diaspora philanthropy has enormous potential to reach
people in need who may otherwise be left out of the global giving landscape.
In her 2007 overview, Johnson concluded,
Despite its potential, diaspora philanthropy remains one of the least understood components
of the philanthropic landscape. There is little existing research that captures the experience
of organized diaspora philanthropy . . . . New research, discussion, and creative thinking will
all be needed if diaspora philanthropy is to realize its full potential (p. 4).
More than 5 years later, Johnson’s conclusions still stand. There has been a plethora of
publications on single-country diasporas and project-specific case studies of varying
quality and depth.1 There are still many unanswered questions, including how minor-
ity diasporas, and particularly those who face a relatively hostile COO government,
frame their philanthropic efforts, and how faith-based diasporas engage philanthropi-
cally. Studies of diaspora philanthropy still largely focus on U.S.-based diasporas only
(see Sidel, 2008), raising questions about the generalizeability of research to date.
One of the persistent challenges for research in this arena concerns lack of data.
Anecdotal evidence is frequently referenced and many interesting examples garner
noteworthy attention, but these alone do not advance analysts’ ability to speak to a
broader diaspora philanthropy phenomenon in a meaningful way. Examples of dias-
pora philanthropy abound, but they do not tell us about why people give and often not
even about how they give. For example, what types of intermediary organizations do
diasporans use and with what expectations? And how might these giving patterns
reflect exposure to philanthropic norms and institutions in the country of residence
(COR)? Answering these and other questions requires reaching into the psyche of
diaspora philanthropists. It requires asking them directly.
A survey of the Coptic diaspora in the United States, Canada, Australia, and the United
Kingdom aimed to do just that. This survey addresses several identified challenges to
understanding diaspora philanthropy (see Johnson, 2007; Sidel, 2008). Asking people to
self-report enables an identification of total giving, including what is channeled infor-
mally through individuals, formally through charitable organizations that do not differen-
tiate between diaspora and non-diaspora giving, and through faith-based institutions that

Brinkerhoff 971
do not generally report separately tithing for philanthropic purposes abroad.2 Our survey
also allowed us to query respondents about their volunteer time both in the COR but
directed to support Egypt, and in Egypt proper. This volunteer time includes knowledge
transfer both as individuals and through professional associations. This may be the first
diaspora survey of a subnational group and a religiously identified one.
This article examines the philanthropic attitudes and behavior of a minority and
faith-based diaspora. I investigate three sets of questions. First, how does minority
status in the COO influence diasporans’ giving patterns? Do they necessarily identify
with a subgroup notion of “home” or with a national homeland? And how might this
influence how they target their contributions? Second, how do heritage and faith-based
giving norms interact with COR philanthropic norms and practices? And what types of
changes in this interaction and relative emphasis might we expect across years of set-
tlement and in subsequent generations of diaspora? Third, do diasporans necessarily
lose interest or reduce their commitment to philanthropy in the COO over time and
with increasing integration in the COR?
Following a review of diaspora philanthropy, I introduce the Coptic diaspora and
describe the survey, sample, and methods. I then summarize relevant findings related
to identity and philanthropic attitudes and practices. Demographic and comparative
COR analyses of these findings highlight the differentiated behavior among subgroups
of this diaspora, enabling a more thorough examination of the questions posed in the
literature to date. Following a discussion of these as applied to the Coptic diaspora, I
outline implications for the evolution of diaspora philanthropy.
Diaspora Philanthropy: Current Knowledge of Giving

Norms and Practices
Diaspora philanthropy is not just a characteristic or behavior of diaspora communities;
diaspora philanthropy is fundamentally about diaspora identity. As Werbner (2002) puts
it, “the imagination of diaspora is constituted by a compelling sense of moral corespon-
sibility embodied in material performance which is extended . . . across and beyond
national boundaries” (pp. 129-131). This sense of responsibility, both to the COO and to
the diaspora community, drives much of diaspora philanthropy. Diasporas have several
philanthropic advantages. Beyond comparative resource impacts (e.g., a U.S. dollar may
go a lot further in the COO) and understanding of specific needs, locations, and context,
“With the buffer of distance, diaspora giving may be more able and willing to address
more ‘controversial issues’ than local philanthropy” (Johnson, 2007, p. 14). Following is
a discussion of the role of faith in diaspora philanthropy, the difference and heterogene-
ity of diaspora, and the potential influence of the COR on giving norms and practices.
The Role of Faith

Studies to date suggest diasporans are both inspired by and channel their philanthropy
through faith-based institutions. Anand (2004) provides a guide to faith-based tenets
of philanthropy from several religious perspectives. Some faith traditions may

emphasize giving to individuals. The U.S.-based Pakistani diasporans’ tendency to

give to individuals (Najam, 2005) is consistent with zakat’s emphasis on giving to the
poor and the needy (Bhatti, 2008). Faith-based institutions can also play an important
intermediary role for diaspora philanthropy. Hindu religious movements have estab-
lished separate charitable organizations in the United States with 501(c)3 status, and
compliance with related tax filings, including transparency in the amount of funds
raised and disbursed (Anand, 2004). The Colombian diaspora gives directly to the
Catholic Church and also through religious charitable organizations and diaspora affil-
iates (Aysa-Lastra, 2007).
The Heterogeneity of Diaspora

Demographic distinctions influence diasporans’ giving norms and practices.
Demographic distinctions include features of the diaspora as a whole, including where
they settle, as well as characteristics of individual diasporans and subgroups. Settlement
patterns may reflect different origins of diaspora and waves of migration (for a discus-
sion, see Brinkerhoff, 2008). Bhatti (2008) finds the U.K.-based Pakistani diaspora
reflects its origins and experience in the COR (it is generally less wealthy and less
educated than the U.S.-based Pakistani diaspora), and tends to identify with being
“Muslim” above being “Pakistani.” Filipino diasporans settled in the United States
tend to be among the most generous (Garchitorena, 2007). Indian diasporans settled in
South East Asia practice philanthropy that is “more personal, less organized, and less
institutional” (Shiveshwarkar, 2008, p. 137; Viswanath, 2003, p. 14 ) than those in the
United States; it is also more targeted to the COR than to the COO (Shiveshwarkar,
2008).
Within a diaspora in a particular COR, age, education, income, and COR language
proficiency may influence philanthropy practices. Since the probability of naturaliza-
tion in the United States increases with each of these, Johnson (2007) implies these
groups will become less interested in directing philanthropy to the COO. In fact,
income and integration into the COR are far more complex influencing factors.
Brinkerhoff (2011) examined differentiated behavior based on education and income.
She found labor diasporans (unskilled with little formal education) are likely to prefer
remitting money and engaging in philanthropic projects through individuals and
Church groups rather than NGOs and other formal institutions, but this does not gener-
ally hold for entrepreneurial diasporas and the highly skilled. At lower levels, income
may enhance the capacity to do more; but at higher levels, the inclination to contribute
may wane for a variety of reasons. At still higher levels, a limited number of diaspo-
rans may choose to make targeted, yet quite substantial, contributions (Brinkerhoff,
2011).
Contrary to expectations, studies show increased integration may actually enhance
diasporans’ engagement on behalf of the COO (Portes, Haller, & Guarnizo, 2002);
case study research suggests this engagement becomes increasingly sophisticated with
COR integration. In the Pakistani diaspora, many first-generation migrants have now
retired, enabling them to focus on giving larger sums of money; and, since they have

