mun

 

wnpnwci-ygnwvfi

 

um

 

ME“.

In...
I c
.t:

i .L.
_ Janet
.,. Muzak. ., ,
t .5 3‘
z ”fivh . .
, .. .zuthmnnwa... 2.
1. ah.”

.mkx, ;.

.51.:

. I. :14.
.qum

i

96.. WW: .
3%?9?

33.....9.’ L'Ii
ll. A 1. .11

l
K. to“
I

953’! ,
.11..) I
:1. in... :4: v
. . all!!!
V 7&1?

l
2008

UBRARY
Michigan State
University

—_

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

EVALUATING CULTURAL COMPETENCE
IN MSW STUDENTS

presented by
Judith Ravenhorst Meerman

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

Ph.D. degree in Social Work

flé Maxi

Major Professor's Signature
5/M/2006

Date

MSU is an afiirmative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 KilProjIAocaPresIClRC/DateDuetindd

 

EVALUATING CULTURAL COMPETENCE IN MSW STUDENTS

By

Judith Ravenhorst Meerman

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Social Work

2008

ABSTRACT
EVALUATING CULTURAL COMPETENCE IN MSW STUDENTS
By

Judith Ravenhorst-Meerman

Within the field of social work, cultural diversity has primarily been associated
with race and ethnicity, but diversity is taking on a broader meaning to include the
sociocultural experiences of people of different genders, social classes, religious and
spiritual beliefs, sexual orientations, ages, and physical and mental abilities. Formal
Standards measuring cultural competence in social work practice and education were
adopted by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) in 2001. The NASW
Cultural Competence Standards brought definition to cultural competence, yet there was
a void in studies measuring student and professional social work cultural competence in
the areas of knowledge, attitudes, and skills (NASW, 2001).

The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the level of
cultural competence of students entering a Master of Social Work (MSW) program, and
to evaluate if there is a change in the reported level of cultural competence after one
semester of MSW education. The pre-test and post-test questionnaire administered,
allowed each student the opportunity to rate their personal level of cultural competence.
Each survey question was crafted to evaluate student cultural competence as it is defined
in the NASW Cultural Competence Standards (2001). This study explored change in the
level of reported cultural competence afier one semester of classroom and field
education, and sought to gain an understandino From students on where growth in cultural

competence occurred. The results of the study also explored whether traditional

demographic characteristics (age, gender, sexual orientation, race and ethnicity, religion,
and geographic location of nuclear family) were related to a higher level of reported
cultural competence.

Sixty-five subjects, 58 women and 7 men, between the ages of 21 and 67
participated in both the pre and post tests which consisted of 34 Likert scale questions, an
open ended question asking students to define culture, to evaluate self-reported levels of
cultural competence and demographic information. Twenty-one students participated in
the two focus groups. During the focus groups, participants were asked to explain where
in their first semester of education, grth occurred in their level of cultural competence.

Results indicated that students reported a statistically significant level in their
growth of cultural competence afier their first semester of MSW education than they
reported as incoming MSW students. Results indicate that students entering the MSW
program after completing a BSW program including field education report a statistically
significant level of cultural competence than students who enter the program with an
undergraduate degree other than social work, hence not completing undergraduate field
education or the required social work baccalaureate courses. The results did not
demonstrate a statistically significant higher difference in students enrolled in field
education in their first semester of their MSW education in any of the ten NASW
Cultural Competence Standards.

The results of this study have implications for social work education, the Council
of Social Work Education (CSWE), the National Association of Social Workers

(N ASW), and social work practice.

Copyright by
Judith Ravenhorst Meerman
2008

To all social workers as we learn from each other in our diverse world.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This dissertation represents the final step in earning my doctoral degree. As I
look back on the journey, I am humbled by what seemed a far off goal that has become a
reality. I must acknowledge the presence of God in my life and the peace that has come
through encouragement and support from those around me. First to support and
encourage is my husband Barry who has continually cheered me on and assisted me
through this program. Second, are my children and close friends who have lent support
and encouragement through the long and challenging process. And finally are my
grandchildren who provided kisses and hugs at just the right moments.

Thanks to my parents Richard and Jeanne Ravenhorst who taught me the
importance of education and that supported me through each leg of my academic journey.
A special thanks to my father, whose life ended last year, who modeled the passion to
teach and challenge students to greater knowledge.

My deep appreciation goes to Dr. Rena Harold, who edited, reviewed, revised and
offered counsel and encouragement through the many lengths of this journey. Rena, your
patience and dedication is not lost and one I hope to model with my students. In addition,
my gratitude goes to my committee Dr. Gary Anderson, Professor JoAnn McFall, and Dr.
Reitumetse Obakeng Mabokela‘. Thank you for your time and attention to my work.

Thank-you also to my colleagues at Kuyper College who encouraged, supported
and offered critique to my dissertation. I especially want to thank Professor Greg Scott,
my fellow social work faculty, who adjusted his schedule and tasks as l pursued my PhD.

Also thanks to Provost Melvin Flikkerna and President Nicholas Kroeze who granted me

vi

a sabbatical in 2007-2008 to finish this work.

Thanks to Dr. Peg Whalen, my statistics consultant. Peg you walked along side
of me to challenge and encourage each step of the way. Your patience, guidance and
assistance went above and beyond. Thank you to Joy Milano and Diane Britton
Glassbum for proof reading and editing my dissertation document and to Ruth Ritsema
for data entry and data checking. Also thank you to Kelly Lynema for formatting.

Last, but in no way least, thank you to Shelley Schuurman who walked through
the Ph.D. process with me. Shelley your support and encouragement as a fellow Ph.D.
student was invaluable. Our trips back and forth to Lansing offered support,

encouragement and direction.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................. x
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. xi
CHAPTERS
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1
Introduction and Problem Statement ......................................................................... 1
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................................. 2
Rationale for the Study .............................................................................................. 2
Research Questions .................................................................................................... 3
Research Hypotheses ................................................................................................. 4
Summary .................................................................................................................... 5
ll. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ........................................................................... 6
Cultural competence within social work .................................................................... 6
Council on Social Work Education .......................................................................... 10
Cultural Competence Within Social Work Curriculum ........................................... 13
Course Content .......................................................................................... 14
Field Education ......................................................................................... 23
National Association of Social Workers .................................................................. 24
Social Work Licensure ............................................................................................. 33
Key Studies in Cultural Competence ....................................................................... 36
Summary .................................................................................................................. 45
Ill. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 47
Epistemology ........................................................................................................... 47
Description of the Study .......................................................................................... 51
Sample ...................................................................................................................... 52
Design and Procedures ............................................................................................. 52
Instrumentation ........................................................................................................ 56
Quantitative instrument ............................................................................. 56
Qualitative Design and Measures ............................................................. 61
Validity of Quantitative Measure ............................................................................. 62
Approach to Analysis ............................................................................................... 63
Summary .................................................................................................................. 64

viii

IV. RESULTS .................................................................................................................. 65

Overview .................................................................................................................. 65
Characteristics of the Study Sample ........................................................................ 66
General Findings ...................................................................................................... 71
Summary ................................................................................................................ 107

V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

Overview ................................................................................................................ 108
Major Findings ....................................................................................................... 1 10
Implications ....................................................... , ..................................................... 127
Limitations of the Study ......................................................................................... 121
Recommendations .................................................................................................. 1 44
Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 148
APPENDICES
Appendix A — Definitions .............................................................................................. 149
Appendix B — NASW Cultural Competence Standards Indicators ............................... 151
Appendix C — Student Consent Form ............................................................................ 158
Appendix D — Focus Group Participation Form ............................................................ 160
Appendix E — Personal Identification Form .................................................................. 16]
Appendix F — Cultural Competence Survey .................................................................. 162
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 165

ix

Table I :

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

Table 6:

Table 7:

Table 8:

Table 9:

Table 10:

Table 1 I:

Table 12:

Table 13:

Table 14:

Table 15:

Table 16:

Table 17:

Table 18:

Table 19:

Table 20:

Table 2]:

LIST OF TABLES

Student volunteer experience .......................................... 67
Student employment experience ....................................... 68
Student diversity/culture education ................................... 68
CC Standards and corresponding internal reliability statistics ....... 70
Paired Sample T-test Statistics based on Pre and Post tests ....... 73
T-test Statistics based on Pre-Test BSW Field Education ......... 77
T-test Statistics based on Post-Test MSW Field Education ....... 79
T-test Statistics based on Pre-Test Diverse Race .................... 81
T-test Statistics Post-Test Diverse Race .............................. 83
T-test Statistics Pre-Test LBGT ....................................... 85
T-test Statistics Post-Test LBGT ...................................... 87
T-test Statistics Pre-Test Disability ................................... 89
T-test Statistics Pre-Test Faith/No Faith ............................. 91
T-test Statistics Post-Test Faith/No Faith ............................ 93
T-test Statistics Pre-Test Diverse Community ...................... 95
T-test Statistics Post-Test Diverse Community ..................... 97
Definition of Culture Themes .......................................... 100
Findings of Student Cultural Competence Level .................... l l 1
Findings for Hypothesis One .......................................... 1 l4
Findings for Hypothesis Three ........................................ l 18
Student/NASW Culture Themes ...................................... 121

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Sequential Explanatory Strategy ........................................ 55

xi

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Introduction and Problem Statement

For more than 30 years, the Council on Social Work Education (C SWE) and the
National Association of Social Workers (NASW) have issued mandates which require
that pre-professional and practicing social workers be able to sensitively and competently
serve culturally and racially diverse populations. Pre-professional and practicing social
workers are expected to exhibit personal awareness of their background, issues and biases
that will enhance their ability to serve others, and skills to provide services within the
context of the client’s culture (Colvin-Burque, Davis-Maye & Zugazaga, 2007). Having
an understanding of how an individual’s culture influences assumptions about the world
and ways of categorizing “reality" is paramount to cultural competence within social
work practice (Greene, Jensen, & Jones, 1996). As social work educators focus on
cultural competence within social work curricula, they seek to understand which classroom
and field education curricula; will best advance growth in student cultural competence.
The questions remain, how culturally competent are incoming social work students and

where does growth in cultural competence occur over the course of their education?

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of the level of cultural
competence of students entering a Master of Social Work (MSW) program, and to
evaluate if there is a change in the reported level of cultural competence after one
semester of MSW education. The pre-test and post-test questionnaire administered,
allowed each student the opportunity to rate his/her personal level of cultural
competence. Each questionnaire question was crafted to evaluate student cultural
competence as it is defined in the NASW Cultural Competence Standards (2001). This
study explores change in the level of reported cultural competence after one semester of
classroom and field education, and gained an understanding from students regarding
where growth in cultural competence occurred. The results of the study also explored
whether traditional demographic characteristics (age, gender, sexual orientation, race
and ethnicity, religion, and geographic location of nuclear family) are related to a higher

level of reported cultural competence.

Rationale for the Study

Formal Standards measuring cultural competence in social work practice and
education were adopted by the NASW in 2001. The NASW Cultural Competence
Standards brought definition to cultural competence. Yet in 2005, NASW stated that
there was a void in studies measuring student and professional social work cultural
competence in the areas of knowledge, attitudes, and skills. To provide understanding
of the knowledge, attitudes, and skills of students in the area of cultural competence, this

study has crafted questions for each ofthe 10 Standards within the NASW Cultural

Competence Standards, and provided an opportunity for students to rate themselves prior
to entering MSW education and again after one semester of classroom and field
education. In addition, this study provided a voice for students to identify where in their
first semester of MSW education growth in cultural competence occurred.

The purpose of this study was to contribute to the body of knowledge on cultural
competence within social work education and practice, and to assist social work
educators and students in better understanding the NASW Cultural Competence
Standards. In addition, this study provides a new tool to assist in measuring cultural

competence as it is described in the NASW Cultural Competence Standards.

Research Questions

The overarching questions for this study were: How culturally competent are
students entering an MSW program? Have students experienced growth in cultural
competence during their first semester of MSW education? What areas of MSW

education do students identify as areas where cultural competence growth occurred?
Specifically, the following research questions guided the inquiry:

I. How do students entering a MSW program rate their level of cultural

competence?

2. Does the student report a higher level of cultural competence after one

semester of MSW education?

3. Are there specific areas of social work practice in which students report a
higher level of cultural competence over other areas of social work

practice (identified in the NASW Cultural Competence Standards)?

3

4. What areas of MSW education do students identify as areas where

cultural competence growth occurred?

5. What is the relationship between student-reported cultural competence
and the variables of age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion,
geographical location of upbringing, previous education, social work
volunteerism, social work employment and previous education and

training in diversity?

Research Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1: Reported level of cultural competence will differ by demographic
characteristics.

 

1.] Reported level of cultural competence will differ by student age.

