Results of two focus groups in New York for the Transnational Index project.

1. INTEGRATION
FOCUS GROUPS NEW YORK
APRIL 2009
eSilvestre.com

2. INTRODUCTION
• As part of the Alvaro Lima’s Transnational
Index project, we performed two focus
groups with Dominican immigrants in New
York.
• In this analysis we integrate the three partial
analysis that we have already delivered: the
Highlights with the preliminary results of the
questionnaire, the Multiple Regression
analysis on the questionnaire data and
the Qualitative analysis from the
group sessions.

3. OBJECTIVE
The objective of this analysis is to
integrate all the differences found
between our two groups: The group
defined as High Transnational by its high
visibility in the Dominican community as
related to their home country (High-T
group) and the group defined as Low
Transnational by its lesser visibility (Low-
T group).

4. METHOD
• The seven participants for the first focus
group (High-T group) were selected
among persons with high visibility in the
New York Dominican community:
Coordinator of an HIV program, Director of
Preschool, High School Principal, State
Senator's Chief of Human Resources,
President of a community organization,
Transnational entrepreneur, Head of a
community outreach department.

5. METHOD
• The eight participants for the second focus
group (Low-T group) were selected among
persons with less visibility in this
Dominican community:
Case mediator, Health promoter, 2 Social
workers, Case manager, 3 Teachers.

6. METHOD
• In the Multiple Regression analysis on the
questionnaire data, we established five
dimensions or models that statistically
differentiated between our two levels of
Transnationalism:
1. Demographics
2. Finances
3. Civic Participation
4. Contacts & Media
5. Political Participation

7. METHOD
• Furthermore, in the qualitative group sessions
we explored elements of a 6th dimension:
6. Cultural Psychology.
• This time, we composed tables with the
significant differential variables for these six
dimensions on the three partial analysis
delivered: Highlights, Multiple Regression and
Qualitative.

8. RESULTS:
DEMOGRAPHICS

9. VARIABLE HIGHLIGHTS REGRESSION QUALITATIVE
Level of Transnationalism High T Low T High T Low T High T Low T
Demographics
City NY NY
Gender Male Female
Education College College
Trade High visibility Low visibility
Annual personal income > $35,000 < $35,000 0.888
Annual household income > $35,000 ≤ $35,000
US born children 40% 29%
Total household 2.5 4.25
Adults in household 1.67 2.88
Years in US 33.67 16.88 0.594
Residence ownership 57% Own 100% Rent 0.720
Legal status 86% Citizen 63% Citizen
In the focus group sessions (Qualitative) we did not include any
demographic variable, hence, in this table we only find data from
the Highlights analysis of the questionnaire and the Multiple
Regression analysis.
We can not make assumptions on the gender of the participants
because there was a majority of males in the High-T group and a
majority of female in the Low-T group. Both groups had college
level education.

10. • Nevertheless, the other significant demographic
variables describe two well differentiated
groups: The High-T group have much more
visibility in the immigrant community because of
the significance of their jobs.
• They and their households earn more than
$35,000 a year each. The importance of the
annual personal income in predicting the level
of Transnationalism was confirmed by the
regression model Demographics II, where it
was the best predictor with a very high and
significant correlation (r = .888, p < .001).

11. • Almost half of their children were born in US
and their total household (2.5) is closer to the
American average (2.6) than that of the Low-T
group (4.25).
• Also, for the High-T group, the average of
adults in the household (1.67) is half the
average of adults for the Low-T group (2.88).

12. • By the contrary, the subjects in the High-T
group have been living in US twice the years
(33.67) than the Low-T group (16.88).
• The variable years in US was also included in
the regression model Demographics II with a
moderate but significant correlation
(r = .594, p .05).
• Furthermore, 86% in the High-T group are
American citizens against 63% in the Low-T
group.

13. • Moreover, 57% in the High-T group own their
residence and all in the Low-T group rent
it.
• This residence ownership variable was the
second best predictor in the Demographic
model II with a high and significant correlation
by itself (r = .720, p < .01).