Brinkerhoff 973
been in the COR a long time, they are less likely to know individual poor people and
thus more likely to give to formal organizations (Bhatti, 2008). Subsequent genera-
tions may retain and even reenergize interest in diaspora philanthropy to the COO (for
Vietnam see Sidel, 2008; on Afghanistan see Brinkerhoff, 2004). The U.S.-based
Vietnamese diaspora enjoys an increasingly sophisticated organizational sector for
facilitating philanthropic donations to Vietnam (Sidel, 2007). The U.S.-based Pakistani
(Bhatti, 2008) and Kenyan diasporas (Copeland-Carson, 2007) have experienced a
similar evolution of “strategic philanthropy” and organizational sophistication. The
Indonesian diaspora (Rusdiana & Saidi, 2008), on the other hand, has not yet so
evolved.
When might diaspora characteristics yield bias in giving targets? Johnson’s (2007)
review of diaspora philanthropy motivation suggests political or conflict-created dias-
poras are less likely to engage in philanthropy for the COO. However, there are excep-
tions. The Vietnamese diaspora was remitting money home as early as the 1970s
despite the considerable obstacles; more formal philanthropy was initiated in the mid-
to late 1980s (Sidel, 2007). Of course, conflict-generated, minority, and faith-based
diasporas can be partisan, selectively supporting communities and causes in the COO.
Several Hindu charitable organizations have been associated with the Hindutva (Hindu
nationalist) movement (Anand, 2004). Somali diaspora philanthropy is frequently
clan-based (Horst, 2008). Particularism is a general feature of the voluntary sector as
a whole (Salamon, 1987) and diaspora philanthropy is no exception. One of the main
conveyances of diaspora philanthropy is collective remittances through hometown
associations which, by definition, target specific locations over regional and national
concerns (see, e.g., Orozco & Lapointe, 2004).
Influence of the COR

Do diasporans retain COO giving norms in the COR? Johnson’s (2007) review of
diaspora philanthropy identified a strong preference among diasporans to give to indi-
viduals rather than institutions and credits this to faith-based traditions and a distrust
of NGOs and other formal institutions. There is evidence to support this claim for
several groups—for example, Pakistani-Americans (Najam, 2005), the U.S.-based
Kenyan diaspora (Copeland-Carson, 2007), and Indonesian diasporans (Rusdiana &
Saidi, 2008). However, Johnson cites as evidence a household survey conducted in
India about Indians (Sampradaan Indian Center for Philanthropy, 2001). In doing so,
she presumes diasporans share the giving norms of their compatriots in the COO. This
approach ignores that migration self-selection and the diaspora experience may impact
diaspora philanthropists’ preferences and behavior.
CORs do influence philanthropic norms and practices. Curtis and Associates (2001)
find that volunteerism tends to be higher the longer a country has experience with
democratic institutions and the higher its national economic development level. By
extension, individuals who have no experience with associations and volunteering
may acquire an interest and develop capacity once they settle in such countries, as in
North America. While Moya (2005) cites several studies noting voluntary association

proliferation even within COO cultures whose adherents previously might shun asso-
ciational life, he attributes this to the diaspora experience. Much of this organizing, he
argues, responds to the functional needs of migrants. Moya’s argument does not
address philanthropic norms and behavior directed to the COO, leaving open the ques-
tion of whether learned associational behavior in the COR can impact the norms and
practices of diaspora philanthropy targeted to the COO.
The 2007 Canada Survey of Giving, Volunteering, and Participating (see Hall,
Lasby, Ayer, & Gibbons, 2009) examined immigrants’ philanthropic behavior, com-
paring it to Canadian giving norms more broadly. The survey found some similarities
(e.g., the likelihood of making financial contributions, and volunteering among 15-24
year olds), as well as differences (e.g., immigrants gave larger donation amounts, and
were less inclined to volunteer for a formal organization) (Hall et al., 2009). Differences
between native-born and foreign-born giving behaviors diminished with individuals’
age and length of residence in Canada (Hall et al., 2009), and immigrants’ donation
amounts and number of volunteer hours increased with length of time residing in
Canada. Immigrants engaged more with religious organizations than native-born
Canadians, including making donations and at higher amounts, volunteering, and
being motivated by faith more often than cause-related or social motives.
Integration into the COR may influence diasporans’ selection of philanthropic
intermediaries. More established immigrants may prefer more formal and institution-
alized initiatives (Portes, Escobar, & Radford, 2007). Sometimes these are reflections
or extensions of traditional American nonprofits, such as Lions and Kiwanis clubs
(Portes et al., 2007). U.S. Pakistani diasporans use religious organizations as interme-
diaries far less frequently then their compatriots in Pakistan, and Bhatti (2008) attri-
butes the evolution of strategic philanthropy of the Pakistani diaspora to them being
“more educated, more aware, and more affluent” and thus, “more likely to adopt more
modern approaches to their giving” (pp. 193-194).
Philanthropic motivations in the COO and among diasporans in the COR may differ
in their emphases. The emphasis on faith in Pakistan (a motivation for 98% of dona-
tions) remains important among the U.S. Pakistani diaspora, but coexists alongside
more secular motivations and causes (Bhatti, 2008; Najam, 2005). The U.S. Pakistani
diaspora is also far more interested in knowing the results of their giving than their
COO counterparts (Bhatti, 2008; Najam, 2005). Different norms can lead to conflict. In
Israel, the naming of a museum, a standard practice for large donors in the United
States, was met with such public outrage the donation was withdrawn (Blum, 2009).
Studies to date suggest diasporans’ philanthropic norms and behaviors result from
a complex interaction of COO values, religious socialization and norms, demographic
features, and, with exposure over time, COR philanthropic norms and behavior. Yet
precisely how and how persistently these factors influence philanthropic practice
remains for the most part untested. When subgroups settle in different CORs, addi-
tional variation may result. Many diasporas have already evolved from giving to indi-
viduals, and sometimes exclusively through faith-based institutions, to utilizing a
more varied and sophisticated organizational sector. The eventual norms and practices
are difficult to predict and generalization across an entire diaspora is not realistic.

Brinkerhoff 975
This early literature on diaspora philanthropy is unsurprisingly characterized by

overconfident assumptions and contradictions, leading me to three questions and
related hypotheses. First, the literature provides some evidence that political and con-
flict-generated diasporas do still engage in philanthropy in the COO (e.g., Sidel, 2007)
and that diaspora philanthropy is particularistic in targeting subnational compatriots
(e.g., Anand, 2004; Horst, 2008). But do minority diasporas necessarily target their
philanthropy only to their minority compatriots in the COO?
Hypothesis 1 (H1): Minority diasporas may demonstrate a concern for COO com-
patriots as nationally defined.
Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Minority diasporas do not give exclusively to their minority
compatriots in the COO, but may base their giving on perceived needs.
Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Second-generation diasporans, in particular, may demon-
strate a broader nationalistic concern.
Second, beyond anecdotal evidence and the findings from the 2007 Canada Survey of
Giving (Hall et al., 2009), can we expect diasporas to assume COR giving norms over
time?
Hypothesis 2 (H2): In the second generation, with time in the COR, and especially
among those with higher levels of income and education, diasporans adopt COR
giving norms and practices more generally:
Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Second-generation and integrated diasporans’ portfolio of
intermediary organizations is likely to expand beyond faith-based institutions,
Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Second generation and integrated diasporans adopt a greater
expectation for learning the results of their giving, and
Hypothesis 2c (H2c): Second generation and integrated diasporans become increas-
ingly interested in empowering others rather than simply providing welfare sup-
port or solving others’ problems.
Finally, it is often assumed that over time and across generations, diasporans may
lose interest in targeting their philanthropy to the COO (e.g., Johnson, 2007). However,
research suggests those with greater integration (Portes et al., 2002) and new genera-
tions (Sidel, 2008) may actually become more engaged and/or reinvigorate a diaspo-
ra’s COO giving.
Hypothesis 3 (H3): Greater integration in the COR does not diminish interest in
giving in the COO:
Hypothesis 3a (H3a): With time in the COR, and higher education and income,
diasporans’ interest in philanthropy targeted to the COO increases, and
Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Subsequent generations retain interest in philanthropy tar-
geted to the COO.
I explore these hypotheses through our survey of the Coptic diaspora.