1.2 Reported level of cultural competence will differ by students social
work employment experience.

1.3 Reported level of cultural competence will differ by students
volunteer experience.

1.4 Reported level of cultural competence will differ if the student has
a Bachelor’s of Social Work (BSW).

1.5 Reported level of cultural competence will differ if students have
taken courses and had trainings in diversity/cultural competence.

Hypothesis 2: A higher level of cultural competence will be reported by students
who have completed one semester of field education in the MSW program than
by students who have just taken classes.

 

 

Hypothesis 3: A higher level of cultural competence will be reported by students
with diverse demographic variables.

3.] A higher level of cultural competence will be reported by students
that identify as coming from a non-White race.

3.2 A higher level of cultural competence will be reported by students
who self-identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bi—sexual, Transgender (LGBT).

3.3 A higher level of cultural competence will be reported by students
who self-identify as an individual with a disability.

3.4 A higher level of cultural competence will be reported by students
who report having no religion or a religion other than Christian.

3.5 A higher level of cultural competence will be reported by students
who report coming from an urban inner city, intemational, military ~

geographic location or report being an international student.

Summary

Chapter I contains the introduction and problem statement, and the description
and rationale for the study. The research questions and hypotheses were introduced.
Chapter II provides a review of the historical and current literature pertaining to this
study. The research methodology is described in Chapter III, and the findings are
presented in Chapter IV. Chapter V contains a summary of the study, major findings, and

conclusions drawn from the findings, implications, and recommendations.

CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Cultural competence within social work

It is important to begin by looking at the context of culturally competent practice
within social work. A historical snapshot shows helping professionals working with
individuals like themselves and professionals working with individuals different than
they (NASW, 2001).

The Settlement House Movement in the late 1800’s in large cities such as Boston,
New York, and Chicago focused on meeting the needs of immigrants, which included
housing, jobs and daycare. Although the primary goal was to provide rapid assimilation
into American society for newly arrived white ethnic groups, there were also numerous
social action initiatives designed to reduce the hardships and exploitation experienced by
immigrants. In Chicago, Jane Addams was a front runner in‘recognizing the cultural
richness of immigrant groups and celebrating their contribution to society (Addams,
1910). In addition to immigrants coming to the United States, there was a move of other
individuals from rural areas to the city. Urbanization triggered the departures of many
farmers for the cities where industry was growing. Both urbanization and
industrialization were generating irreversible changes in the very fabric of the country’s
life. Whether migrating from Europe, coming from rural to city, or moving North as an
African American, the country was changing (Schlesinger, 2005).

As the diverse groups found themselves in the chaotic new changing times,

a host of new social problems emerged. High on the list was the negative treatment of
newcomers by long time residents. Conflicts arose over jobs and living arrangements,
and a major concern was whether people who were different from one another could
adapt to each other. Could people who were different from one another live side by side
in comfort, or would there be continuous conflict? Would the United States embrace all
people and provide equal opportunities and services to those in need? These questions
would drive individual, community, and governmental responses to difference
(Schlesinger, 2005).

Although diversity is often promoted as one of the most valued attributes of the
United States, history shows that the entry of selected populations and the development of
immigration policies, excluded or limited immigration from geographic areas of the world
populated by non-Europeans. which raised concerns. One policy that stands out is the
Immigration Act of 1917, which, in addition to including a literacy test for entry, barred all
immigrants, irrespective of literacy, from virtually all of Asia, with the exception of Japan
and parts of China (Gerstle, 2001). The atmosphere that drove policy implementation was
a prevailing belief in the superiority of the White American society and influenced
education and social life. James Lowen (1995) in Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything
Your American History Textbook Got Wrong highlights that textbooks often did not think
to include Blacks, Hispanics, or Asians in their concept of America. Education about
religions did not include much beyond the Christian paradigm, totally ignoring non-
Christian European religions, and non-European and Eastern religions. By 1950, the entry
of large numbers of refugees from civil wars around the world in the more recent past
dramatically changed the demographic composition of the US. population. The

7

demographic compositions within the growing population led to discussions amongst
helping professionals (counselors, psychologists, and social workers) in the area of
practice principles with diverse population (Austin, 1986).

Although concerted efforts to assist diverse individuals and groups in need
occurred throughout history (Addams, 1910; Austin, 1986; Gordan, 1964; Guzzetta,
1997), the helping professions collectively (including counselors, psychologists, and
social workers) began to address diversity by addressing competent therapeutic
interventions in the late 1960‘s and early 1970’s. A concern arose regarding the level of
training being offered to professionals to increase their effectiveness with a growing
multicultural client population. Counselors, psychologists, and social workers urged their
professional bodies to develop Standards to delineate the characteristics of a culturally
skilled counselor in the areas of beliefs and attitudes, knowledge, and skills (Sue,
Arrendondo, & McDavis, 1992).

A decade later, counseling and psychology professionals developed standards that
evolved into culturally sensitive counseling characteristics focused on the attitudes,
knowledge, and skills one would need to develop self-awareness, client understanding,
and appropriate interventions (Sue, Arredondo & McDavis, 1992). This model soon
included specific actions a practitioner would need to take in order to acquire culturally
competent practice skills. Evolution of the cultural competence construct has moved
from not only competence with individuals, but also groups and communities.
Underlying the attitudes, knowledge, and skills as the foundation to client systems of all

sizes, the counseling and psychology professionals began to develop awareness around

personal and organizational dynamics of racism, sexism, and other forms of oppression
(Sue & Sue, 1999).

Social workers, on the other hand, first came from a beliefs and attitudes sphere of
cultural competence which evaluated self-awareness of one’s own cultural roots and
biases a practitioner might hold about those who have cultural differences (Van De Bergh
& Crisp, 2004). The importance of knowledge was soon added to cultural competence,
which included an understanding of the impact of societal structures in the treatment of
minorities, as well as recognizing cultural groups, values, beliefs, and norms. In addition,
knowledge looked at barriers that specific minority groups might experience in trying to
access mental health and other services. Next, skills were examined, looking at
therapeutic skills which included developing verbal and nonverbal interactions, and
culturally sensitive approaches (Van De Bergh & Crisp, 2004).

Culturally competent practice in social work was soon defined through
competency in attitudes, knowledge, and skills. Social work has continued to build on
this approach by elaborating on service delivery in a variety of contexts including child
welfare, transracial adoptions, juvenile justice, and work with various ethnic communities
(Van De Bergh & Crisp, 2004). Ensuring that the constructs of attitudes, knowledge, and
skills impacted service delivery became paramount to the social work profession which
made infusing diversity and cultural competence into the educational curriculum

throughout social work programs essential.

Council on Social Work Education

The first training school for social work was a summer program that opened in
1898 at the New York City Charity Organization Society (Austin, 1986). In 1904, the
society established the New York School of Philanthropy, which offered an eight-month
instructional program. Mary Richmond, a historical social work practitioner and teacher,
advocated that although many learned by doing, theory needed to be at the base of learning.
As a result, Richmond sought out permanent instructors to facilitate the work of students in
both theory and practice which was the forerunner to field education (Austin, 1986).

The history of field instruction begins with the Charity Organization Societies at
the end of the nineteenth century, when educators used the apprenticeship model to teach
social work. Through the use of the apprenticeship model, students were exposed to
issues such as poverty, employment, and hunger, the conditions in which clients lived.
This paradigm began through the networking that emerged from the early organizational
efforts of social work education. Although seen as beneficial, by the end of the nineteenth
century, social work was moving away from the apprenticeship model (Royse, 1996). A
change again occurred around 1940 when a didactic approach dominated social work
education. This approach emphasized students’ cognitive development where theoretical
knowledge directed practice. Professors expected students to deduce practice approaches
from the classroom learning and translate theories into functional behaviors in the field
(Tolson & Kopp, 1988).

Educational Standards for social work education were refined in the 1940’s and
1950’s, and fieldwork became known as field instruction. A subcommittee on field work

for the American Association of Schools and Social Work (AASSW), the forerunner of

IO

CSWE, took the position in 1940-1941 that the classroom provided the theory for social
work practice, but field teaching was just as important as the classroom. AASSW
advocated for equally qualified teachers in field practice, outlining definite criteria for the
selection of field agencies. The high standards for the student field experience
recommended by AASSW were carried into standards established by CSWE, which
continue today (Reynolds, 1965).

CSWE, formed in 1952, established and revised standards for institutions granting
degrees in social work. The Standards established by CSWE required a clear plan for the
organization, implementation, and evaluation of both ineclass work and the field
practicum. The 1982 Curriculum Policy Statement further emphasized academic control
of educational experiences and the assurance that classroom and field instruction were
strongly linked (Austin, 1986).

Today, accreditation is a system for recognizing educational institutions and
professional programs affiliated with those institutions, as having a level of performance,
integrity, and quality that entitles them to the confidence of the educational community
and the public it serves. The Commission on Accreditation (Commission) of the Council
on Social Work Education has established standards, and is authorized to accredit
baccalaureate and master’s degree programs in social work education in the United
States. The accreditation review process provides professional judgments on the quality
of a social work education program. These judgments are based on applying the
Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS) promulgated by the Commission

on Educational Policy and the Commission on Accreditation (EPAS, 2003).

ll

In the early 1970’s, structural changes began to occur within social work
education and the CSWE. In 1970, the Commission on Minority Groups was created
with the responsibility to work for the development of specialized curricular materials
dealing with ethnic minority populations. In 1972, CSWE expanded its administrative
group, the House of Delegates, to provide for three representatives of each of five
minority groups. Under this provision, ethnic minority faculty members had a planned
voice in the future direction of C SWE and social work education (Austin, 1986).

But, diversifying racially did not address the needs of other people groups.
Throughout the 1970’s, numerous concerns were expressed about the position of women
in social work education. Although the majority of students were women, the majority of
tenured faculty and graduate deans were men. There was also a concern about the extent
to which traditional assumptions about family structure, and the role of women within the
family, dominated curriculum content. In 1975, the Council established a Commission
on the Role and Status of Women in Social Work Education that provided a voice for
women in social work education and forum for discussions to take place (Austin, 1986).

Another change came in 1982, the Council appointed a Lesbian/Gay Commission
to examine the teaching of social work practice as it related to issues of sexual
orientation. The 1982 Curriculum Policy Statement (CPS), under the heading “Special
Populations,” also called for the explicit inclusion of curricular content dealing with
issues affecting gay men and lesbians, as well as content dealing with specialized issues
affecting minorities of color and women (Austin, 1986). Since this development, CSWE

has renamed the L/G C ommission, the Council on Sexual Orientation and Gender

Expression (CSOGE), where areas of advocacy, faculty and curriculum development,
mentorship, leadership promotion, and activities are evaluated (CSWE, 2007).

Many organizational changes occurred within C SWE to address the diversity of
individuals within the social work profession, and educating students to practice social
work within diverse populations was at the core of CSWE’s policy Standards. These

changes continued into the curricula of each program.

Cultural Competence within Social Work Curriculum

Prior to the 19708, C SWE addressed the issues of racial and ethnic diversity
within the educational environment by recruiting diverse students and faculty, providing
sensitivity training to social work students and faculty, and by including diversity content
within social work curricula. Schools emphasized a dual perspective using the concept
that all pe0ple are part of two systems: the larger societal system and their immediate
environment (Norton, 1978). Solomon (1976) defined empowerment “as facilitating
clients’ connection with their own power and then being empowered by the very act of
reaching across cultural barriers." (p.6) Gallegos (1982) provided the first
conceptualizations of ethnic competence as a “set of procedures and activities to be used
in acquiring culturally relevant insights into the problems of diverse clients and the
means of applying such insights to the development of intervention strategies that are
culturally appropriate for these clients." (p.4) Although not clearly defined, attempts to
clarify cross cultural interactions within the profession of social work were being
discussed within the educational setting. As social work education continued to evolve,

culturally competent practice continued to grow.

13

The current structure of social work curriculum under the EPAS requires all
accredited social work programs to provide documentation on eight areas of foundation
content including values and ethics, diversity, populations-at—risk, social and economic
justice, human behavior and the social environment, social welfare policy and services, social
work practice, research, and field education. The EPAS mandate that programs are to
present curriculum content as an integrated, coherent whole of relevant knowledge,
theories, and skills fi'om a conceptual framework identified and implemented by the
individual programs (CSWE, 2001; Educational Policy, See. 3, and Accreditation
Standards, Sec. 2). Programs must also show compliance with diversity standards during
the initial accreditation and reaccreditation process by providing a commitment to diversity
in the mission of the program, program objectives, course objectives, assignments, and

pedagogy to ensure each program is compliant.

