Burmese Refugees in the US: Overcoming Oppression and Division through Community Participation

In the last decade, ethnic/religious minorities from Burma comprised the largest group of refugees resettling in US, nearly 90,000 people and 19% of the total refugee population (UNHCR, 2014). Despite the robust refugee resettlement literature, attention to Burmese refugees is sparse. Burmese refugees face unique challenges, including ethnic and intergenerational conflict, distrust of government (Vang & Trieu, 2014). Burmese refugee social service needs are high given significant gaps in language, employment, accessing community resources and housing (Agbenyiga et al., 2012) and health care (Kenny & Lockwood-Kenny, 2011).

A University-community collaboration worked to empower Burmese refugee communities using community-building, critical pedagogy, and technical assistance. A promotora model developed indigenous leaders from Burmese ethnic groups to deliver culturally meaningful orientations to community members. The model emphasized building solidarity with diverse communities, including Chin, Karenni, and Bamar refugees. This study assesses community member experiences with the cultural orientations promoting integration.

 

Methods

Qualitative data were gathered from the Burmese refugee community through in-depth, open-ended, one-on-one interviews (n=7). The sample included community leaders (n=2), indigenous community trainers or promotoras (n=3), and community members who participated in pre- and post-test focus groups and key informant interviews (n=2).

Data comprised the participants’ views of their community’s strengths and challenges, experiences with the cultural orientations and promotora model, and gaps in community resources and support. Data were coded and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Data indicated substantial capacity building within the Burmese refugee community; they conducted 21 cultural orientations, educating 178 community members. Data reflected broad participation across the community, with engagement from the Bamar, Chin, Kachin, Karen, and Karenni ethnic groups. Data reflected individual and collective benefits from participation, including increased receptivity and openness within their communities and improved community solidarity, noting specifically a positive sense of social change. For example, participants expressed becoming “better acquainted with [our] community” and “willingness and commitment to share with others in [our] community” and “to pass it on”. Data also reflected a predominantly future-oriented perspective within the Burmese refugee community, and participants perceived project engagement having a long-term impact. Data further suggest sustained engagement and an action orientation in change efforts within the Burmese refugee community. For example, community leaders noted that they would like to expand the model “…to be shared with other states, and other communities… not only within the U.S., but… back to the refugee camps.”

Conclusions

 

Findings suggest the applicability of this model with the Burmese refugee community. The University-community partnership and promotora model increased community solidarity within the Burmese community through developing indigenous leaders across the diversity of ethnic groups. The future orientation and commitment to sustained community change reflected throughout the findings demonstrates the utility of this grassroots approach to Burmese refugee community engagement, rather than traditional hierarchical service delivery models within current resettlement practices. Social workers can apply this approach in community practice interventions that build solidarity within the Burmese refugee community and to generate community-based knowledge as a means of informing culturally competent social work engagement opportunities with this community.