The Coptic Diaspora

Copts are Egyptian Christians who follow the Coptic Orthodox Church, under the
auspices of Pope Shenoudah III.3 The exact number of Copts residing in Egypt is con-
tested, with estimates ranging anywhere from 8% to 12% of the total population.
Historically, Copts enjoyed periods of improved position in Egyptian society and gov-
ernment, though with intermittent periods of discrimination and backlash. For over a
decade, the Copts have been singled out as victims of discrimination and human rights
violations in reports on religious freedom in Egypt (see, for example, U.S. State
Department, 2010). Recent years, especially immediately before and after the 2011
revolution, have seen an escalation in violence directed at Copts. Emigration of Copts
began in earnest in the 1960s when Canada (1964) and the United States (1967)
relaxed their immigration requirements, though the U.S.-based Coptic communities
began as early as 1955 (Boulos, 2006). Emigration is largely attributed to discrimina-
tion in the pursuit of senior positions, for example, in the academic, government, and
medical professions, and the rise of Islamic extremism (see Tadros, 2009).
Exact numbers of Copts living in diaspora, as well as their destination countries, are
difficult to trace as destination countries do not collect data on subnational identity. A
review of available data reveals estimates ranging from 91,200 (Hartford Institute for
Religion Research, 2010) to 750,000 in the United States alone (Ibrahim and Ibrahim,
2009). Another scholar puts the numbers of Copts in the United States at 350,000 and
in Canada at 150,000 (Saad, 2010). As with most diasporas, the Coptic diasporans
estimate their numbers to be much higher than official estimates, even higher than the
estimates of all Egyptian national immigrants.
The GW Coptic Diaspora Survey, Sample, and Variables

The online self-administered survey (open from November 8, 2011 to January 13,
2012) aimed to identify the factors keeping Coptic diasporans interested in engaging
in Egypt and in what particular ways. The link was promoted primarily by Coptic
Orphans, a U.S.-based international development diaspora-founded NGO, through
multiple methods including: telephone calls to all Coptic priests listed in the Coptic
Orthodox Church Directory, requesting promotion of the survey with their congrega-
tions; email to Coptic Orphans’ donor base, Coptic priests, and bishops; Coptic
Orphans’ webpage, Facebook page, and Twitter; and announcement using Coptic
media such as diaspora webpages, newspapers, and Coptic TV.
Reliance on an Internet-based English language survey and promotion by a Coptic
philanthropy could bias the data in terms of education, language, and representation
from a particular philanthropy’s donor base. Efforts were made to counter these biases,
and some characteristics of the sample are encouraging. The GW research team
directly requested assistance from the Diocese for Los Angeles, Southern California,
and Hawaii; and the Diocese for the Southern United States.4 Churches were encour-
aged to make available computer terminals with the survey at the Church and to assist
congregants with language or technical difficulties. The sample includes a large pro-
portion of Arabic speakers. A close examination of the U.S. sample confirmed the

Brinkerhoff 977
Table 1. Summary of the Sample.
Variable N Proportions Variable N Proportions

Gender 871 Country of residence 873
Female 44.9 United States 72.39
Male 55.1 Canada 13.52
Country of birth 791 Australia 10.65
Egypt 71.6 Diaspora identification
COR 28.4 Coptic diaspora identity 872 91.5
Time in the COR 635 Egyptian diaspora identity 620 71.5
1-10 years 18.9 Giving target 859
10-25 years 42.5 My fellow copts 68.6
25-40 years 27.9 Any who are in need 31.4
> 40 years 10.7 Intermediaries used 873
Age 830 Non-church-based charities 61.9
18-30 28 Expectations of intermediaries 864
30-50 44 Do not want/need to know results 52.7
50-65 18.7 Want/require to know results 47.3
> 65 9.4 Giving interest 856
Education 846 Fulfill basic needs 13.7
No BA 9.3 Basic needs & solve others’ 41
problems
Bachelors 45 Empower others to solve own 45.3
problems
Masters 21.5 Types of giving
Doctoral degree 24.1 Interest in giving financially 861 76
Income 770 Gave financially in past 3 years 873 91.8
< US$100,000 46.9 Interest in volunteering in the 847 64
COR
US$100,000- 36 Volunteered in the COR 873 38.3
US$200,000
> US$200,000 17.1 Interest in volunteering in Egypt 830 28.8
Volunteered in Egypt 873 10.3
Notes: COR = country of residence.
distribution maps to the location and density of Coptic Churches and bears little to no
relation to Coptic Orphans’ donor base. Our methods to counter expected biases may
have introduced a bias toward a disproportionate sampling of Coptic diasporans who
regularly attend and participate in their Churches.
The resulting sample contains 1,570 respondents to Part 1 of the survey, focusing
on identity, with diminishing completion of subsequent sections on philanthropy,
investment, demographics, religion, and politics (see Brinkerhoff and Riddle, 2012).
Demographic questions, including income, appeared in the middle of the survey and
such information may be particularly sensitive, especially in this culture; this section
had 873 respondents. Table 1 summarizes the demographic sample and provides an
overview of the variables.

Identity questions addressed the Coptic diaspora, the Egyptian diaspora, and atti-
tudes toward Egypt and respondents’ COR. For each identity, respondents were asked
to indicate their relative agreement (scale 1-7) with the following statements: What the
community stands for is important to me; I talk about how great the community is to
other people; and I am proud to tell others that I am part of the community. Cronbach’s
α was used to determine reliability of the composite mean scores. Participants were
asked who their preferred giving target was, either fellow Copts or any who are in
need. They also had the opportunity to complete an open-ended “Other” category.
Intermediaries were defined as “organizations that connect you to those who are in
need.” Respondents were asked to indicate all of the types of intermediaries they used,
including: my local Church, the Mother Church in Egypt, my ancestral church in
Egypt, Coptic philanthropic organizations in the diaspora, Coptic philanthropic orga-
nizations in Egypt, and Other Egyptian philanthropic organizations. New variables
were calculated into dichotomous variables (yes/no) indicating use of Church-based
intermediaries and non-Church intermediaries. Respondents were also asked about
their expectations of these intermediaries, with the following mutually exclusive
options: I do not want to know the results of my donations (I give for the sake of giv-
ing), it is not necessary for them to inform me of the results of my donations, I would
like to know the results of my donations, and my support depends on knowing the
results of my donations. New variables were calculated, combining these four into two
variables: does not want or need to know the results of giving, and would like or it is
necessary to know the results of giving.
Mutually exclusive options for primary giving interest included: fulfilling basic
needs, fulfilling basic needs and helping to solve problems for others, and empowering
individuals to solve problems and become independent. Respondents were also asked
about their current degree of interest (scale of 1-5) and actual participation (yes/no) in
specific philanthropic activities over the last 3 years. Degree of interest was recalcu-
lated into a binary variable (yes/no), with those indicating four or five defined as inter-
ested. Options included: financial donations, donations in-kind, volunteering time in
Egypt, and volunteering time in the COR on philanthropic projects targeted to Egypt.
Method
A series of regression analyses was used to test the hypotheses. In each case, I included
the country of residence and age, respectively to investigate if there were any signifi-
cant differences in the sample between those living in the United States, Canada, or
Australia, or among different age groups.5 Binary regression analysis was used to
investigate the majority of the investigative questions, where the dependent variable
represented two mutually exclusive options. A multinomial logistic analysis was used
to investigate respondents’ primary giving interest. Multinomial analysis is used when
the dependent variable is categorical, with more than two categories. The results yield
relative risk ratios, similar to odds ratios in a logistic regression. The risk ratios depict
the probability that a respondent would fall into one of the categories relative to the
probability of being a member of the referent category.