Human Behavior and the Social Environment Content

As articulated in the EPAS, it is important for all accredited social work programs
to provide integration of “cultural competence into all aspects of social work education”
(EPAS, 2002, p. 31). As central to social work education core curricula, Human
Behavior and the Social Environment (HBSE) is fundamental to the education of social
workers and is social work education’s theory course/sequence. HBSE is where we
expect students to attain essential theoretical content for social work practice and to be
introduced to the application and evaluation of that theoretical content. Norton (1978)
states that HBSE content is critical for both practice and policy: “HBSE courses bear an

enormous responsibility to develop and impart valid and comprehensive information"

14

(p.1 1). This is especially important in the development of a multicultural knowledge
base necessary for culturally competent practice.

In the HBSE curriculum, theoretical frameworks are chosen to help understand
and explain human behavior. In many models of the organization and presentation of
HBSE texts, human behavior is usually explained through the lifespan development model,
which expounds upon theories that are based on an individual’s development. The theories
typically come from a Western or European perspective. Empowerment theory, strengths
perspective, critical theory, and ecological models of person-in-environment are used to
broaden the theoretical framework base and ensure students are taught theories that impact
practice from a broad context (Fong, 1999).

The realities of rapidly expanding information necessary to deliver HBSE
knowledge and theories require faculty and students to engage in a wide variety of
processes including knowledge search, discovery, creation, evaluation, and application of
the knowledge, values and skills of social work. This foundational course is important in
the role of integrating and challenging students to think critically about theory-based
culturally competent practice in all areas of social work (Fong, 1999).

Norton, a frontrunner in providing a cultural framework in social work education,
conceptualized a dual perspective taking a major step in incorporating substantive content
throughout the curriculum on both dominant culture, and the cultural realities of diverse
persons. Norton provides a dual perspective as the conscious and systematic process of
perceiving, understanding, and comparing simultaneously the values, attitudes, and
behavior of the larger societal system with those of the client’s immediate family and

community system. . ..It requires substantive knowledge and empathic appreciation of both

15

majority societal system and minority client system, as well as a conscious awareness of
the social worker’s own attitudes and values. (1978, p.3)

Norton’s (1978) and Chestang’s ( l 976) perspectives provide biculturalism and
traditional/altemative perspectives on HBS E. Both scholars described the complexities of
living in two cultural environments at once, one often experienced as hostile but necessary for
attaining many of the material necessities of life - “the world of the larger society"- the
sustaining environment; the other, a nurturing community essential for providing emotional
support, cultural values, family relationships, and supportive institutions as well as self-
realization and dignity to its members - the nurturing environment (Chestang, 1976, pp. 70-71).

Present-day publishing continues to push toward a increasingly dual perspective
in HBSE. Logres (1997), in his article Is it feasible to teach HBSE from a strengths
perspective, in contrast to one emphasizing limitations or weaknesses? suggests “we need
a complex view of human behavior, not a rose-colored, simplistic one" (p.23). He states
we must chart a new course for the future organization and delivery of HBSE content
recognizing both the neglect and guidance from the past. A dual perspective is respectful
of the complexity of living and surviving in two worlds and, therefore, a more
sophisticated perspective needs to be incorporated into social work curricula to contrast the

monoculture approaches from past years.

Policy Content

Also central to social work education core curricula is social policy content. The
actual content and degree to which a multicultural diversity framework is included varies

from program to program. However, social work policy curricula educators must present

16

i a range of policy models while continuing on to provide examples of how institutional,
group, and individual policies impact all clients, highlighting the oppressed and
disenfranchised client. Curricular frameworks should include critical attention to
multicultural diversity throughout each step of the process. A significant competence
area is the ability to critically analyze social policy. Various issues and policies are
provided for students to analyze and evaluate from a human diversity perspective
(Zuniga, 1999).

In March of 1998, a Social Policy Work Group of CSWE met to discuss diversity
content within social work policy courses. C SWE's Summit and Task Force on
Multicultural Social Work Education called for “specific examples with respect to how to
make operational the best practice methods (which infuse diversity content)”. The work
group of CSWE indicated the strong need to provide a means for “advocating and
expanding multicultural content in social policy areas.” (p.55) By March of 1999,
during the annual CSWE Summit and Task Force on Multicultural Social Work
Education, social policy educators presented specific suggestions to provide support for
faculty teaching within the policy curriculum sequence(Takahashi, 2004).

First, according to the Summit, values, beliefs, and assumptions must be studied,
analyzed, and applied to all areas of social policy competence areas. A program
addressing diversity in its curriculum must show how social policy curriculum includes a
thorough study of underlying values, beliefs, and assumptions, and teaches an
understanding of their significant force in any policy decision making processes.

Throughout the social policy curriculum, values, beliefs, and assumptions must be

17

studied for students to understand how they influence, frame, and shape social policy and
the social policy process. (Zuniga, 1999).

Next, political ideologies, alignments, systems, and structures must be studied and
applied to all areas of social policy. Political ideologies are important to study, as Baradat
(I997) explains, since “ideologies are among the major tools used by modern governments
to mobilize the masses" (p.2). He states that there are at least five properties:

Ideology is first and foremost a political term. Second, ideology consists of a

view of the present and vision of the future. ...One of the understanding features

of an ideology is its offer of hope. Third, ideology is action-oriented. ..It gives
specific directions about the steps that must be taken to attain this goal. Fourth,
ideology is directed toward the masses. Finally, because ideologies are direct at
the masses, they are usually couched in fairly simple terms that can be understood

by ordinary people. (p.9)

Policy contexts must also be identified, analyzed, and assessed in terms of their
significance. The context of practice is important in all areas of social work education. In
the area of social policy, educators must fully address historical, political, economic,
social, cultural, and legal contexts and how they relate to the policy-making process and
policy impacts. Each identified context should address the terms of its applications to
significance and impact on multicultural diverse populations (Zuniga, 1999).

Ethics, justice, and equity must be infused throughout all policy content areas.
Social work educators are encouraged to infuse applications and analyses of ethics, justice
and equity principles throughout all areas of social policy studies. Attention should be

given to access to services, equity of process and results, human rights, and civil and

18

constitutional rights. The ethics, justice, and equity should be explained within the context
of the various codes of ethics, including the NASW Code of Ethics (1999) (Zuniga, 1999).

As a result, to be culturally competent while analyzing and understanding social
policy, one must have knowledge and understanding of power and control. Power and
control theories must be addressed and applied to all areas of social policy. According to
Wartenberg (1990), “Power is one of the central phenomena of human social life” (p.9).
Ofien power has to do with influence and control at the individual level, group level,
organizational level, and institutional level. It is important that within social work
education that culture and cultural competence is discussed within the policy arena
(Takahashi, 2004).

A range of social policy models must be studied in terms of their implications for
and applications to diverse populations. Dye, (2002) states, “a model is a simplified
representation of some aspect of the real world” (p.1 1). He continues

that conceptual models for policy should simplify and clarify; our thinking about

politics and public policy, identify important aspects of policy problems, help us

to communicate with each other by focusing on essential features of political life;
direct our efforts to understand public policy better by suggesting what is
important and what is unimportant; and, suggest explanations for public policy

and predict its consequences (p.1 1).

Policy frameworks must include critical attention to multicultural diversity
throughout each step of the process. A significant competence area is the ability to
analyze social policy. Various frameworks for analysis are available, but many either do

not address human diversity factors or they do so to a limited degree. Providing a

19

framework and analysis process that includes sensitivity to diverse populations is
essential as students within social work programs must be introduced and taught analysis
as a social work skill that promotes advocacy (Takahashi, 2004).

Change orientations and approaches must be incorporated into policy so students
have the ability to translate knowledge into action. Social work educators should work
with students to identify a range of action-oriented strategies that will be effective in
promoting change. While putting knowledge into action, social workers should know
and understand areas that are stumbling blocks to change, particularly ones that affect
movement toward breaking down disparities and inequities. Educators should ensure this

is part of the policy curriculum (Takahashi, 2004).

Research Content

Another area within social work curricula is social work research. While the
literature on social work education has paid increasing attention to how multiculturalism
might impact social work practice (Schlesinger & Devore, 1995) and to HBSE curricula
(Green, 1994; Queralt, 1996), much less space has been devoted to contemplating how a
commitment to diversity and justice might alter how we teach social work research
methods (Ewalt, 1994). Some might argue that, aside from testing the validity and
reliability of measures and constructs across cultural groups, scientific inquiry has little to
do with the “politics” of multiculturalism and justice. Psychometric and construct
validity issues often do come into play in multicultural research, however, what is

suggested is that taking seriously the professions twin commitments to honoring cultural

20

diversity and addressing social injustice can have more profound implications for how we
perform and teach social inquiry (Uehara, 1996).

A valid suggestion is to adopt a critical multicultural framework which suggests
five major content themes within social work research curricula. First, are the uses of
critical perspectives to better understand culture, within social work research? A crucial
task of transforrnative multicultural research curriculum is to show problem issues that
have been overlooked in the area of culture and cultural studies. At times within social
work, culture is conceived as a neutral and static analytic category, with little
acknowledgement of the political and historical context within which cultural
relationships among groups is structured and perpetuated. It is for this reason that social
work education provides the framework for culture within the historical and political
context (Uehara, Sohng, Nagda, Erera, & Yamashiro, 2004).

Critical multicultural inquiry occurs through a social process that is essentially
dialectic and dialogic. The task of research education is not to produce research
technicians with good dialogic skills, but rather to educate justice activists, highly skilled
in intergroup dialogue, with good technical skills. Thus, in contrast to more traditional
social work research curricula, a transforrnative multicultural curriculum treats the
capacity to engage in intergroup dialogues as core research competency (Uehara, Sohng,
Nagda, Erera, & Yamashiro, 2004).

Participatory action research is also a suggested practice within multicultural
research. Conventionally, relationships within the research enterprise are hierarchically
structured, with the research directing the exchange and controlling knowledge

production. The power of the researcher in directing and controlling knowledge

21

production must be looked at. The power relations that exist in the researcher-subject
relationship reveals not a simple hierarchy, but a complex power relationship created
around expertise, knowledge, and science. In a power sensitive and dialogic process,
research reconfigures relations between the researcher and subject through participatory
democracy in the research process (Gaventa, 1988; Hall, 1981). If power is about who
effectively makes decisions, and if knowledge is linked to power, then who controls the
process of inquiry?

Antidiscrimination and anti-oppression inquiries provide an introduction of
critical culture theories in social work research curriculum and prepare students to rethink
research from a critical multicultural perspective. Specifically, such content can help
research students move beyond study questions primarily focused on understanding the
culture of others toward questions primarily aimed at addressing oppression in its
numerous, tangible forms and manifestations. To refine skills in intergroup dialogue,
social work students must be introduced to the range of theories, studies, and methods
relevant to formulating and conducting anti-oppression research. In developing this
content, social work research educators are fortunate to be able to draw upon helpful case
examples and increasingly sophisticated empirical methods while teaching students.
Strengthening the link between social inquiry and social action is a critical educational
task which shows students the link between critical, participatory action research and
social change. Some critical theorists would argue that by challenging existing ways of
viewing the world, critical inquiry itself constitutes social change. Others suggest that
critical inquiry creates such a forceful picture of current injustices that action is
compelled. (Uehara, Sohng, Nagda, Erera, & Yamashiro, 2004).

22

Field Education

Social work field education is the unique opportunity for students to integrate
theory learned in the classroom into practice in a social service practice setting. The
integration of social work educational requirements and field-based skill acquisition is
the result of a close interaction between social work faculty and a qualified field
practicum instructor who can facilitate student learning and development (VanSoest,
2004). Field education has the potential to provide unique opportunities for students to
integrate theory and practice in the development of practice competencies, including
cultural competencies. While integrating cultural competent content within field
education curricula, the process of infusion can also represent some of the greatest
challenges for professional social work education to attempt to develop an effective
multicultural curriculum that reaches into the practicum setting.

An integrated educational framework provides a way to successfully achieve the
professional mandates of CSWE and the NASW Code of Ethics in the area of cultural
competence within field education. Based on Gil (1998), the two-pronged goal would be
to prepare social workers to provide culturally competent and nonoppressive services
while addressing oppressive and unjust systems, and working toward nonoppressive and
just alternatives. Gil suggests a coherent framework for multicultural field curriculum is
one that addresses historical content from all groups that include people of color, women,
people who identify as gay/lesbian/bisexual, people with disabilities, and people
distinguished by social class, age, nationality, and religion. It is proposed that an
educational field framework integrates cultural diversity and social justice curriculum

content by addressing 12 principles which fall under four main themes. The four main

23

themes are racism and oppression, multiple identities and oppression, culturally
competent practice, and social change (VanSoest, 2004).

While integrating a multicultural framework within social work field education, it
is important for field educators to look at the issues students face within field education.
Because students in field are in actual practice situations, multicultural issues can arise in
any of the various aspects of the field practicum, including field instruction, supervision
of students, placement sites, client systems, and many others (VanSoest, 2004). In
addition, it is important to carry the multicultural framework into curriculum assignments
within the field seminar such as learning contracts, research and policy assignments, and
personal student joumaling (VanSoest, 2004).