14. RESULTS:
FINANCES

15. VARIABLE HIGHLIGHTS REGRESSION QUALITATIVE
Level of Transnationalism High T Low T High T Low T High T Low T
Finances
US savings account 57% 75%
Country savings account 14% 75% -0.607
US deposit certificate 29% 0%
Country deposit certificate 43% 13%
Annual savings $ 17,500.00 $ 3,750.00
Country investments 29% 50%
US Investments 57% 13%
Both Credit/Debit card 100% 50% 0.523
US obligations 71% 50% Children education Credit cards
Insurances Cell phones
Family Utilities
Clothing
US education loan 14% 50%
US mortgage 71% 0%
No US obligations 29% 50%
No country obligations 57% 75%
Regarding to their finances, our two groups are clearly different.
The High-T group tends to have deposit certificates in both their
country and the US, instead of savings accounts, which are
characteristics in the Low-T group, especially in their country.

16. • To have a savings account in their country was
the best predictor variable in the multiple
regression Finances model II presenting a
negative moderate but highly significant
correlation with the level of Transnationalism
(r = -.607, p < .01). 75% in the Low-T group
have this type of account (High-T group= 14%).
• The other predictor in the mentioned model was
to have both credit and debit cards, also with a
moderate and highly significant correlation, this
time positive (r = .523, p < .05). All in the
High-T group have both cards,
compared to half in the Low-T group.

17. • The High-T group invest more frequently in the
US (57%), while the Low-T group does it in their
country (50%).
• The High-T save way more ($17,000 a year in
average) than the Low-T group ($3,750 a year).
• Also, in the High-T group they have more US
economic obligations. In the questionnaire, the
main one was US mortgage (71%), while for the
Low-T group it was US education loan (50%).

18. • When these US economic obligations were
described in the qualitative sessions, the
High-T group used higher order obligations
(children education, insurances, family) than
the concrete ones quoted by the Low-T group
(credit cards, cell phones, utilities, clothing).
• This concrete order does not seems related to
their educational level because both group
had college education.

19. RESULTS:
CIVIC PARTICIPATION

20. VARIABLE HIGHLIGHTS REGRESSION QUALITATIVE
Level of Transnationalism High T Low T High T Low T High T Low T
Civic participation
Country artistic shows 71% 38%
US artistic shows 43% 13%
Country city/school meetings 27% 87% -0.464
US city/school meetings 57% 87%
Country committee membership 14% 50%
US committee membership 57% 37% 0.395
Country club officer 14% 38%
US newspaper letter 43% 13% 0.413
CIVIC PARTICIPATION Volunteer in US Volunteer in country
No religious Religious
No money Money
Hometown celebrations
Again, the level of civic participation was different for both groups.
The High-T group attended more frequently to artistic shows, both from
US and their country, than the Low-T group.
Also, they have written a letter to a US newspaper more often. This
variable was the second best predictor in the multiple regression Civic
Participation model II, with a positive and moderate correlation with the
Level of Transnationalism, which reached a marginal signification by
itself (r = .413, p < .10).

21. • Instead, the Low-T group attended more
frequently to meetings from their town and
school, both in their country and in US.
• Attending to these meetings in their country
was in fact the best predictor in the multiple
regression Civic Participation model II. To
attend to these meetings correlates negatively
and moderately, but significantly, with the
level of Transnationalism (r = -.464, p < .05).
The Low-T group attended them more often
(87%) than the High-T group (29%).

22. • Moreover, in the Low-T group they have been
members of a committee or officers at a club
or organization in their country more often,
while in the High-T group they have been
members more frequently of a US committee.
• The variable US committee membership was
also included as a predictor in the Civic
Participation model II, having a positive and
moderate correlation with the Level of
Transnationalism (r = .395, p < .10),
reaching a marginal significance by itself..

23. • In the qualitative sessions we learned that the
members of the High-T group decidedly
volunteer at cultural, civic or charity
organizations in US, while those of the Low-T
group did it in their country.
• Almost none of the High T participants give
money to charity organizations with links to
their home country, while the opposite is true
for the Low T group: almost everyone of them
give money to these charities.

24. • Some in the Low-T group were members of
religious organizations linked to their home
country and give money to them, but none in
the High-T group did it.
• Furthermore, all in the Low-T group visit their
home towns and participate in its
celebrations, while half in the High-T group
does not.