Brinkerhoff 979
Survey Results and Discussion

The results and discussion are organized according to the hypotheses. The referent
group for the multinomial analysis of primary giving interest was born in the COR, has
lived in the COR more than 40 years, is above 65 years of age, holds a doctoral degree,
has more than US$200,000 annual household income, lives in Australia, and is primar-
ily interested only in empowering others. For all other analyses, the referent group was
born in Egypt, has lived in the COR for 1 to 10 years, is aged 18 to 30 years, does not
hold a bachelors degree, earns less than US$100,000 annual household income, lives
in the United States, and—for the analysis of giving target—did not agree that they
identify with the Coptic diaspora or with the Egyptian diaspora.
Hypothesis 1: Identity and Giving Target

The analysis of identity and giving target examines whether respondents give exclu-
sively to Copts in Egypt or if they consider needs more generally. The demographic
analysis also investigates if second-generation diasporans are likely to give more broadly.
Results. Identity results for the sample are as follows. All respondents self-identify as
members of the Coptic diaspora, and 71.5% also indicated they belong to a broader
Egyptian diaspora. Questions about belonging to the Egyptian diaspora may be sensi-
tive and fewer participants (N = 620) answered these questions. The averaged mean
scores reveal respondents identify most strongly as Copts (6.21) and next as COR citi-
zens (6.16). Almost 95% agreed “The future of Egypt is important to me,” and over
79% indicated they are committed to Egypt’s success.
When asked about preferred beneficiaries, 68.6% of respondents (N = 859) indicated
they want to support “My fellow Copts,” while 31.4% indicated they want to support
“Any who are in need.” Those completing the “other” category (an additional open-ended
question) largely indicated they would give to any in need but believe Copts in Egypt to
be in most need of support. Table 2 presents the findings of a binary logistic regression of
support to any who are in need. Because respondents’ strength of identification with the
Coptic diaspora and the Egyptian diaspora are likely to influence the breadth of their tar-
geted beneficiaries, I include binary variables indicating whether respondents identify
with these diasporas. The odds that respondents would support any who are in need
diminished after 25 years in the COR, compared to those who have lived in the COR for
1 to 10 years. Those aged 50 to 65 years were less than half as likely to want to support
any who are in need compared to those aged 18 to 30 years. Canadians were half as likely
as those living in the United States to want to support any who are need. Identifications
with the Coptic and Egyptian diasporas were the most statistically significant findings. As
expected, those who identify strongly with the Egyptian diaspora were significantly more
likely (more than three times as likely) to want to support any who are in need.
Discussion. The findings support the first part of Hypothesis 1: Minority diasporas do
not give exclusively to their minority compatriots in the COO, but may base their

Table 2. Logistic Regression of Giving Target Relative to My Fellow Copts.
Gives to any in need

Born in the COR 0.792
(0.766)
Time in the COR
10-25 years 0.674
(0.294)
25-40 years 0.471**
(0.356)
> 40 years 0.366**
(0.476)
Age
30-50 0.533*
(0.324)
50-65 0.452**
(0.375)
> 65 0.446
(0.494)
Country of residence
Canada 0.508**
(0.329)
Australia 1.1
(0.334)
Coptic diaspora identity 0.173***
(0.46)
Egyptian diaspora identity 3.201***
(0.317)

Odds ratios are presented.
*p < .10. **p < .05, ***p < .01.
Standard errors are reported in parentheses.
giving on perceived needs. Coptic diasporans do not necessarily contribute exclusively

to their minority compatriots in the COO. Slightly less than a third of respondents are
interested in giving to a generalized population of the needy, and 14.2% of respondents
give to non-Church-based Egyptian charitable organizations. The desire to support
Egyptian nationals generally (i.e., any who are in need) is not universal. This finding
could be explained by historical sensitivities and may not reflect actual giving for all of
the respondents so indicating.
Seemingly counterintuitive, those chronologically closest to Egypt (who have lived
in the COR the fewest years) had the highest percentage of wanting to support any who
are in need. These results could reflect the sensitivity in Egypt of distinguishing Copts
from “Egyptians” more broadly. Members of the Church have been historically resistant
and more recently divided about the appropriateness of lobbying for or supporting

Brinkerhoff 981
specific laws and policies for Copts, even when these concern protecting them from
discrimination (see Hasan, 2003). There is considerable concern that doing so under-
mines the viewpoint, as expressed during the recent revolution, that “We are all
Egyptians.”
Why do over two thirds of respondents want to target their fellow Copts in Egypt
as beneficiaries of their philanthropy as opposed to all Egyptians? Comments in the
open-ended question imply some ambivalence on this point, as they indicate a desire
to help any in need, but a strong sense that Copts are those who are most in need. This
perception could be the result of respondents’ familiarity with the quality of life of
Copts in Egypt. Older respondents were more likely to target their philanthropy to fel-
low Copts, perhaps owing to a longer history and understanding of the plight of Copts
in Egypt. Those who have lived in the COR longer were less likely to want to support
any who are in need. These findings are consistent with a tendency of some living in
diaspora to fixate on and/or “freeze” their COO identity (see Brinkerhoff, 2008).
This latter finding suggests that with time, newer generations may similarly become
more interested in supporting the Coptic minority in Egypt rather than Egyptians more
generally. In fact, the data do not support the second part of Hypothesis 1: Second-
generation diasporans, in particular, may demonstrate a broader nationalistic concern.
Country of birth was not a statistically significant variable in predicting targeted
beneficiaries.
Hypothesis 2: Intermediaries, Expectations, and Primary Giving Interest

The first analysis examines if second-generation respondents and those more inte-
grated into the COR (with education and income as proxies) are more likely to use
non-Church-based charities and want or require to know the results of their giving.
The second analysis examines if second-generation respondents and those more inte-
grated into the COR (with education and income as proxies) are more likely to want to
empower others compared to the other giving interests.
Results. Respondents channel their giving through more than one organization. The
Church and Church-related charities are the most popular intermediary (92.2%), fol-
lowed closely by those based in the COR (92%, which includes respondents’ local
Church). Table 3 reports the results of binary logistic analyses of respondents’ use of
non-Church charities, and respondents’ expectations of these intermediaries with respect
to reporting results. Those in the highest income group (US$200,000) were almost 2.5
times more likely than the lower income group to use non-Church-based charities. Those
living in Australia were almost 2.5 times more likely than those living in the United
States to use non-Church-based charities. Respondents reported not wanting or needing
to know the results of their giving slightly more often (52.7%) than indicating they want
or require knowing these results (47.3%). Those born in the COR were more than 2.5
times more likely than those born in Egypt to want or require knowing the results of their
giving. Those in the middle-income group (US$100,000-US$200,000) were 1.5 times
more likely to want or require knowing results than those in the lowest income group.