Students should be prepared to practice within a diverse society because of the
multicultural curricula taught within CSWE accredited programs. With a curriculum
foundation that rests on the NASW Code of Ethics, social work students are prepared to
be members of a professional body of social workers and practice as culturally competent

social workers.

National Association of Social Workers

The NASW was established in 1955 through the consolidation of the following
seven organizations: American Association of Social Workers (AASW), American
Association of Psychiatric Social Workers (AAPSW), American Association of Group
Workers (AAGW), Association for the Study of Community Organization (ASCO),
American Association of Medical Social Workers (AAMSW), National Association of

School Social Workers (NASSW), and Social Work Research Group (SWRG). The

24

NASW is the largest membership organization of professional social workers in the
world, with 150,000 members. NASW’s primary functions include promoting the
professional development of its members, establishing and maintaining professional
standards of practice, advancing sound social policies, and providing services that protect
its members and enhance their professional status. The Association has also developed
and adopted the NASW Code of Ethics and other generalized and specialized practice

standards (NASW, 2007).

The NASW Code of Ethics is intended to serve as a guide to the everyday
professional conduct of social workers. This Code includes four sections. The first
Section, "Preamble," summarizes the social work profession’s mission and core values.
The second section, "Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics," provides an overview of the
Code's main functions and a brief guide for dealing with ethical issues or dilemmas in
social work practice. The third section, "Ethical Principles," presents broad ethical
principles, based on social work's core values that inform social work practice. The final
section, "Ethical Standards," includes specific ethical standards to guide social workers'

conduct and to provide a basis for adjudication (NASW, 2007).

Cultural competence and diversity of practice are supported within the NAS W
Code of Ethics. The Preamble to the current NASW Code of Ethics begins by stating:
“The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance human well-being and
help meet the basic human needs of all people with particular attention to the needs and
empowerment of people who are vulnerable, oppressed, and living in poverty." The

Code goes on to say, “Social workers are sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity, and

25

strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice"
(NASW, 2000, p. I). The following will show the areas within the Code of Ethics that
address cultural competence. Culture is mentioned in two ethical Standards:

Value: Social Justice

Ethical Principle: Social workers challenge social injustice.
This means social workers’ social change efforts seek to promote sensitivity to and
knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Examples of culturally
competent practice in the Code can be seen in Values and Ethical principles: (NASW,
2000)

Value: Dignity and Worth of the Person.

Ethical Principle: Social Workers respect the inherent dignity and worth of the

person.

This value states that social workers treat each person in a caring and respectful
fashion, mindful of individual difference, and cultural and ethnic diversity (NASW, 2000).

The word competence is used to imply having the capacity to function effectively
within the context of culturally integrated patterns of human behavior defined. by the group.

In the Code of Ethics, competence is discussed in several ways. First as a value of
the profession:

Value: Competence

Ethical Principle: Social Workers practice within their areas of competence and

development, and embrace their professional expertise.

26

This value encourages social workers to continually strive to increase their
professional knowledge and skills, and to apply them in practice. Social workers should

aspire to contribute to the knowledge base of the profession (NASW, 2000).

Second, competence is discussed as an ethical Standard:
1.04 Competence

Social workers should provide services and represent themselves as competent
only within the boundaries of their education, training, license, certification, consultation
received, supervised experience, or other relevant professional experience. Social
workers should provide services in substantive areas, or use intervention techniques or
approaches that are new to them only after engaging in appropriate study, training,
consultation, and supervision from people who are competent in those interventions or

techniques (NASW, 2000).

NASW instructs social work practitioners that when generally recognized overall
standards do not exist with respect to an emerging area of practice, social workers should
exercise careful judgment and take responsible steps (including appropriate education,
research, training, consultation, and supervision) to ensure the cultural competence of
their work and to protect clients from harm. Noting that cultural competence is never
firlly realized, achieved, or completed, it is important that social workers embrace cultural
competence as a lifelong process. In addition to client-worker interaction, cultural
competence is important within the supervision process. Supervisors and workers should
have the expectation that cultural competence is an ongoing learning process integral and

central to daily supervision (NASW, 2000).

27

In support of cultural competence in social work practice, NASW documents five
essential elements that contribute to a system‘s ability to become more culturally
competent. The system should 1) value diversity; 2) have the capacity for cultural self-
assessment; 3) be conscious of the dynamics inherent when cultures interact;

4) institutionalize cultural knowledge; and, 5) develop programs and services that reflect
an understanding of diversity between and within cultures. These five elements must be
manifested in every level of the service delivery system. They should be reflected in
attitudes, structures, policies, and services. The specific Ethical Standard for culturally
competent social work practice is contained under Section 1. Social workers’ ethical
responsibilities to clients include (NASW, 2000):

1.05 Cultural Competence and Social Diversity

Social work should understand culture and its functions in human behavior and society,
recognizing the strengths that exist in all cultures. Social workers should have a
knowledge base of their clients‘ cultures and be able to demonstrate competence in the
provision of services that are sensitive to clients' cultures and to differences among
people and cultural groups. Social workers should obtain education about and seek to
understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with respect to race, ethnicity,
national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion,
and mental or physical disability. The Code reemphasizcs the importance of cultural

competence in the last section of the Code (NASW, 2000).

Section 6. Social Workers Ethical Responsibilities to the Broader Society.

The specific goals of the Standards state social workers are:

28

To maintain and improve the quality of culturally competent services provided by
social workers and programs delivered by social service agencies.

To establish professional expectations so that social workers can monitor and
evaluate their culturally competent practice.

To provide a framework for social workers to assess culturally competent
practice.

To inform consumers. governmental regulatory bodies, and others, such as
insurance carriers, about the profession’s Standards for culturally competent
practice.

To establish specific ethical guidelines for culturally competent social work
practice in agency or private practice settings.

To provide documentation of professional expectations for agencies, peer review
committees, state regulatory bodies, insurance carriers, and others (NASW, 2000).

As NASW has provided guidance through the Code of Ethics on cultural

competence, it also goes on to define cultural competence as the process by which

individuals and systems respond respectfully and effectively to people of all cultures,

languages, classes, races, ethnic backgrounds, religions, and other diversity factors in a

manner that recognizes, affirms, and values the worth of individuals, families, and

communities, and protects and preserves the dignity of each. The importance of cultural

competence starts with individuals, but carries beyond. “Cultural competence is a set of

congruent behaviors, attitudes, and policies that come together in a system or agency or

among professional and enable the system, agency, or professionals who work effectively

in cross-cultural situations" (NASW, 2000b, p. 61).

29

The EPAS established by the C SWE are parallel to the practice policy and
standards passed by the NASW. Both emphasize cultural competencies that must be
garnered and honed for competent social work practice with diverse populations. The
NASW’s Standards for Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice (2001) is especially
noteworthy because it provides the specifics for application and implementation.
Developed by NASW’s National Committee on Racial and Ethnic Diversity (NCORED),
these Standards were approved and passed by the NASW Board of Directors on June 23,
2001. They include definitions of key words, including culture, competence and cultural
competence. Regarding culture, the NASW (2000) states, “the word ‘culture’ is used
because it implies the integrated pattern of human behavior that includes thoughts
communications, actions, customs, beliefs, values, and institutions of a racial, ethnic,
religious, or social group” (p.61).

The Standards for Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice are defined in 10
Standards. Since the NASW published its Standards for Cultural Competence in Social
Work Practice, social workers and social work organizations have utilized the
multicultural framework to promote respect for and appreciation of diversity. The
NCORED members wrote, revised, and finalized the Standards, which were approved by
the NASW National Board of Directors in June 2001.

The NASW Cultural Competence Standards are as follows:
Standard 1. Ethics and Values

Social workers shall function in accordance with the values, ethics, and Standards

of the profession, recognizing how personal and professional values may conflict

with or accommodate the needs of diverse clients.

30

Standard 2. Self-Awareness
Social workers shall seek to develop an understanding of theiriown personal,
cultural values and beliefs as one way of appreciating the importance of
multicultural identities in the lives of people.

Standard 3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
Social workers shall have and continue to develop specialized knowledge and
understanding about the history, traditions, values, family systems, and artistic
expressions of major client groups that they serve.

Standard 4. Cross-Cultural Skills
Social Workers use appropriate methodological approaches, skills, that reflect an
understanding of the role of culture in the helping process.

Standard 5. Service Delivery
Social workers shall be knowledgeable about and skillful in the use of services
available in the community and broader society and be able to make appropriate
referrals for their diverse clients.

Standard 6. Empowerment and Advocacy
Social workers shall be aware of the effect of social policies and programs on
diverse client populations, advocating for and with clients whenever appropriate.

Standard 7. Diverse workforce
Social workers shall support and advocate for recruitment, admissions and hiring,
and retention efforts in social work programs and agencies that ensure diversity

within the profession.

31

Standard 8. Professional Education

Social workers shall advocate for and participate in educational and training

programs that help advance cultural competence within the profession.
Standard 9. Language Diversity

Social workers shall seek to provide or advocate for the provision of information,

referrals, and services in the language appropriate to the client, which may include

use of interpreters.
Standard 10. Cross-Cultural Leadership

Social Workers shall be able to communicate information about diverse client

groups to other professionals.

The NASW Standards on Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice were first
presented in draft form to NASW members attending a Town Hall Meeting sponsored by
NCORED during Social Work 2000, in Baltimore, Maryland. At this meeting, NASW
members requested that NCORED follow up their accomplishments by developing outcome
measures that could serve as guideposts for achieving levels of cultural competency by social
workers. The discussion centered on the need for self-assessment tools for individual social
workers, for supervisors to be able to assess their social work employees’ cultural
competency levels, and for agency administrators to understand how culturally competent
their services are. The same issue was also raised during the public comment period for the
Standards. NCORED states “we have anecdotal information that faculty in schools of
social work are also striving to teach cultural competency skills and that many are using the
NASW Standards in their efforts” (NASW, 2005). Although, the larger body of faculty is
teaching cultural competence, little has been done to assess skill level.

32

After the development of the Standards of cultural competence, a historical
accomplishment for the profession, NCORED drafted indicators for each cultural
competence Standard. The NASW Board of Directors has provided comments and
feedback on the draft document. The indicators for cultural competence in social work
practice are grounded on the principles, standards, and values specified in the NASW and
social work profession’s mission, NAS W Code of Ethics (1999), and NASW Standards
for Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice (2001 ). Consistent with these
foundations, the indicators help make practical precisely what NASW’s Preamble to the
Code of Ethics says: “. . . social workers are sensitive to cultural and ethnic diversity and
strive to end discrimination, oppression, poverty, and other forms of social injustice. . . .”
(NASW Code of Ethics, 1999, p. 1). The indicators (Appendix B) focus on the
achievement of culturally competent practice at all levels and are infused and integrated

throughout all areas of practice.

Social Work Licensure

Social work is a licensed profession which ensures that social workers practice
competently. One area of competency monitored through licensure and continued
education is cultural competence.

The Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) is the body of professionals
that regulate social work licensed practice. The ASWB develops and maintains the social
work licensing examination used across the country, and is a central resource for
information on the legal regulation of social work. Through the association, social work

boards can share information and work together. ASWB is also available to help social

33

workers and social work students with questions they may have about licensing and the
social work examinations (Social Work Exam Services, 2005).

The purpose of licensing and certification in social work is to assist the public
through identification of standards for the safe professional practice of social work. Each
jurisdiction defines by law what is required for each level of social work licensure.
Typically, there are four categories of practice that jurisdictions may legally regulate
which are developed and maintained by the ASWB social work licensure examinations:
Bachelors, Masters, Advanced Generalist, and Clinical. Each examination contains 170
four-option multiple choice questions designed to measure minimum competencies at
each of the four categories of practice (Social Work Exam Services, 2005).

The social work licensure examination contains content in Human Development
and Behavior in the Environment, Diversity and Social/Economic Justice (Diversity,
Assessment, Diagnosis, and Treatment Planning), Direct and Indirect Practice,
Professional Relationships, Professional Values and Ethics, Supervision, and Practice
Evaluation and the Utilization of Research. The ASWB includes diversity content within
national licensure exams, recognizing cultural competent practice as essential to
practicing social workers and an element to evaluate through the examination process.
Key components that support culturally competent social work practice include history,
legal considerations, theoretical approaches, generalizable principles of culturally
competent practice, and information about particular social and cultural groups. Each of
these components are addressed within the social work licensure exam. Questions within

the social work licensing exam specific to cultural competence include content on the

34

principles of culturally competent social work practice within three distinct arenas:
knowledge, skills, and attitudes (Social Work Exam Services, 2005).