25. RESULTS:
CONTACTS & MEDIA

26. VARIABLE HIGHLIGHTS REGRESSION QUALITATIVE
Level of Transnationalism High T Low T High T Low T High T Low T
Contacts
Frequency of calls: More than 2/week 29% 88% -0.626 < Daily to 2/week
Length of call: 30+ minutes 71% 50% 30+ minutes >
Internet 71% 38%
Travel as communication 86% 0%
Length of stay: More than 3 weeks 0% 12.50%
Family visit US 57% 88%
Frequency of family visits 1/year or less 2/year or more -0.615
Returning to live in country 14.29% 75%
Dreams of returning
Concrete plans for it
Media
US radio 14% 50%
US magazine 0% 50% -0.564
There are several differences between our two groups regarding
the contacts with their home country and the media that they
prefer.
The main difference is the frequency of calls: while 88% in the
Low-T group calls more than twice a week, only 29% in the High-
T group does it. In the qualitative sessions was confirmed that in
the Low-T group they call from daily to more than twice a week.

27. • The importance of the frequency of calls to
differentiate the two groups was reconfirmed
in the multiple regression analysis: in the
Contacts & Media model II this was the best
predictor, with a negative and moderate
correlation with the Level of Transnationalism,
which reached statistical significance by itself
(r = -.626, p < .01).
• Nevertheless, the length of the calls was
longer for the High-T group: 71% of them
called for more than 30 minutes,
compared to 50% in the Low-T group.

28. • The lengthier calls in the High-T group were
confirmed in the qualitative sessions.
• Also in the qualitative sessions we learned
that 71% in the High-T group used the
Internet to communicate with their home
country, compared to a 38% in the Low-T
group.
• Moreover, 86% in the High-T group
considered Travel as a mean of
communication with their country, while
no one in the Low-T group did it.

29. • When traveling to their home country, in the
Low-T group there were some who stayed
more than 3 weeks, while everyone in the
High-T group stayed less than 3 weeks.
• Also, the family of those in the Low-T group
visits them in the US (88%) more frequently
than in the High-T group (57%).
• Moreover, the frequency of these visits is
higher in the Low-T group (twice per year or
more) than in the High-T group (once per
year or less).

30. • This Frequency of family visits variable was
included in the Contacts & Media model II,
showing a negative and moderate
correlation with the Level of
Transnationalism reaching signification by
itself (r = -.615, p < .01).
• While 75% in the Low-T group have
concrete plans to return to live in their home
country and dream about it, only 14.29% in
the High-T group does it.

31. • Regarding the preferred media, half in the
Low-T group preferred US magazines and
radio, while the High-T group favored the
attendance to country and US artistic shows.
• The preference for US magazines was
included in the Contacts & Media model II,
showing a moderate and negative significant
correlation with the Level of
Transnationalism (r = -.564, p < .05).

32. RESULTS:
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION

33. VARIABLE HIGHLIGHTS REGRESSION QUALITATIVE
Level of Transnationalism High T Low T High T Low T High T Low T
Political participation
Vote in US elections 86% 62% US politics
Letter to US congressman 71% 50%
US political meetings 43% 25%
Parades in US from country parties 0% 50% -0.564 Country politics
Country political meetings 14% 50%
Parades in US from US parties 14% 37%
Donate Money to US political parties 71% 25%
The High-T group is generally more involved with the US political
events, while the Low-T group favor their home country politics.
86% in the High-T group vote in the US elections, compared to 62%
in the Low-T group.
71% in the High-T group have wrote a letter to a US congressman,
at least once, but only 50% in the Low-T group have done it.
Also, 43% in the High-T group attend to US political meetings, while
only 25% in the Low-T group does it.

34. • None in the High-T group attend to parades
in US from their home country parties, while
50% in the Low-T group does it.
• The importance of this variable was
confirmed in the multiple regression
analysis, where it was the only predictor of
the Level of Transnationalism included in the
Political Participation model II, showing a
moderate and negative correlation which
reached significance by itself
(r = -.564, p <.05).

35. • Those in the Low-T group also attend more
often (37%) to parades from US parties than
those in the High-T group (14%).
• Half of the Low-T group attend to meetings
from their country political parties, compared
to 14% in the High-T group.
• The greater involvement of the High-T group
in the US political events and the greater
involvement of the Low-T group in their
country politics was confirmed in the
qualitative sessions, where we learned
that in the High-T group they even
donated money to US political parties.