Table 3. Logistic Regressions of Intermediaries Used and Expectations.
Intermediaries used Expectations on results
Non-church Would like/ necessary to know

Born in the COR 0.783 2.582*
(0.476) (0.503)
Time in the COR
10-25 years 0.828 1.259
(0.262) (0.259)
25-40 years 1.397 1.253
(0.326) (0.31)
> 40 years 1.194 1.841
(0.395) (0.381)
Age
30-50 1.202 1.025
(0.276) (0.277)
50-65 1.146 1.364
(0.319) (0.314)
> 65 1.335 0.81
(0.41) (0.398)
Education
Bachelors 1.499 0.879
(0.355) (0.349)
Masters 1.294 0.738
(0.393) (0.388)
Doctoral degree 1.708 1.171
(0.402) (0.39)
Income
US$100,000-US$200,000 0.89 1.508*
(0.221) (0.217)
> US$200,000 2.496*** 1.077
(0.343) (0.298)
Canada 1.083 1.02
(0.256) (0.252)
Australia 2.534** 0.614
(0.354) (0.305)

*p < 0.10, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.
The majority of respondents are interested in more than simply providing charity to
fulfill basic needs. Only 13.7% indicated wanting to fulfill basic needs; 41% indicated
fulfilling basic needs and helping to solve problems for others; and 45.3% indicated

Brinkerhoff 983
Table 4. Multinomial Logistic Analysis of Giving Interests Relative to Empowering Others to
Solve Their Own Problems.
Fulfilling basic needs Solving others’ problems

Born in Egypt 0.554 1.325
(0.634) (0.541)
Time in the COR
1-10 years 1.461 5.61***
(0.598) (0.436)
10-25 years 1.438 3.441***
(0.505) (0.391)
25-40 years 0.745 1.89*
(0.495) (0.375)
Age
18-30 0.348* 0.144***
(0.616) (0.448)
30-50 0.376* 0.344***
(0.536) (0.376)
50-65 0.381* 0.325***
(0.525) (0.369)
Education
No BA 0.864 0.895
(0.663) (0.427)
Bachelors 2.219* 1.68*
(0.44) (0.287)
Masters 1.56 1.541
(0.504) (0.329)
Income
< US$100,000 0.763 0.808
(0.474) (0.327)
US$100,000-US$200,000 0.789 0.958
(0.467) (0.317)
United States 1.055 1.005
(0.471) (0.329)
Canada 0.41 0.833
(0.627) (0.39)

Relative risk ratios are presented.
*p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01.
empowering individuals to solve problems and become independent. Table 4 presents

the findings of the multinomial logistic analysis. Those with only a bachelors degree
were more than twice as likely to want to fulfill basic needs and 1.6 times more likely
to want to solve others’ problems rather than empower others compared to those with

doctoral degrees. Compared to solving others’ problems, those who had lived in the
COR fewer years were significantly less likely than those who had lived there over 40
years to want to empower others. Those who have lived in the COR only for 1 to 10
years were 5.6 times, and those living in the COR for 10 to 25 years were 3.4 times
more likely to want to solve others’ problems than empower others to solve their own
problems. The younger the respondents, the less likely they were to want to solve oth-
ers’ problems rather than empower others. Those with only a bachelors degree were
more than 1.6 times more likely than those with doctoral degrees to want to solve oth-
ers’ problems rather than empowering them to solve their own.
Discussion. The findings provide some support to Hypothesis 2: In the second genera-
tion, with time in the COR, and especially among those with higher levels of income
and education, (a) diasporans’ portfolio of intermediary organizations is likely to
expand beyond faith-based institutions, (b) diasporans adopt a greater expectation for
learning the results of their giving, and (c) diasporans become increasingly interested
in empowering others rather than simply providing welfare support or solving others’
problems.
Coptic diasporans maintain a strong interest in giving through the Church, suggest-
ing the Coptic Church is instrumental in both inspiring giving and providing an insti-
tutional infrastructure for connecting donations to needs. Hasan (2003) credits the
Church infrastructure outside of Egypt for expanding the Church’s donor base from a
limited number of successful Copts living in diaspora to enabling “numerous Copts of
modest incomes” to make regular contributions to social services in Egypt (p. 243).
The preferred intermediary most often mentioned was the local Church in the COR,
and 92.2% of the sample gives through the Church and/or Church-related charities.
At the same time, almost 62% of respondents also use non-Church-based chari-
ties to channel their philanthropy on behalf of Egypt. Those most capable of giving
on behalf of Egypt—the highest income level group—were significantly more likely
(almost 2.5 times more likely) to give to non-Church-based charities than the lowest
income group. This could reflect a demand for more professionalism for the larger
donations they may make. However, since only 50% of average donations of
US$10,000-US$50,000 annually came from this income group, it may be that the
higher income level group is also subject to socialization beyond wanting account-
ability due to the large amounts given. Higher incomes could signal greater integra-
tion in the COR (as is often presumed in the assimilation literature, e.g., Waters &
Jiménez, 2005), thus influencing a philanthropic norm of expecting accountability
for results.
While more than half of respondents appear to abide by the Church’s doctrine of
giving for its own sake, there is some evidence to suggest those who do want or require
knowing the results of their giving reflect second-generation respondents or those who
may be more integrated in the COR society, including those born in the COR, and
those who are in the middle-income group (compared to the lowest income level).
The data suggests the diaspora does not share the giving preferences of the Church.
The Coptic Orthodox Church maintains a range of charities and services both

Brinkerhoff 985
coordinated through the Bishopric for Public, Ecumenical, and Social Services
(BLESS), as well as those organized independently through dioceses and individual
Churches. While the Church emphasizes charity (welfare), it has made concerted
efforts to expand its services into the development arena with funding from interna-
tional Christian organizations. Bishop Youannes (2011), the Bishop for BLESS,
explained: “as the development agencies can’t support charity work, they support
development. But the Copts would like to support charity work because they know
very well how these people are in need.” Over 86% of respondents are interested in
more than simply providing charity to fulfill basic needs, suggesting that while the
Church provides an instrument for giving, its influence over the aspirations of philan-
thropists is not determinant. This may explain the use of non-Church charitable orga-
nizations by almost 62% of the sample.
The Coptic experience is comparable to other diasporas’ evolution towards more
strategic philanthropy in an increasingly sophisticated organizational sector. Traditional
giving interests may include not only welfare, but also solving others’ problems. The
findings highlight the evolution toward a giving norm of empowering others for those
more integrated into COR societies: those with higher income, more education, and
more years in the COR. Younger respondents were also more inclined to prefer
empowerment over solving others’ problems.
The influence of COR context on philanthropic norms is further supported by a
comparative COR analysis. There were statistically significant differences between
those living in the United States and those living in Australia. Australians had the high-
est odds for contributing in the US$10,000 to US$50,000 range and were the most
likely to use non-Church based intermediaries (see Table 5). They were more than four
times more interested in making financial donations for Egypt, but were less likely to
be interested and have actually volunteered in the COR on behalf of Egypt. Canadians
were half as likely as those living in the United States to want to support any who are
need. These findings may reflect different giving norms in these societies, or different
giving options and socialization provided by the Church. Differences in the demo-
graphics of settlement groups may also be a factor.
Hypotheses 3: Interest and Contributions Targeted to Egypt