When addressing the acquisition of knowledge in culturally competent social
work practice, the examination insures practitioners know relevant practice as defined in
scientific professional literature as it relates to specific groups. Questions within the
exam address social workers as individuals who should familiarize themselves with best
practices of cross cultural practice and if need be consult with cultural brokers (Social
Work Exam Services, 2005).

Language and communication questions within the social work licensing exam
that pertain to cultural competence include knowing the importance of learning the
language, using interpreters, learning syntax, and forming relationships across different
people groups. Licensing recognizes the importance of identifying major community,
religious, and social organizations that assist social workers as they work with the
world’s various groups. Knowing and having relationships with key members within
cross cultural settings are invaluable resources to the practicing social worker (Social
Work Exam Services, 2005).

Licensing filrther identifies the use of culturally competent skills while
interviewing, conducting an assessment, constructing a treatment plan, providing
interventions, evaluating, and terminating within the context of the personal culture of
each client. When addressing social work attitudes, the social work examination asks
questions pertaining to personal awareness of the practitioner’s heritage, values, beliefs
and biases, and also questions addressing a respect and comfort with difference in clients,

co-workers, and communities (Social Work Exam Services, 2005).

35

The CSWE, NASW and ASWB provide structure in defining cultural competence,
educating students in cultural competence, providing Standards as a benchmark and
licensing social workers to practice culturally competent social work. Cultural competence
content within the licensing examination is gleaned from historical publications and from
current scholars in social work and social work education. Scholars continue to address

cultural competence in research studies from a variety of substantive areas.

Key Studies in Cultural Competence

Within social work literature there is a broad consensus on the need for social
workers to prioritize matters of culture while providing services. A number of texts and
training materials promoting culturally competent practice have emerged during the past
two decades (Cross, Bazron, Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989; Devore & Schlesinger, 1996;
Green, 1982; Lum, 1999; Orlandi, 1992; Roberts et al., 1990; Sue, 1990). The effort to
achieve culturally competent practice has been declared "a journey whose time has come"

(Lum, p. 175).

In addition to training materials and educational texts, various research studies
have been published within the last decade in the area of cultural competence and social
work education, highlighting cultural issues in field education supervision, agency
culture, field seminar, and social work faculty who prepare the student for culturally
competent practice (Devore & Schlesigner 1999; Lum, 1992; Ho, 1987; Green; 1982;
Garcia & VanSoest, 1999; Weaver, 1999; Messinger, 2004). The following key research
studies are in the area of cultural competence within social work education. The

populations highlighted in the studies are Native American students, gay and lesbian

36

students and their experience in field education, and facilitating learning on diversity, a
challenge to the social work professor. Each of these studies provides a voice to
individuals and/or groups that have historically been oppressed and provide studies with a

unique look into current literature on cultural competence.

Betty Garcia and Dorothy Van Soest have published many articles (1997; 1999;
2000a; 2000b; 2003) on culture and diversity within social work practice and education.
The article reviewed, Facilitating Learning on Diversity: Challenges to the Professor
(2000) focuses on faculty responses to critical classroom incidents related to race and the
importance of faculty being sensitive to issues of racism in order to effectively handle
such situations. Discussion addresses teaching challenges and approaches for addressing
issues of diversity, oppression, and difference when they trigger student conflict and

strained classroom interaction.

The challenges and dynamics of teaching cultural diversity content within social
work education is the center of the work done by Garcia and Van Soest. While all
learning acknowledges emotion related to personal adjustments as students absorb new
content (Brookfield, 1990), diversity content often arouses unexamined feelings about
difference. The effect evoked in students places heightened pressure and responsibility
on faculty to be responsive to process issues that include students’ emotional as well as
learning needs. Critical thinking skills can be valuable in assisting faculty while they
facilitate intensive class discussions while maintaining a focus on learning (Garcia & Van

Soest, 2000). Traditional pedagogical methods, such as stating a clear conceptual

37

framework with which to interpret and guide class discussion, can aid faculty in facing
the emotional challenges unique to diversity issues (Lowman, 1995).

An exploratory study was conducted to investigate responsiveness to critical
events related to racism that occur in the classroom. Critical events were present in the
form of vignettes to which participants were asked to respond. A critical event is defined
as a significant classroom episode that is characterized by intense or conflictual
interaction between students and/or faculty. The vignettes were adapted from events that
actually occurred in university classrooms, two of which were identified in a previous
study (Garcia & Van Soest, 1999). The event represents a “teachable moment” in which
student growth and Ieaming can be facilitated. Since the critical events dealt with racism,
a sensitivity to racism scale was developed to measure participants’ sensitivity to racism.
Sensitivity to racism is defined as an ability to be aware of and to understand various
personal, social and institutional manifestations of racism (Garcia & Van Soest, 2000).

The instrument used was a two-part questionnaire that included four vignettes of
classroom critical incidents and a 15-item Assumptions About Racism scale. One open-
ended response item inquired about faculty concerns regarding their responses to the
vignettes. Participants were provided with five possible responses to the critical events.
The five optional responses were used as measures of the cross-cultural competence
model developed by Cross, Bazron, Dennis, and lssacs (1989). Responses represented a
harrn-to-help continuum with five levels. Level 1, cultural destructiveness, involves
colluding and harrn-doing through the use of humor, Level 2, cultural incapacity,
represents an inability to use the event as Ieaming experience for the class; Level 3,

cultural blindness, takes a position of neutrality rather than examining issues of race

38

directly; Level 4, cultural pre-competence, attempts to address the issue with
confrontational tactics; and Level 5, cultural competence, attempts to address the issue in
an open way in order to transform it into a teachable moment (Garcia & Van Soest,
2000). In reviewing the scale in this study it is important to state the levels used do not
seem to align with the sensitive work the researchers are addressing. Evaluation of
cultural competence is a sensitive undertaking and the levels in this study are strong and
absolute. Although research in the area of cultural competence is valuable in social work
education, the levels described in this study's scale display a lack of sensitivity.

The authors of the study (Garcia & Van Soest, 2000) state they found that the faculty
surveyed in their study show similarities of social work faculty in general. The profile is
female, seasoned, and tenured or in a tenure track position. The greater number of
women is representative of social work faculty, while the large portions who were 50
years of age and older (47%) is in fact larger than one might expect, even with national
statistics showing many tenured faculty approaching retirement. It is notable that 81%
had more than 5 years experience teaching and 60% had prior experience in teaching
diversity content (Garcia & Van Soest, 2000).

Garcia and Van Soest state that while the vignettes of classroom incidents and
sensitivity to racism instrument may be useful as one way to assess cultural competence
of faculty, two limitations to the study need to be discussed. First, responses to real life
classroom critical incidents are undoirbtedly more complex than the vignette instrument
in this study tests. Second, there was a risk of social desirability bias on both
measurements. Thus, limitations of this kind of approach for gauging faculty

competencies in addressing diversity content need to be recognized. While the data

39

resulting from this study are limited, they do reflect some beginning comprehension of
faculty differences related to diversity and racism (Garcia & Van Soest, 2000).

The work done in cultural competence and diversity within social work education
by Garcia and Van Soest has led social work educators to address sensitive areas not
addressed in the past. Garcia and Van Soest’s study represents a practical approach in
evaluating classroom discussions and activities around diversity and cultural competence.
This study provides merit by addressing what are often categorized as problem issues into
everyday vignettes and “teachable moments”. Garcia and Van Soest challenge all social
work educators to address uncomfortable situations with an academic solution and
challenge students to discuss differences in thought, action, and philosophy openly and
grow fiom the experience. This study also challenges social work educators to address
their personal pedagogy while teaching diversity content, and encourages educators to
evaluate how their personal beliefs impact teaching.

A study done by Lori Messinger (2004) provides information in the area of sexual
orientation issues in field placement by system levels. Messinger (2004) looks
specifically at the gay or lesbian student and each experience in field practicum. Students
identified individual issues that include managing disclosure of sexual orientation,
identity development concerns, pressures associated with hiding one’s sexual orientation,
professionalism as a gay or lesbian person, and general feelings of lack of safety or
anxiety as part of the field experience. Students identified interpersonal issues which
included homophobic attitudes and behaviors, heterosexist attitudes and behaviors,
unfiiendly climate of placement, conflicts in intimate relationships, conflicts with field

instructors, and general feelings of lack of safety or anxiety as interpersonal issues within

40

the practicum setting. And lastly, student identified institutional issues included
homophobic attitudes and behaviors, heterosexist attitudes and behaviors, an absence of
gay and lesbian issues, unfriendly climate in placement, and general feel of lack of safety
or anxiety as issues from an institutional perspective (p.192). Messinger concludes,
“these findings illuminate the specific issues faced by gay and lesbian students in field
placement--issues rooted not only in the personal strengths and weaknesses of the gay
and lesbian student, but also in the often heterosexist and homophobic perspectives
pervading social work professional education and service delivery” (p.202).

The project was conducted in two phases in a pilot study with a convenience
sample of current graduate students enrolled at one social work program who were part of a
sexual minority support group. The criteria for participation were that the student had self-
identified as lesbian or gay and had completed at least one field experience. (Messinger,
.2004) The researcher conducted semi-structured interviews with the gay and lesbian
participants. Interviews lasted anywhere fiom 1-1.5 hours and were conducted in person or
over the telephone. All interviews were tape recorded and transcribed. The researcher took
detailed notes during the interviews providing an alternative source of data if sections of
the tape recording were unclear (Messinger, 2004).

The findings and direct student quotations illuminate the specific issues faced by
gay and lesbian students in field placement. The students interviewed as part of the
project were very diverse as to their age, race and ethnicity, length of time that each self-
identified as lesbian/ gay, comfort level with their sexual orientation, general level of
outness, prior experiences with homophobia and heterosexism, and level of disclosure in

field. Themes that emerged recognized the older student and the student who had been

41

out longer were not as surprised and expressed less emotion about their experiences of
discrimination. Those who were more newly out were generally more upset by
discrimination (Messinger, 2004).

Messinger’s (2004) work with gay and lesbian social work students offers the
profession a glimpse into the field education experience of a sample of gay/lesbian
students. This study provides a voice to the students’ personal experiences, their social
contexts of family and friends, their social work programs, and the social work agencies
at which they were placed. 8 At times these issues can be overlooked or minimized in the
context of field education, yet Messinger’s work challenges the Directors of Field, Field
Instructor’s and agencies to ensure gay and lesbian students’ experiences are not
overlooked and offer areas where social work educators can provide support.

Hilary N. Weaver, in the NASW Journal in 1999, published Indigenous People
and the Social Work Profession: Defining Cultural Competent Services. In order to
provide culturally competent services we must have culturally competent social workers.
Weaver writes, “striving for cultural competence is recognition of the profession’s
ethnocentric foundation” (p. 217). Weaver suggests that social work literature has moved
fiom cultural sensitivity to cultural competence, and the ability to integrate cultural
knowledge and sensitivity with skills for a more effective and culturally appropriate
helping process. The report highlights the results of a study of culturally competent
helping practices with Native Americans. Sixty-two Native American social workers
completed a questionnaire on knowledge, skills, and values necessary for culturally
competent service provision to Native American clients. Through a questionnaire, the

data provided answers to the following questions: What knowledge is necessary? What

42

skills are needed? and What values are associated with culturally competent services for
Native Americans? Weaver’s (1999) work builds on theoretical work on cultural
competence. “Researchers must find ways to measure cultural competence empirically,”
(p. 223) states Weaver. Weaver believes that studies that examine the beliefs of
indigenous clients and evaluate the actions of social workers will be important steps to
building this knowledge base. Studies with other cultural groups will provide and
develop an empirically based picture of cultural competence and better serve clients from

a variety of backgrounds (Weaver, 1999).

Using data from the CSWE, Weaver identified eight schools of social work that
had the highest number of Native American students. Questionnaires were distributed in
seven of the eight schools and two schools provided lists of graduates to whom
questionnaires were mailed. In addition, questionnaires were sent to the membership of
American Indian Social Work Educators’ Association, and snowball-sampling techniques
were used to identify other Native American social workers. An instructional cover letter
introduced the project and batches of questionnaires were sent to schools with a high
number of Native Americans (Weaver, 1999). The data was reviewed and categorized
according to themes. The themes that emerged from the data were classified into three
categories of knowledge, skills, and values. Four important areas of knowledge were
identified: diversity, history, culture, and contemporary realities. When looking at skills
for culturally competent social work with Native Americans the skills are not radically
different from those generally required for practice. The skill of being culturally

considerate was stated as important. Four major value themes emerged: 1. helper

43

wellness and self-awareness, 2. humility and willingness to learn, 3. respect, open-
mindedness and a non-judgmental attitude, and 4. social justice. Many respondents
called for social justice, which includes decolonization and an active acknowledgment of

oppression and the unique status of Native Americans (Weaver, 1999).