36. RESULTS:
CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
&
TRANSNATIONALISM

37. VARIABLE HIGHLIGHTS REGRESSION QUALITATIVE
Level of Transnationalism High T Low T High T Low T High T Low T
Cultural psychology
DRAWINGS Dependency Alienation
Assimilation Dreams of returning
CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
Openly admitted
discrimination
Satisfied with income
Transnationalism
Belong in US 4.43 3.38
Allegiance to your country 2.00 1.00
BENEFITS OF TRANSNATIONALISM:
Personal Cultural identity Satisfaction from
helping family
To US Strongest diversity, Contribution to US
Politics, Better image economy through
work and taxes
The main theme on the drawings of the High-T group was a
feeling of dependency from the American society. After being in
the US they have reached completion and well being and they
do not long for returning to live in their country of origin. As in
the rest of the qualitative session, they showed an stronger
assimilation reflected in their active participation in social,
economical, cultural and political events in the US.

38. • On the other hand, added to the feelings of
dependence, half of the drawings of the Low-
T group rather reflected feelings of alienation
from the American society.
• They are not assimilated in their host
country, they participate more in their home
country activities than in the US society.
• They are living here as a sacrifice for their
families and are just waiting to make real
their dreams of returning to live in their
country.

39. • Although in the High-T group they admitted
more openly being discriminated in the US,
somehow they have overcome these feelings
and made use of their opportunities reaching
visibility and a satisfactory income.
• The Low-T group agree with having had
enough opportunities and achievements, but
they are not satisfied with their income.

40. • Among the scales administered to both
groups, the one related with their belonging
in US clearly differentiated between the High-
T and the Low-T groups.
• This one was a Semantic Differential type
scale which asked: How do you feel that you
belong in the US?
• The graphic scale consisted in seven points,
ranging from Weakly (1) to Strongly (7) and
the subjects were asked to place themselves
in the point that best represented their
feelings in this regard.

41. • The average of belonging for the High-T
group was 4.43 and for the Low-T group was
3.38.
• A t test between these averages showed that
the average of belonging for the High-T
group was marginally higher than that of the
Low-T group (t = 1.160, p< .10, 1-tailed).

42. • Another similar scale also showed a marginal
significance in differentiating between our two
groups: Allegiance to your country VS
Allegiance to US.
• This scale also had 7 points, this time ranging
from +3 (Strongest allegiance to your country)
to -3 (Strongest allegiance to US).
• For the High-T group, the average allegiance to
their country was 2, while for the Low-T group
this average was 1.

43. • A t test performed on these averages showed
that the average allegiance to their country was
higher for the High-T group, reaching a
marginal significance
(t = 1.103, p = .11, 1-tailed).
• When asked for their perceived personal
benefits from Transnational behaviors, while in
the Low-T group these benefits are mainly
related to emotional factors like the satisfaction
from helping their families, in the High-T group,
besides these emotional factors, they
mentioned the enrichment of the culture
and the cultural identity.

44. • Finally, when they were asked for the benefits
from Transnationalism for US, the High-T group
distinctly mentioned a stronger diversity, politics
and a better image.
• The contribution to the US economy through
cheap labor, work and taxes, as well as the
contribution of different cultures were
mentioned in both groups, but more frequently
in the Low T group.

45. CONCLUSIONS

46. DEMOGRAPHICS
• The High-T group was defined because
of its higher visibility in the Dominican
community in New York. They perform
jobs of great significance for this
community.
• They have a higher annual personal
income (more than $35,000), own their
residence and have being living longer in
US.

47. DEMOGRAPHICS
• Also, most of their children were born in
the US, being their total household
almost the same as the American
average and half of that of the Low-T
group.
• Moreover, the great majority of the High-
T group were American citizens.

48. FINANCES
• The High-T group have deposit
certificates in US and their country, as
well as both credit and debit cards, while
the Low-T group mostly have savings
accounts in their country.
• The High-T group participants invest
more frequently in the US, where they
are paying their mortgages.

49. FINANCES
• Also, they save more than four times the
amount that the Low-T group does.
• Furthermore, they have more US economic
obligations of higher order than the concrete
obligations of the Low-T group.