The analysis examines whether or not integration in the COR (with time in the COR,
education, and income as proxies) increases respondents’ interest and engagement in
philanthropy in Egypt, and whether or not second-generation respondents retain this
interest.
Results. Table 5 presents the results of binary logistic analyses investigating respon-
dents’ interest and actual engagement in different types of contributions for Egypt.
Age, income, and COR were statistically significant predictors of interest in mak-
ing financial donations. Those aged 30 to 50 years were over 1.8 times more likely,
and those above 64 years were over 3.6 times more likely than those aged 18 to 30
years to be interested in making financial donations. Not surprisingly, those in the

Table 5. Logistic Regressions of Contribution Interests and Behavior.
Volunteering in Volunteering in
Financial donations the COR Egypt
Variables Interest Actual Interest Actual Interest Actual

Born in the COR 0.99 0.114*** 0.488 1.631 1.079 0.997
(0.599) (0.595) (0.46) (0.456) (0.506) (0.787)
Time in the COR
10-25 years 0.929 0.913 1.369 0.977 1.824 0.925
(0.0324) (0.492) (0.276) (0.268) (0.309) (0.408)
25-40 years 0.755 2.721 0.953 1.408 1.697 0.639
(0.404) (0.749) (0.323) (0.319) (0.381) (0.521)
> 40 years 0.361** 1.446 1.236 1.275 1.005 0.53
(0.468) (0.78) (0.399) (0.391) (0.509) (0.686)
Age
30-50 1.847* 1.61 1.072 0.741 0.434*** 0.512
(0.324) (0.491) (0.292) (0.281) (0.297) (0.434)
50-65 1.44 1.01 0.79 0.918 0.424** 1.24
(0.375) (0.587) (0.33) (0.319) (0.351) (0.457)
> 65 3.602** 0.635 0.493* 0.519 0.231*** 0.638
(0.536) (0.752) (0.413) (0.413) (0.494) (0.697)
Education
Bachelors 1.181 3.857** 0.376*** 1.179 0.345*** 0.642
(0.424) (0.529) (0.305) (0.366) (0.388) (0.521)
Masters 1.675 2.56 0.517* 1.072 0.597 0.722
(0.489) (0.607) (0.397) (0.406) (0.426) (0.591)
Doctoral degree 1.07 3.381* 0.42** 1.014 0.736 1.048
(0.488) (0.677) (0.432) (0.407) (0.426) (0.578)
Income
US$100,000-US$200,000 1.557 1.428 0.909 1.162 0.467*** 0.428**
(0.274) (0.443) (0.227) (0.222) (0.27) (0.421)
> US$200,000 4.633*** 7.754* 0.865 0.848 0.486** 0.827
(0.494) (1.08) (0.311) (0.314) (0.358) (0.468)
Canada 1.073 1.008 0.886 1.319 1.562 0.542
(0.314) (0.49) (0.266) (0.253) (0.29) (0.502)
Australia 4.04*** 1.361 0.376*** 0.444** 0.697 0.556
(0.552) (0.678) (0.305) (0.351) (0.391) (0.558)

*p < .10, **p < .05, ***p < .01.
highest income group were more than 4.6 times more likely than those in the lowest
income group to be interested in making financial donations. The likelihood of

Brinkerhoff 987
actually making financial donations was influenced by other factors. Those who were
born in the COR were significantly less likely (only 11.4% as likely) than those born
in Egypt actually to have made financial donations in the past three years. Those with
a bachelors degree were over 3.8 times as likely and those with a doctoral degree were
over 3.3 times as likely as those without a bachelors degree to have made financial
donations. Those in the highest income level were more than 7.7 times more likely to
have made financial donations than those in the lowest income level group.
Regarding volunteering, those with a bachelors degree and those with a doctoral
degree were significantly less likely to be interested in volunteering in the COR than
those without a bachelors degree. Compared to the youngest respondents (18 to 30
years), with age, respondents were much less interested in volunteering in Egypt.
Those with only a bachelors degree were significantly less likely to be so interested
than those without a bachelors degree. Those earning above US$100,0000 annual
income were less than half as likely than those earning less to be so interested. Those
in the middle-income range were significantly less likely to have actually volunteered
in Egypt than those in the lowest income group.
Discussion. The findings may provide partial support for Hypothesis 3a: with time in
the COR, and higher education and income, diasporans’ interest in philanthropy tar-
geted to the COO increases. The findings support Hypothesis 3b: subsequent genera-
tions retain interest in philanthropy targeted to the COO.
While relatively more integrated Copts retain their interest and actual engagement in
philanthropy targeted to the COO, many of the proxy variables for integration were not
statistically significant or indicated diminished interest and engagement. The length of
time residing in the COR was not a statistically significant predictor of interest and
engagement in any of the giving options, with one exception: those who had lived in the
COR the longest (more than 40 years) were significantly less likely to be interested in
making financial donations for Egypt than those who had lived in the COR the least num-
ber of years (1-10). On the other hand, education and income suggest greater integration
may increase interest and engagement in philanthropy targeted to Egypt. These findings
may reflect the practicalities of giving more than the influence of relative integration.
Respondents have a deep and abiding commitment to Egypt, this includes those who
were born in the COR, those who have lived in the COR a long time, and younger
respondents. Copts strongly associate with an Egyptian identity and concern them-
selves deeply with Egypt; 95% are more than interested, they say they are committed to
Egypt’s success. Identification with Egypt and as Egyptians is grounded in the Coptic
identity, as “Copt” is synonymous with Egyptian and Copts consider themselves the
descendants of the Pharaohs. It is also reinforced by the Church. As the late Pope
Shenoudah III was famous for stating: “Egypt isn’t a country we live in, but a country
that lives within us” (Fathi, 2012). Living in diaspora, then, does not take Egypt out of
the Copt. Respondents’ active diaspora philanthropy confirms this commitment.
Respondents actually made financial donations more often their stated interest in doing
so (91.8% compared to 76% interested). On the other hand, those born in Egypt were
significantly more likely to have made financial contributions.