The findings confirm and expand the literature on culturally competent social
work with Native Americans. Theoretical and conceptual writings in this area generally
focus on culturally specific knowledge and skills tailored for this population. With the
exception of self-awareness, less has been written about values associated with culturally
competent social work with this population. In particular, the emphasis on social justice
in this study adds another dimension to the literature (Weaver, 1999). The data have
clear implications for practice in this study. The study provides culturally competent
suggestions for social work with Native American clients. A social worker must
understand and appreciate diversity among and within Native American populations.
Social workers must know the history, culture and contemporary realities of specific
Native American clients. Social workers have good general social work skills and strong
skills in patience, listening, and tolerance of silence. Social workers must be aware of his
or her own biases and need for wellness. Social workers must display humility and
willingness to learn, be nonjudgrnental, demonstrate open mindedness and be respectful.
Social Workers must value social justice and decolonize his or her own thought processes
(Weaver, 1999).

The strength of Weaver’s article is providing a voice to the Native American

social worker and in helping non Native American social workers understand the best

44

practices and clinical approaches to working with Native Americans. The study is
powerful and breaks barriers that have often gone unbroken. The questionnaire taps into
Native American social work students and provides a forum for them to be heard and
challenges social workers to integrate cultural knowledge and sensitivity with social work
skills for a more effective and culturally appropriate helping process. Although the study
gives many suggestions, the recommendation “to be quiet and listen” provides wisdom to
a profession that often receives accolades for its proactive problem solving skills.
Weaver’s article addresses the practicalities of cultural competence by knowing the
Native American cultural traditions and adapting to them (Weaver, 1999).

These key studies provide three varied scholarly works in the area of diversity.
All three challenge the social work profession in the level of knowledge, attitudes and
skills with diverse populations. Garcia and VanSoest look into social work classrooms
and faculty pedagogy, Messinger evaluates the field experience for gay and lesbian social
work student, and Weaver (1999) provides a look at service delivery to Native
American’s. Although varied, all three challenge social work and social work educators
to ensure the classroom, field and service delivery all rest on the knowledge, attitudes and

skills of the social work profession to bring about culturally competent social workers.

Summary

In Chapter II, the relevant literature was discussed highlighting the historical view
of cultural competence within social work, cultural competence expectations by the
C SWE, and a look at cultural competence within social work education, specifically course

content and field education. In addition, Chapter 11 highlights the NASW Code of Ethics

45

and the NASW Cultural Competence Standards and the cultural competence requirements
within social work licensing. Finally three key studies in cultural competence were

reviewed. The methodology used in the study is presented in Chapter III.

46‘

CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY

Epistemology

Over the years, many theoretical and conceptual, as well as ideological,
formulations were introduced to provide the foundation for social work practice. Since
its beginnings, social work has sought a scientific and theoretical base for its actions,
while ensuring that values and belief systems are part of the picture. The search for a
scientific theoretical base was accelerated when F lexner (191 5) criticized the social work
profession. He stated in no uncertain terms that social work was not a profession (because
there was an insufficient theoretical and knowledge base. The effort to respond to
Flexner led social work thinkers to explain the complexities of the human problems they
encountered within the context of social work practice. Flexner’s criticism continues to
challenge social work researchers today.

The branch of philosophy that is concerned with the origins of knowledge and its
development is epistemology (Hughes, 1999). Epistemology is the study of the nature of
knowledge which seeks to answer questions on what should count as knowledge, what
should be rejected, and what methods are appropriate for gaining the type of knowledge
that is desirable (Williams, 2006). Guba and Lincoln (1998) describe epistemology as
paradigms that encapsulate specific beliefs and worldviews which guide us in choosing
methods for social research. Similarly, an epistemological understanding of cultural
competence defines beliefs and worldviews which guide us in choosing methods for
investigating culture and working with it in practice.

47

Epistemological approaches used to address cultural competence in social work
include psychosocial, sociological, and political approaches, the problem-solving
frameworks, including task-centered casework, the social provision and structural approaches
in working with client groups (Devore & Schlesigner,(198l, 1987, 1991, 1999, Green, 1982;
Gutierrez, et. al, 2004; Ho, 1987; Norton's, 1978; Lum,l992 ) . All approaches have merit,
but for the purpose of this study a constructionist framework will be used.

Ensuring cultural competence within social work from the constructivist paradigm
requires addressing practice that is congruent with the behaviors and expectations that are
normative with the culture of the client (Green, 1995). Looking from an intra- and
intercultural perspective within the helping context affects the helping relationship and
provides opportunities for connection, estrangement, and distortions in the working
relationship. According to Weaver (1999), “Acknowledging these complexities,
constructivist cultural competence is implemented most precisely through the strategic
application of ethnocentrism to affirm particular cultural identities and create contexts
within which clients can seek and receive culturally appropriate services” (p.217).

The constructivist paradigm suggests that reality is constructed through social
interaction and dialogue. What we come to understand as knowledge is based on the
shared experiences of groups and is inextricably connected to the participants who are
involved in knowledge production (Guba & Lincoln, 1998). Deriving from social
psychology, the constructivist paradigm provides the context of knowing and interpreting
by recognizing that meanings arise in particular settings and traditions, and knowledge is
historically and culturally situated. In the process of socially constructing reality,

individuals interpret, assign meaning. and create assumptions about themselves, other

48

people, and the environment that provides the foundation for their knowledge of the
world (Greene, Joes, Frappier, Klien, & Culton, 1996). One’s cultural background is a
critical factor in the reality one co-constructs with others (Greene, Jensen, & Jones,
1996). Constructivist epistemology has been categorized by the schools of
constructivism and social constructionism (Held, 1995).

Constructivism is a theory of knowledge (Efran, Lukens, & Lukens, 1988). The
various Sohools of constructivism weave a common thread stating that there is not one
objective reality standing outside the individual knower (Carpenter, 1996; Rosen, 1996).
According to constructivism, people do not come to know the world in a passive way, but
actively formulate their understanding of the world as they interact with it. Individual
understanding of the world is determined by current personal beliefs which then
determine how individuals interpret, explain, and come to understand what their world
means. In addition, constructivism states that there is no such thing as an objective
observer of the world, because the act of observing changes the thing under observation;
reality is not discovered but created by individuals (Lyddon, I995).

Constructivism draws heavily from the work of Maturana and Varela (1992), who
concluded from the findings of their biological research that all systems are self-creating
and self-organizing. Knowledge development and change occurs when the system is
challenged by the environment and behavior is determined structurally, not
environmentally. A system's structure changes itself to accommodate for changes in the
environment while it also maintains itself within a personal environment (Elkaim, 1990).
From a constructivist perspective, therefore, knowledge development is unique to every

individual (Held, 1995), as systems are organizationally closed and autonomous.

49

The development of social constructionism came from the social psychology of
Gergen (1985), who elaborated the social psychology of Mead (1934). Social
constructionism emphasizes that our generation of knowledge and ideas of reality are
created by social processes more than individual processes (Gergen, 1994). According to
constructionism, "knowledge is not something people possess somewhere in their heads,
but rather, something people do together" (Gergen, 1985, p. 270). Individual objective
reality is in fact the product of social construction processes under the influence of
cultural, historical, political, and economic conditions. Since such knowledge is socially
constructed, it can vary historically over time and differ across cultural groups that hold
diverse beliefs about human development and nature. Given that values, norms, beliefs,
attitudes, traditions, and practices vary from one cultural group to another, so does the
social construction of knowledge (Gergen, 1985).

The constructivist theoretical framework can be used to operationalize the
therapeutic use of self with diverse clients. A frequent result of living in a diverse society
is the development of stereotypes and biases that become a part of one's unexamined
assumptions about reality. Such assumptions can interfere with effective cross-cultural
clinical social work practice if they continue to be taken for granted. In a constructivist
approach, the clinician's job is to keep the conversation going until the presenting
problem is known (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988). Continuing the conversation with
diverse clients involves skillfully bringing diversity and the issues of discrimination and
disempowennent into the therapeutic conversation. The clinician's awareness of the
different ways to use self ultimately allows the clients, rather than the clinician, to

construct reality or repair the stories and thus increase their sense of empowerment in a

50

valued ethnic context. Constructivism holds that people do not discover reality but rather
use language to construct a conception of reality through social interaction (Goolishian &
Winderman, 1988).

By using the constructivist theoretical framework within this study, the
importance of individual reality is given a voice. Cultural competence within social work
involves obtaining the knowledge and skills that support personal and professional values '

and attitudes while working with individuals different than ourselves.

Description of the Study

This study was conducted using a mixed method, sequential explanatory strategy
to inquire how culturally competent students are entering an MSW program, and where
does growth in cultural competence occur. Quantitative data collection and quantitative
data analysis were followed by qualitative data collection and qualitative data analysis.
An interpretative analysis was done of the whole. Mixed methods were employed to
expand an understanding from one method to another and to converge or confirm

findings from different data sources (Creswell, 2003).

QUAN 9 9 QUAN 9 9 Qual 9 9 Qual 9 9 Interpretation

Data Data Analysis Data Data Analysis of Entire Analysis
collection collection

Figure 1. Sequential Explanatory Strategy (Creswell, 2003)

51

The use of the sequential explanatory strategy, allowed the researcher the
opportunity to analyze quantitative data and qualitative data independent from one
another. In addition, it provided the use of quantitative and qualitative data in the
interpretation of the entire study analysis. This type of interpretive process is of major
importance when studying cultural competence as it allows for a variance in addressing
individual student response in the area of cultural competence. Providing the quantitative
data collection in the pre- and post-test provides two separate data points to assess and
compare. Collecting data through focus groups allows for qualitative expression that is
analyzed independent from the quantitative data, and is interpreted as part of the whole
(Creswell, 2003). In addition, the focus groups provide reflexivity to the researcher on

the student educational experience in cultural competence.

Sample

The target population for this study was full and part time social work students
entering a traditional MSW program at a large Midwest Research University in the fall of
2007. Full and part time students enrolled in the traditional program come from a variety
of geographic locations to attend social work classes in various buildings on the main
University campus and at an off campus college setting. Pre-test n=95, Post-test n=65,

Focus Group n=21.

Design and Procedures

To assist in formulating and finalizing the questionnaire used in this study, 25

students entering an MSW program the prior summer were asked to participate in

52

measuring their personal level of cultural competence and give feedback to the researcher
on the questionnaire tool. This group of incoming students and their feedback on the
cultural competence questionnaire provided a pilot group for this study. In addition to
answering the questionnaire questions, the students were asked to give a Likert-type scale
rating of between 1 (being low) and 5 (being high) to the following questions:
1. I found the questionnaire questions stated in a way that was understandable.
2. I found the rating scale (No experience, Minimally Competent, Moderately
Competent, Mostly Competent, Competent) easy to understand.
3. The rating scale (No experience, Minimally Competent, Moderately Competent,
Mostly Competent, Competent) fit the questions.
4. The personal characteristics and background page was easy to complete.
5. I found the length of time to complete the questionnaire acceptable.

6. I found the format of the questionnaire instrument to be user fiiendly.

The student feedback assisted the researcher in crafting a well-worded and student
friendly questionnaire. Changes that were made from student feedback included expanding
the geographic section of the demographic page to include the choice of a military family
upbringing, and changing question 34 in the questionnaire from an open ended question to
using the scale (no experience, minimal competence, moderate competence, mostly
competent, and competent) as is used in other areas of the questionnaire.

Following the Human Research Protection program (IRB), subjects were sought
during the MSW program orientation; incoming students were invited to participate in

research to evaluate cultural competence in MSW social work students. Each student

53

was given a form explaining the research project and asking for consent to participate.

All student participation was voluntary and students were instructed that if at any time
they wanted to discontinue the questionnaire or did not want to answer a specific question
that it was permissible.

Those volunteering to participate were given the opportunity to complete the
questionnaire (pre-test); seeking demographic information and asking that they answer a
34 question questionnaire on cultural competence. As students began the questionnaire
process they were asked to create a unique identifier number. To ensure confidentiality
for the students and to allow for matching pre- and post-test results, the unique identifier
number allowed for student anonymity while gauging their level of cultural competence
in each of the questionnaire questions. Each student was asked to answer the four
questions listed below to create their unique identifier. Students wrote their unique
identifier number at the top of the questionnaire. The four questions asked were:

1. What are the first two letters of your mother’s maiden name?

2. What are the last two digits of the year you graduated high school or finished your
GED? Example: 1983:83

3. How many siblings do you have? Example: 2= 02

4. What is the day portion of your date of birth? Example: February I, 1980 = 01
These four questions were again asked during the post-test portion of the study which
allowed the pre- and post-test data to be matched by the personal unique identifier.
Students were also asked their unique identifier preceding the focus groups to identify

demographics of student participants.