50. CIVIC PARTICIPATION
• As the Low-T group lived longer in their
country, they were capable to attend more
frequently to meetings from their town or
school than the High-T group. They also
visit more frequently their home towns and
participate in its celebrations.
• Nevertheless, the High-T group was rather
capable of being officers in US
organizations more frequently.

51. CIVIC PARTICIPATION
• Another characteristic of the High-T was
that they have written a letter to a US
newspaper more often.
• Also, they volunteered at cultural, civic or
charity organizations in US but do not
donated money, while the Low-T group
volunteered at organizations and
religious groups linked to their country
and donate money to them.

52. CONTACTS & MEDIA
• The Low-T group call their country more
frequently, daily to twice a week, while
the High-T group call longer (for more
than 30 minutes) and use more
frequently the Internet and travel to
communicate, but their stay is shorter.
• While the Low-T group preferred US
magazines and radio, the high-T group
favored the attendance to country and
US artistic shows.

53. CONTACTS & MEDIA
• Probably because the High-T group
traveled more often to their country, the
Low-T group received more frequently
visits from their family in the US.
• Apart from keeping up with the family, the
distinct motives for the family visits in the
US for the High-T group were tourism and
business, against health and vacation for
the Low-T group.

54. POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
• The High-T group is actively involved in US
politics, while the Low-T group favor their
country political events.
• The Low-T group attend more frequently to
political parades and meetings from their
country parties.
• More frequently, the High-T group vote in US
elections, attend to US parties political
meetings, donate money to them and have
wrote a letter to a US congressman.

55. CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
• In the High-T group, the perceived personal
benefits from Transnational behaviors, apart
from the emotional factors related to their
families, included the enrichment of the culture
and the cultural identity.
• They also perceived that the benefits to the US
from these behaviors are related to a stronger
diversity, politics and a better international
image. The Low-T group perceived these
benefits as related to cheap labor and
taxes for the US economy.

56. CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
• The High-T group is better assimilated to
their host country. Surpassing their feelings
of discrimination, they have succeed in
taking advantage of their opportunities and
now have satisfactory achievements and
income.
• They feel that they depend on the US
society, but also they feel that they strongly
belong here.

57. CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
• The stronger assimilation of the High-T group
reflects in their active participation in social,
economical, cultural and political events in the
US.
• On the contrary, the Low-T group have more
frequently feelings of alienation from the
American society. They are not well
assimilated in their host country and rather
participate more in their home country
activities.

58. CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
• For them, living in the US is a burden, only
justified by the well being that they can bring
to their families.
• The majority in the Low-T group have
concrete plans to return to live in their
country and are just waiting for the right time
to return to live in their country and make
real their paradisiacal dreams.

59. CULTURAL PSYCHOLOGY
• Finally, we have to introduce a very
important finding from the questionnaire: the
difference between the allegiance to their
country in our two groups.
• The allegiance to their country, measured by
a self assessed scale, was higher for the
High-T group, meaning that they are well
assimilated in their host country, but that
they are still more loyal to their home
country than the Low-T group.

60. RECOMMENDATIONS

61. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Apart from being more visible to the
Dominican community in New York, the
High Transnational group is better
assimilated in their host society.
• They perform very important activities for
this community but they travel more
often to their home country and keep a
social network there.

62. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Here we have the picture of a High
Transnational group better assimilated to
their host society but still with greater
allegiance to their home country than the
Low Transnational group.
• Assimilated in the American society, they
have not lost the fundamental, navel ties
with their country.

63. RECOMMENDATIONS
• On the contrary, the Low Transnational
group live in US mostly by their economic
circumstances and are eager to return to
live in their country. In their heart, they
have not left it.
• Now we have to replicate these findings
with another community. Naturally, the
comparison community could have their
own particular characteristics and we can
not expect to replicate all the findings.

64. RECOMMENDATIONS
• Nevertheless, we have defined the most
important predictors of the Level of
Transnationalism in the Dominican
groups and we expect that the Brazilian
groups will enrich these predictors with
new important variables.
• With the results of the upcoming
Brazilian focus groups, we will be best
equipped to design an Index of
Transnationalism and validate it.

65. INTEGRATION
FOCUS GROUPS NEW YORK
APRIL 2009
eSilvestre.com
Alvaro Lima