The findings on volunteering on behalf of Egypt demonstrate enduring interest

across time and in the second generation. Country of birth and time in the COR were
not statistically significant predictors of respondents’ interest and actual volunteering
either in the COR or in Egypt. Interest was higher than actual follow through for vol-
unteering in the COR (almost twice as high) and in Egypt (almost three times as high).
These findings suggest respondents would volunteer much more often if there were
opportunities to do so, and regardless of how integrated they are in the COR societies.
The youngest respondents (18-30) had the highest odds for being interested in volun-
teering in Egypt, perhaps reflecting a desire to investigate Coptic and Egyptian heri-
tage—a further indication of a potential sustained interest in Egypt.
Evolving Understandings of Diaspora Philanthropy

This analysis confirms: it is inappropriate to assume that minority diasporas, even
those who have encountered discrimination and persecution in the COO, will neces-
sarily shy away from participating in philanthropy in the COO (Johnson 2007) or, if
they do so, to target only their minority compatriots. The experience of minority dias-
poras is far more complex. Their engagement with the COO and their national compa-
triots depends on politics, culture, and culture transmission mechanisms. For the
Coptic diaspora the latter includes the Coptic Church.
The analysis also confirms and extends previous findings based on singular case
studies and largely anecdotal evidence regarding diaspora philanthropy evolution.
Diasporans’ philanthropy in the COO is, indeed, influenced by their integration in the
COR, and differences among CORs of the same diaspora may ensue. The Coptic dias-
pora case confirms the likelihood that diaspora philanthropy will evolve from reliance
on faith-based and informal mechanisms and norms to more strategic philanthropy
based on organizational effectiveness, sustainable impact, and donor responsiveness
(Bhatti, 2008; Najam, 2005; Portes et al., 2007). These findings are consistent with
survey findings from Canada (Hall et al., 2009), and also with observed experiences
within the Pakistani and Vietnamese diasporas. However, this case also suggests that
these effects may exist alongside traditional giving practices. The majority of the sam-
ple continues to donate to Church-based charities, and over half of the sample does not
want or need to know the results of its giving. The degree to which COR philanthropic
norms penetrate a diaspora may be contingent on the cohesiveness of that diaspora and
its cultural maintenance and socialization mechanisms. Especially in the case of faith-
based diasporas, these may be formidable. Even an institution as structured as the
Coptic Church is also not monolithic. Its socialization mechanisms and priorities may
vary across CORs.
This leads to an important extension of previous findings with respect to diaspora
philanthropy evolution over time and across generations. Earlier assumptions that dia-
sporans eventually lose interest in the COO and may redirect their philanthropic
energy are premature. These assumptions are largely based on Hansen’s (1952) linear
model of assimilation, which has been seriously challenged by contemporary experi-
ence. Today’s diasporans have many more options and facilitative mechanisms for

Brinkerhoff 989
maintaining their connection to and engagement with the COO. The Coptic diaspora
demonstrates that such engagement can persist despite extensive time in the COR,
and, with socialization, across new generations.
The Evolution of Diaspora Philanthropy: Implications

Several patterns emerge from placing the Coptic diaspora in the context of other dias-
pora experiences, though generalizations should be made cautiously. Confirmed are
diasporas’ relative faith-based motivations and facilitation, the concomitant interests
and practices of traditional COO identity and changing ideas and opportunities repre-
sented in the COR, and the enormous capacity of diasporas to contribute to their COOs
and potentially in increasingly impactful ways over time. Minority diaspora philan-
thropy may differ from nationally defined diaspora philanthropy, and likely in ways
that are quite particular to the history and present socioeconomic and political predica-
ment of compatriots who remain in the COO.
The evolution of diaspora philanthropy over time and across generations suggests
both good news and bad news from the COO-perspective. On the one hand, persistent
philanthropic attention to the COO could signify important contributions to quality of
life in the COO. On the other hand, socialization in the COR seems to influence dia-
sporans’ preferences for giving, selection of intermediaries, and, possibly, expecta-
tions of results; evolving norms may not always rest easily with COO recipients. One
Coptic bishop bristled at a U.S.-based donor’s request for confirmation that his contri-
bution be made to development projects; he “raged at this impudence and sent it back
with a note saying that he did not need the money” (Hasan, 2003, p. 152). The Church
and individual clergy will need to consider how best to respond to such demands as
they may become more common into the future.
Diaspora philanthropy is distinct from philanthropy more generally precisely
because it can represent a sometimes unique blend of a particular diaspora history,
COO, COR, and integration experience. This distinctiveness can yield potential com-
parative advantages among philanthropists as well as challenges. Potential advan-
tages include: (a) a visceral understanding of needs, which may be particularly
important for addressing the needs of neglected minorities in the COO; (b) a faith-
based infrastructure that may provide for ongoing socialization regarding those needs
as well as mechanisms for transferring funds and implementing projects and pro-
grams; and (c) the insertion of new norms and practices that may encourage philan-
thropy programming in the COO to become more impactful and accountable.
Potential challenges emerge as counterpoints to these advantages. Diasporans’ under-
standing of needs may reflect a “frozen-in-time” understanding that becomes pro-
gressively less accurate. A reliance on faith-based socialization and mechanisms may
privilege some philanthropic objectives over others, whether or not these reflect the
intentions of the donors or the highest priority needs. And conflicting norms and
practices between diaspora philanthropists and implementers in the COO may alien-
ate some actors leading to their withdrawal from working together to the detriment of
potential beneficiaries.

Diasporas and their philanthropic norms and practices must be assessed with an
understanding of their diversity, which includes the causes and timing of migration,
the countries of settlement, and the generations within a diaspora, as well as more
common demographic distinctions such as gender, age, education, and income. With
more sophisticated analyses going forward, we can better understand the potential and
reality of diaspora philanthropy. Such understanding opens the door to better advice to
actors interested in improving philanthropic impact. These may include diasporans
themselves, religious leaders, or policymakers in the COO or the COR.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/
or publication of this article: This research was funded by the Elliott School of International
Affairs, George Washington University. Special thanks to my colleagues at George Washington
University and anonymous reviewers for their feedback on methods.
Notes
1. The most extensive studies of diaspora philanthropy to date are the Asia Pacific Philanthropy
Consortium’s (APPC) project on Diaspora giving: An agent of change in Asia Pacific
communities (2008); and the diaspora philanthropy joint initiative of The Philanthropic
Initiative, Inc. (TPI) and the Global Equity Initiative (GEI) (2007).
2. Self-reporting also risks biasing the data towards more socially desirable reporting.
3. Deceased March 17, 2012.
4. Similar requests were made to bishops in Australia and the United Kingdom, though with-
out response.
5. I excluded those living in the United Kingdom in the COR analysis as the sample size was
so small (N = 30).
References
Anand, P. (2004). Hindu diaspora and religious philanthropy in the United States. (Research
Conducted as part of the 2003 International Fellowship program with on Philanthropy and
Civil Society, New York). Paper presented at the 6th International Society for Third Sector
Research, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Aysa-Lastra, M. (2007). Diaspora philanthropy: The Colombia experience. Boston, MA: The
Philanthropic Initiative, Inc., and the Global Equity Initiative, Harvard University.
Bhatti, Z. K. (2008). Diaspora giving: An agent of change in Asia Pacific communities?
Pakistan. Diaspora giving: An agent of change in Asia Pacific communities? (pp. 183-213).
San Francisco, CA: Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium.
Blum, D. (2009). The ambivalent emergence of philanthropy in Israel. Journal of Jewish
Communal Service, 84, 96-105.
Boulos, S. I. (2006). The history of the early Coptic community in the U.S.A. (1955-1970). New
Jersey, NJ: Author.