54

A student volunteer was identified prior to students beginning the pre-test and
other volunteers were identified in each of the post-test settings. The student volunteers
were asked to gather the questionnaires after they were complete and place them in a large
manila envelope. Once in the envelope, the student was asked to seal the envelope and
place their signature over the seal to ensure questionnaires were original and not altered.
Participation indicated informed consent, that is, the pre-test and post-test procedure did not
involve collecting signed informed consent statements as collecting the documents would
preclude the possibility of guaranteeing anonymity to student participants. The documents
were delivered to the researcher upon completion by the student volunteer. The
questionnaire took approximately 15 minutes for students to complete.

During the second to the last week of the fall semester, the post-test was
administered to students in their Human Behavior and Social Environment (HBSE)
classes (a required course during the fall semester). Three sections of HBSE completed
the post-test on the main campus, and two sections of HBSE completed the post-test on
the off campus site. Prior to participating in the post-test, students were invited to
participate firrther in the research of cultural competence in MSW students by
volunteering to be a member of a focus group in the following semester. Interested
students were asked to fill out a focus group participation sheet. The focus group
participation sheet was a separate sheet from the post-test so that answers on the post-test
could not be identified to individual students. Students were provided with a separate
sheet of paper to list contact information. Contact information requested included email

address, phone number and the best way to contact the student.

55

In the following semester, two focus groups were organized from students who
filled out forms to be a participant in a focus group to further research on evaluating
cultural competence in MSW students. Students were selected to the focus group
according to their personal availability. The participants in the focus groups were
presented with a focus group confidentiality form and were also asked to give their
unique identification number as they had done in both the pre- and post-tests.

Students participating in the focus groups were given a summary of collected data
from the pre- and post-test. The summary was organized to show student answers to
specific questions, and how students evaluated their level of competence as each aligned
with the NASW Cultural Competence Standards. Students were asked to respond to pre-
and post-test data by answering the following questions:

1. After reviewing the data gathered from the pre- and post-test, are there any
content areas that surprise you or on which you would like to comment?

2. Where did your Ieaming about cultural competence occur within your first
semester of MSW education?

3. Do you have program suggestions for the School to assist you in cultural

competence growth?

Instrumentation

Quantitative instrument

The questionnaire used in this study (see Appendix F) was designed by the researcher
to measure cultural competence in social work students as defined by the NASW Cultural
Competence Standards. The questionnaire consists of 34 questions on cultural competence

56

within the social work profession. Each question was created to measure one of the NASW
Cultural Competence Standards. Students were asked to circle no experience, minimally
competent, moderately competent, mostly competent and competent. The following
provides each Standard and the questions created to measure each Standard.
Standard 1
Ethics and Values: Social workers shall function in accordance with the values, ethics,
and Standards of the profession, recognizing how personal and professional values may
conflict with or accommodate the needs of diverse clients.
Question 1. I am familiar with the NAS W Code of Ethics, and function in
accordance with to the values, ethics and Standards of the profession in my social
work practice.
Question 1 1. I recognize how my personal and professional values may conflict
with or accommodate the needs of diverse populations.
Question 21. I am familiar with the NAS W Cultural Competence Standards and
practice social work in accordance with the Standards.
Standard 2
Self-Awareness: Social workers shall seek to develop an understanding of their own
personal, cultural values and beliefs as one way of appreciating the importance of
multicultural identities in the lives of people.
Question 2. I am aware of my own personal and cultural values and beliefs.
Question12. I recognize cultural values and beliefs that are different from my
own.

Question 22. I can recognize when my personal values and beliefs interfere with

57

providing the best services to clients.
Standard 3
Cross-Cultural Knowledge: Social workers shall have and continue to develop
specialized knowledge and understanding about the history, traditions, values, family
systems, and artistic expressions of major client groups that they serve.
Question 3. I understand the history of oppression that has occurred within some
diverse populations.
Question 13.1 understand family systems within a variety of cultural contexts.
Question 23. I am aware of traditions, values, and artistic expressions within
diverse populations.
Standard 4
Cross-Cultural Skills: Social Workers use appropriate methodological approaches, skills,
that reflect an understanding of the role of culture in the helping process.
Question 4. I am skilled at attending to verbal responses of clients of various
cultures.
Question 14. I am skilled at attending to non-verbal responses of clients of various
cultures.
Question 24. I am skilled at completing a client assessment by attending to the
culturally relevant needs of the client.
Question 31. I am skilled at completing a treatment plan by attending to the

culturally relevant needs of the client.

58

Standard 5
Service Delivery: Social workers shall be knowledgeable about and skillful in the use of
services available in the community and broader society and be able to make appropriate
referrals for their diverse clients.
Question 5. I am skilled at identifying formal resources tailored to the culturally
relevant needs of the client.
Question 15. I am skilled at evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of resources
in the community.
Question 32. I am skilled at making appropriate referrals within the community
tailored to the culturally relevant needs of the client.
Standard 6
Empowerment and Advocacy: Social workers shall be aware of the effect of social
policies and programs on diverse client populations, advocating for and with clients
whenever appropriate.
Question 6 I am aware of the effect that social policies have on diverse
populations.
Question 16 I am aware of the effect that social programs have on
diverse populations.
Question 26. I participate in social advocacy and social action to better empower

diverse populations.

59

Standard 7
Diverse Workforce: Social workers shall support and advocate for recruitment,
admissions and hiring, and retention efforts in social work programs and agencies that
ensure diversity within the profession.
Question 7. I support the need for a diverse workforce within social service
agencies.
Question 17. I am aware of the diversity hiring policies within my agency.
Question 27. I participate in advocacy efforts toward a diverse workforce.
Standard 8
Professional Education: Social workers shall advocate for and participate in educational
and training programs that help advance cultural competence within the profession.
Question 8. I actively support professional education that advances cultural
competency within the profession.
Question 18. I have taken one or more courses and have gained knowledge and
skills in diversity.
Question 28. I have attended one or more diversity trainings and have gained
knowledge and skills in diversity.
Standard 9
Language Diversity: Social workers shall seek to provide or advocate for the provision of
information, referrals, and services in the language appropriate to the client, which may
include use of interpreters.
Question 9. I understand that language is part of the total identity of a client.
Question 19 I provide referrals to agencies that provide bi-lingual services.

60

Question 29 I advocate for the rights of individuals and groups to receive
resources in their own language.
Question 33 I ensure that information provided to clients is in their first language.
Standard 10
Cross-Cultural Leadership: Social Workers shall be able to communicate informational
about diverse client groups to other professionals.
Question 10 1 model culturally competent behavior in my professional
interactions.
Question 20 I take leadership roles within the profession to promote cultural
competence.
Question 30 I advocate for fair and equitable treatment for diverse groups in and

outside of the profession.

Qualitative Design and Measures

In addition to the 34 closed-ended questions asked on the cultural competence
questionnaire, students were prompted to provide open-ended content with the request to,
“please give your definition of culture”. Thisiitem was to facilitate exploratory research
about student definitions and understandings of culture.

The second qualitative aspect of this study was a focus group. A focus group is a
qualitative research technique in which a group of people are asked about their attitude
towards an identified topic. Questions are asked in an interactive group setting in which
participants are free to talk with other group members (Morgan, 1997). Within this study

the researcher facilitated two focus groups with students that volunteered to participate in

61

further study about cultural competence. Nine weeks after students completed the post-
test portion of the study two focus groups were convened. The two focus groups were

facilitated at campus locations where students attended classes.

Validity of Quantitative Measure

The goal of using quantitative methodology within this mixed-method study was
to create a valid, reliable scale that allowed for statistical analysis of students’ self-reports
about their individual level of cultural competence. The Cultural Competence Scale is a
new tool crafted for this study. Using the NASW Cultural Competence Standards (2003)
as the foundation for the scale, items were created to measure multi-faceted indicators for
each of the ten Standards.

Using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) subscales, formed by
combining items related to specific Standards, were examined with Cronbach’s alpha.
Each subscale was tested to determine the internal reliability of the items within it. These
analyses were used to determine the alpha coefficient for each cultural competence
Standard and examine the relative contribution of individual items to subscale reliability.
Subscale alphas ranged from a low of alpha = .64 to a high of alpha = .86. All subscales
fell within acceptable values for scale internal reliability (Ott, 2001). Face validity was
determined through the pilot study prior to this study. Participant feedback validated
scale content and item relevance within the cultural competence questionnaire.

To evaluate the qualitative content area of the questionnaire, the definition of
culture, this researcher reviewed each definition given by students and identified themes

reflected in the definitions. After major dimensions of the culture definitions were

62

established by the investigator, a second post-graduate research assistant was trained to
distinguish among the identified eight themes. The research assistant was directed to
examine each culture definition and code for the presence or absence of each theme.

Upon completion of the rating task by the second rater, a procedure was used to
establish the level of inter-rater reliability. Code assignments made by each rater were
compared. An observed percentage level of agreement was calculated by comparing the
themes assigned to each definition. This extent of agreement was high but fell below the
desired inter-rater reliability of 80% or better. After further discussion and evaluation of
the differences in assigned themes, a consistent source of disagreement between raters
was identified.

To ensure validity and reliability while facilitating focus groups, a two person
procedure was used which included this researcher as the facilitator and a second person
as a recorder. Whenever a student answer was not clear to either the facilitator or the
recorder, a clarifying question was asked. In addition, student responses were recorded
on a flip chart and a chalkboard which provided a process to double-check answers given

by student participants with answers recorded for the purpose of the study.

Approach to Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic questions. Associations
between variables having an ordinal or interval levels of measurement were examined
using correlations with the ten Cultural Competence Standards subscales created from the
34-item cultural competence items. Pearson r coefficients were computed to evaluate the

nature and strength of relationships among demographic variables of age, social work

63

experience and social work education and levels of reported cultural competence.
Student’s t-test for two independent samples and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)
statistical tests for demographic variables with three or more subgroup categories were
used to examine differences on overall cultural competence score and subscores. A
paired t-test was used to examine changes over time between self-reported cultural
competence scores measured at me and post-test.

For all statistical tests a probability level of .05 was considered statistically
significant. Tests of significance were run as two-tailed for hypotheses one and two
because these hypotheses did not specify the nature of differences or associations. One-
tailed tests of significance were used for hypothesis two because specific groups were

identified as potentially having higher levels of cultural competence.

Summary

Chapter III contained a discussion of the study.’ 3 epistemology and methodology,
subjects and sampling, procedures, instrumentation, and data analysis. Analysis results
and study findings are presented in Chapter IV. These results include a detailed
description of participant characteristics, general findings, and results of inferential

statistical tests of the research hypotheses.

64

Chapter IV

RESULTS

Overview

The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the level of reported cultural
competence of students entering an MSW program and to see if there is a reported level
of change in their cultural competence after completing one semester of MSW education.
In addition, this study evaluated if demographic variables such as race and ethnicity,
sexual orientation, disability, a reported faith other than Christian, and no reported faith
impact a student’s level of reported cultural competence. Also evaluated is whether
students who were raised in the inner city, in an international setting, a military setting, or
are an international student’s impact reported level of cultural competence.

Ninety-Five students completed a pre-test at MSW orientation to evaluate their
own levels of cultural competence. Of these 95, over two-thirds of the pre-test sample
(n=65). of students also participated in a post-test after their first semester of MSW
education to self-report their Cultural Competence. Twenty-one students participated in a
focus group nine weeks after completing the post-test to discuss cultural competence in

social work education.

65

Characteristics of the Study Sample

The study sample included 83 women (87.4%) and 9 men (9.5%) and was
composed of participants representing a wide age range, 21 years - 67 years. The mean
age was 30.7 years with the largest percentage (14.3%) being 22 years.

Of the 95 students who participated in the pre-test portion of the study, 17
identified as African American (17.9%), 1 Latino (1.1%), 2 Middle Eastern (2.1%), 1
First Nations, (1.1%), three identified as Bi-racial (3.2%), and five identified as other
ethnicity (5.5%) which included East Indian, French/Irish, Greek American, and Mexican
American. Sixty-six students (69.5%) identified as Caucasian Americans.

Seven students self-identified as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT)
(7.7%) and 5 students reported having a disability (5.5%). Of the students questioned, 54
identified with the Christian faith (56.8%), 30 identified with no faith (31.5%), and 5
identified with a diverse faith (5.5%) which included Hindu, Muslim, and Jew.

With respect to the geographic locations and communities where students were
raised, 15 students (15.8 %) grew up in an Urban, big city, 16 were raised in an Urban,
inner city (16.8%), 3 reported living with their family in a military setting (3.2%), 3
reported living as a US citizen in an international setting (3.2%), 2 report being
international students (2.1%), 38 reported growing up in a rural setting (40%), and 40

reported being raised in a suburban community/area (42.1%).