Brinkerhoff 991
Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Understanding diaspora diversity and its impact on development. In

A. Kashyap, M. Montes & K. Sharma (Eds.), Realizing the potential of diasporas to reduce
poverty and enhance development (pp. 19-38). New York, NY: United Nations University
Press.
Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2008). Diaspora identity and the potential for violence: Toward an identity-
mobilization framework. Identity: An International Journal of Theory and Research, 8,
67-88.
Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2004). Digital diasporas and international development: Afghan-Americans
and the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Public Administration and Development, 24, 397-413.
Brinkerhoff, J. M., & Riddle, L. (2012). General findings: Coptic diaspora survey. Washington, DC:
GW Diaspora Program, Elliott School of International Affairs; Diaspora Capital Investment
Project, GW Center for International Business Education and Research.
Center for Global Prosperity. (2011). Index of global philanthropy and remittances. Washington,
DC: Hudson Institute.
Copeland-Carson, J. (2007). Kenyan diaspora philanthropy: Key practices, trends, and issues.
Boston, MA: The Philanthropic Initiative, Inc., and the Global Equity Initiative, Harvard
University.
Curtis, J. E., Baer, D. E., & Grabb, E. G. (2001). Nations of joiners: Explaining voluntary
association membership in democratic societies. American Sociological Review, 66,
783-805.
Fathi, Y.(2012, March). Egypt’s Next Pope Faces Immense Challenges.Al-Ahram Online.
Retrieved from http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/1/64/37179/Egypt/Politics-/
Egypts-next-pope-faces-immense-challenges.aspx
Garchitorena, V. (2007). Diaspora philanthropy: The Philippine experience. Boston, MA: The
Hall, M., Lasby, D., Ayer, S., & Gibbons, W. D. (2009). Caring Canadians, involved Canadians:
Highlights from the 2007 Canada survey of giving, volunteering and participating. Ottawa,
Ontario: Statistics Canada.
Hansen, M. L. (1952). The study of man: The third generation in America. A classic essay in
immigrant history. Commentary, pp. 492-500.
Hartford Institute for Religion Research. (2011). Results of 2010 Orthodox Christian census.
Hartford, CT: Author.
Hasan, S. S. (2003). Christians versus Muslims in modern Egypt: The century-long struggle for
Coptic equality. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Horst, C. (2008). The transnational political engagements of refugees: Remittance sending prac-
tices amongst Somalis in Norway. Conflict, Security & Development, 8, 317-339.
Ibrahim, F., & Ibrahim, B. (2009). Integrating into a multicultural society—The case of the
Copts in the US. Kerpen, Germany: International Research Institute for Economics,
Politics, and Education.
Johnson, P. D. (2007). Diaspora philanthropy: Influences, initiatives, and issues. Boston, MA:
The Philanthropic Initiative, Inc., and the Global Equity Initiative, Harvard University.
Moya, J. C. (2005). Immigrants and associations: A global and historical perspective. Journal
of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31, 833-864.
Najam, A. (2005). Philanthropy by Pakistani diaspora in the USA. Islamabad, Pakistan:
Pakistan Center for Philanthropy.
Orozco, M., & Lapointe, M. (2004). Mexican hometown associations and development oppor-
tunities. Journal of International Affairs, 57, 31-49.

Portes, A., Escobar, C., & Radford, A. W. (2007). Immigrant transnational organizations and
development: A comparative study. International Migration Review, 41, 242-281.
Portes, A., Haller, W. J., & Guarnizo, L. E. (2002). Transnational entrepreneurs: An alternative
form of immigrant economic adaptation. American Sociological Review, 67, 278-298.
Rusdiana, D., & Saidi, Z. (2008). Indonesia. In Diaspora giving: An agent of change in Asia
Pacific Communities? (pp. 159-182). San Francisco, CA: Asia Pacific Philanthropy
Consortium.
Saad, M. (2010). The contemporary life of the Coptic Orthodox Church in the United States.
Studies in World Christianity, 16, 207-225.
Salamon, L. M. (1987). Of market failure, voluntary failure, and third-party government:
Toward a theory of government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Journal of
Voluntary Action Research, 16, 29-49.
Sampradaan Indian Center for Philanthropy. (2001). Investing in ourselves: Giving and fund-
raising in India. New Delhi, India: Author.
Shiveshwarkar, S. (2008). India. In Diaspora giving: An agent of change in Asia Pacific com-
munities? (pp. 127-157). San Francisco, CA: Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium.
Sidel, M. (2008). A decade of research and practice of diaspora philanthropy in the Asia-Pacific
Region: The state of the field. In Diaspora giving: An agent of change in Asia Pacific com-
munities? (pp. 1-32). San Francisco, CA: Asia Pacific Philanthropy Consortium.
Sidel, M. (2007). Vietnamese-American diaspora philanthropy to Vietnam. Boston, MA: The
Tadros, M. (2009). Vicissitudes in the entente between the Coptic Orthodox Church and the
state in Egypt (1952-2007). Journal of Middle East Studies, 41, 269-287.
United States State Department. (2010). International religious freedom report. Washington,
DC: Author.
Viswanath, P. (2003). Diaspora Indians—On the philanthropy fast-track. Mumbai, India:
Centre for Advancement of Philanthropy.
Waters, M. C., & Jiménez, T. R. (2005). Assessing immigrant assimilation: New empirical and
theoretical challenges. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 105-125.
Werbner, P. (2002). The place which is diaspora: Citizenship, religion and gender in the making
of chaordic transnationalism. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 28, 119-133.
Youannes, B. (2011, July).Bishopric of Public, Ecumenical and Social Services-BLESS.
Personal Interview by Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff, Cairo.
Author Biography
Jennifer M. Brinkerhoff is professor of Public Administration and International Affairs at
George Washington University, and Director of GW’s Diaspora Research Program. She has
advised, provided training and conducted commissioned research for a range of governments
and institutions on diasporas and development, and partnerships for international
development.
View publication stats

2014 Diaspora Philanthropy Copts NVSQ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 Diaspora Philanthropy Copts NVSQ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Diaspora Philanthropy: Lessons From a Demographic

Article in Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly · November 2013

Governance (beyond cross-sector work) View project

Digital Diasporas View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Diaspora Philanthropy: Lessons From a Demographic Analysis of the

The online version of this article can be found at:

Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

Email Alerts: http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

>> Version of Record - Nov 14, 2014

OnlineFirst Version of Record - May 21, 2013

1George Washington University, Washington, DC, USA

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Diaspora Philanthropy: Current Knowledge of Giving

The Role of Faith

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

emphasize giving to individuals. The U.S.-based Pakistani diasporans’ tendency to

The Heterogeneity of Diaspora

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Influence of the COR

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

This early literature on diaspora philanthropy is unsurprisingly characterized by

I explore these hypotheses through our survey of the Coptic diaspora.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

The Coptic Diaspora

The GW Coptic Diaspora Survey, Sample, and Variables

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Table 1. Summary of the Sample.

Variable N Proportions Variable N Proportions

Notes: COR = country of residence.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Survey Results and Discussion

Hypothesis 1: Identity and Giving Target

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Table 2. Logistic Regression of Giving Target Relative to My Fellow Copts.

Gives to any in need

Notes: COR = country of residence.

giving on perceived needs. Coptic diasporans do not necessarily contribute exclusively

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Hypothesis 2: Intermediaries, Expectations, and Primary Giving Interest

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Table 3. Logistic Regressions of Intermediaries Used and Expectations.

Intermediaries used Expectations on results

Non-church Would like/ necessary to know

Notes: COR = country of residence.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Fulfilling basic needs Solving others’ problems

Notes: COR = country of residence.

empowering individuals to solve problems and become independent. Table 4 presents

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Hypotheses 3: Interest and Contributions Targeted to Egypt

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Table 5. Logistic Regressions of Contribution Interests and Behavior.

Variables Interest Actual Interest Actual Interest Actual

Notes: COR = country of residence.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com at GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY on November 19, 2014

The findings on volunteering on behalf of Egypt demonstrate enduring interest