To better understand the level of social work experience, both volunteer and
employment experience was evaluated. When looking at student volunteer experiences,_
the number of years ranged from 0—20 years with l 1 students reporting no volunteer

experience (1 1.6%), 10 reporting 1 year (10.5%), 12 reporting 2 years (12.6%) and 10
66

reporting 3 years (10.5%), 6 reporting 4 years (6.3%), 7 reporting 5 years (7.4%) 2
[reporting 6 years and 2 reporting 7 years (each 2.1%), 7 reporting 8 years (7.4 %) and
five reporting between 85-13 years of volunteer experience (5.4%). Three individuals

reported 20 years (3.2%) of volunteer experience.

Table 1. Student volunteer experience

 

 

Number of years social work Number of Percent of
volunteer experience students students
0 1 1 l 1.6
1 10 10.5
2 12 12.6
3 10 10.5
4 6 6.3
5 7 7.4
6 2 2.1
7 2 2.1
8 7 7.4
85-13 5 5.4
20 3 3.2

 

When asked how many years of social work employment students’ responses
ranged from 0-20 years, 35 reporting no social work employment (36.8%), 7 reported one
year (7.4%) 3 reported 1.5years (3.2%), 8 reported 2 years (8.4%), 3 reported 3 years
(3.2%), 6 reported 4 years (6.3%) 4 reported 5 (4.2%), 5 reported 6 years (5.3%), 2 report
7 years (2.1%), 3 reported 8 (3.2%), 4 reported 9 (4.2%), 4 reported 10 (4.2%), 5 reported

between 12 and 19 years of employment (5.3%).

67

Table 2. Student social work employment

 

Number of years social work Number of Percent of
employment experience students students

1 7 7.4

1.5 3 3.2

2 8 8.4

3 3 3.2

4 6 6.3

5 4 4.2

6 5 5.3

7 2 2.1

9 4 4.2

10 3 3.2

12-19 5 5.3

 

To better understand the amount of social work education in diversity and culture,
both courses taken and trainings were evaluated. Students reported taking between 0-20
diversity trainings. Thirty two students reported 0 trainings (26.9%), 15 reported 1
training (12.6%), and 15 reported 2 trainings (12.6). Students reported 0-8 courses taken
in diversity. Twelve reported 0 courses (10.2%), 11 reported 1 course (9.2%), 25
students reported 2 courses taken in diversity (21.0%), and 15 students reported taken 3
courses (12.6%) taken in diversity.

Table 3. Student trainings and courses in diversity and/or culture

 

Number trainings in Number of Percent of
diversity/culture students students
0 32 26.9
1 15 12.6
2 ’15 12.6
Number courses in
diversity/culture
0 12 10.2
1 1 1 9.2
2 25 21
3 15 12.6

 

68

Cultural Competence Questionnaire

As discussed previously, the questionnaire used in this study (see Appendix F)
was designed by the researcher to measure social work students’ cultural competence as
defined by the NASW Cultural Competence Standards. The questionnaire consists of 34
Likert-type scale items on cultural competence within the social work profession. Each
question was created to measure one of the NASW Cultural Competence Standards.

Using SPSS, the subscales were tested for scale reliability with Cronbach’s
coefficient for internal reliability. Each subscale was used to determine the alpha range
for each cultural competence item. The subscale alphas ranged from .64-.86 which falls
within the acceptable internal reliability. Subscale with content in Values and Ethics had
an alpha of .72, Self Awareness .64, Cross Cultural Knowledge, .76, Cross Cultural
Skills, .86, Service Delivery, .81 , Empowerment and Advocacy, .79, Diverse Workforce,
.65, Professional Education, .72, Diversity Language, .72, and Cross Cultural Leadership,
.78. All were deemed to have adequate internal reliability based on social scientific
convention (Ott, 2001 ).

Table 4 describes each Cultural Competence Standard, the content of each
Standard, each question within the questionnaire that aligns with each specific Standard,

the Cronbach alpha, the scale and item means.

69

Table 4. Cultural competence standards and corresponding internal reliability statistics at
pre-test

 

Description & Content for NASW Cultural # items Cronbach’s Scale &

 

Competence Standards Alpha Item
Means
1. Values and Ethics 3 .72 9.3
Familiar with code of ethics 3.0
Personal/professional values 4.0
Familiar with NAS W cultural competence 2.4
2. Self Awareness 3 .64 12.3
Aware of personal culture 4.4
Recognize culture, values, and belie s 4.3
Recognize personal. values, and beliefs 3.6
3. Cross Cultural Knowledge 3 .76 10.2
Understand history 3.6
Understand family systems 3.4
Aware of traditions, values, artistic express 3.2
4. Cross-Cultural Skills 4 .86 11.8
Skilled attending to verbal 3.4
Skilled at non-verbal 3.0
Skilled in assessment 2.8
Skilled at treatment planning 2.7
5. Service Delivery 3 .81 8.7
Skilled identifying formal resources 2.9
Skilled evaluation of strengths/weaknesses 3.1
Community tailored referrals 2.7
6. Empowerment and Advocacy 3 .79 9.5
Aware of social policy 3.3
Aware of effect social programs 3.4
Participate in soc. Advocacy 2.8
7. Diverse Workforce 3 .65 9.7
Advocate for diverse workforce 4.3
Aware of diversity hiring 2.9
Support need for diverse workforce 2.6
8. Professional Education 3 .72 10.7
Actively support professional education 3.97
One or more diversity course 3.64
One or more diversity training 3.10
9. Language Diversity 4 .72 11.4
Understand language 4.2
Provide referrals w/ bilingual services 2.0
A dvocatefor first language 2.5
Service info in first language 2.6
10. Cross-Cultural Leadership 3 .78 9.8
Model cross cultural behavior 3.9
Leadership to promote cultural competence 2.6
Advocate for fair and equitable treatment 3.3

 

70

General Findings

These findings discuss the results of each analysis performed to test each
hypothesis of students’ reported level of cultural competence. Two-tailed Pearson
correlation coefficients, ANOVA, one and two-tailed t-tests and a Paired t-test were used
within this study. The following research questions will guide the presentation of the

findings of this study.

I. How do students entering an MSW program rate their level of cultural

competence?

2. Does the student report a higher level of cultural competence after one semester

of MSW education?

3. Are there specific areas of social work practice in which students report a higher
level of cultural competence over other areas of social work practice? (As

identified in the NASW Cultural Competence Standards)

4. What is the relationship between student reported cultural competence and the
variables of age, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, geographical
location of upbringing, previous education, social work volunteer experience,

social work employment and previous education and trainings in diversity?

Paired t-tests were run to examine mean differences of reported cultural
competence between entering the MSW program (pre-test) and students who have
completed one semester of MSW education. Significant differences were found in all of
the Standards and reported in Table 5. Significant differences were such that mean self-

reported score for Values and Ethics. pre MSW was 3.1 , and after one semester of MSW

71

education the mean score was 4.0 (t=9.4, one-tailed, p=.00). For Self Awareness, pre
MSW was 4.2, and post was 4.4 (t=3.2, one-tailed, p=.00). For Cross-Cultural, pre MSW
was 3.4, and post was 3.9 (t= 5.2, one-tailed, p=.00). For Cross-Cultural Skills, pre
MSW was 3.0, and post was 3.4 (t= 3.2, one-tailed, p=.00). For Service Delivery, pre
MSW 'was 2.9, and post was 3.3 (t=4.0, one-tailed, p=.00). For Empowerment and
Advocacy, pre MSW was 3.1, and post was 3.5 (t= 2.8, one-tailed, p=.00). For Diverse
Workforce, pre MSW was 3.8, and post was 4.1 (t=4.0, one-tailed, p=.00). For '
Professional Education, pre MSW was 3.7, and post was 4.1 (t= 3.6, one-tailed, p=.00).
For Language Diversity, pre MSW was 2.9, and post was 3.3 (t= 3.1, one-tailed, p=.00).
For Cross-Cultural Leadership, pre MSW was 3.8, and post was 4.0 (t= 1.9, one-tailed,

p=.03).

72

Table 5. Comparison of mean differences in student pre- and post-test ratings for

Standards 1-10.

 

 

Standards n Pre-Post sd t
Mean

1. Values and Ethics
Pre-test 64 3. 1 .88 9.4
Post-test 64 .59

. Self Awareness
Pre-test 64 4.2 .62 3.2
Post-test 64 4.4 .52

. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
Pre-test 64 3 .4 .8 l 5.2
Post-test 64 3.9 .60

. Cross-Cultural Skills
Pre-test 61 3.0 .95 3.2
Post-test 61 3.4 .90

. Service Delivery
Pre-test 63 2.9 .95 4.0
Post-test 63 3.3 .91

. Empowerment/Advocacy
Pre-test 63 3.1 1 .0 2.8
Post-test 63 3.5 .84

. Diverse Workforce
Pre-test 64 3.8 .86 4.0
Post-test 64 4. 1 .73

. Professional Education
Pre-test 64 3.7 1 .1 3 .6
Post-test 64 4. 1 .75

. Language Diversity
Pre-test 64 2 .9 .90 3. l
Post-test 64 3.3 .96

10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
Pre-test 64 3.8 .87 1 .9
Post-test 64 4.0 .69

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.03

 

73

Hypothesis 1

Reported level of cultural competence will differ by student age, by student’s social
work employment and volunteer experiences, if the student has a Bachelor’s of Social
Work (BSW), and according to the number of courses and trainings taken in diversity.

A 2-tailed Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to analyze the
association between self-reported cultural competence and age, social work experience
through employment and volunteering, diversity and cultural education during trainings

and educational course work to the level of reported cultural competence.

Results 1.1

The nature and strength of relationships between self-reported cultural
competences for each Standard at orientation prior to the start of graduate program were
analyzed using Pearson correlations. No significant associations were identified
between age and Values and Ethics, Self-Awareness, Cross-Cultural Knowledge, Cross-
Cultural Skills, Service Delivery, Empowerment and Advocacy, Diverse Workforce,

Professional Education, Diversity of Language or Cross-Cultural Leadership.

Results 1. 2

The nature and strength of relationships between student social work experience
and self-reported cultural competence for each Standard were analyzed using Pearson
correlations. No significant relationship was identified for Self Awareness, Cross-
Cultural Knowledge, Professional Education, Diverse Workforce, or Empowerment and
Advocacy. A significant relationship was identified for a coefficient approaching
significance was noted for Values and Ethics such that (r= .22, two-tailed, p=.05, C ross-

Cultural Skills (r=.38, two-tailed, p=.00, Service Delivery (r=.3 l, two-tailed, p=.00),
74

Diversity of Language (r=.26, two-tailed, p=.02), and Cross-Cultural Leadership (r=.27,

two-tailed, p=.01).
Results 1. 3

The nature and strength of relationships between extent of [or quantity of] student
diversity education and self-reported cultural competencies for each Standard were
analyzed using Pearson correlations. No significant relationship was identified for
Diversity of Language. Significant positive associations were identified for nine
Standards. These correlations include: Values and Ethics (r= .31, two-tailed, p=.00),
Self-Awareness (r=.27, two-tailed, p=.02), Cross-Cultural Knowledge (r=.32, two-tailed,
p=.00), Cross-Cultural Skills (r=.34, two-tailed, p=.00, Service Delivery (r=.32, two-
tailed, p=.01), Empowerment and Advocacy (r=.33, two-tailed, p=.00), Diverse
Workforce (r=.33, two-tailed, p=.00), Professional Education (r=.40, two-tailed, p=.00),
and Cross-Cultural Leadership (r=.48, two-tailed, p=.00). For each of these nine
variables, students with more diversity education, either through courses or trainings, had
significantly higher self-reported cultural competencies on all Standards except the

subscale for Diversity of Language.
Results 1.4

Independent t-tests, one tailed, were calculated to examine mean differences for
self-reported cultural competencies between students who had graduated with a BSW
students who did not have a BSW. Table 6 shows a significant difference was found
such that the mean self—reported score for Values and Ethics, of a student with no BSW

was 2.9, and students with a BSW had a group mean of 3.9 (t=5.3, two-tailed, p=.00). For

75

Self-Awareness, no BSW was 4.0, and BSW was 4.4 (t= 2.4, two-tailed, p=.01). For
Cross-Cultural Knowledge, no BSW was 3.3, and BSW was 3.8 (t= 2.7, two-tailed,
p=.01). For Cross-Cultural Skills, no BSW was 2.7, and BSW was 3.7 (t=3.8, two-tailed,
p=.00). For Service Delivery, no BSW was 2.7, and BSW was 3.4 (t=2.9, two-tailed,
p=.00). For Empowerment and Advocacy, no BSW was 3.0, and BSW was 3.6 (t=2.6,
two-tailed, p=.01). For Diverse Workforce, no BSW was 3.6, and BSW was 4.0 (t=] .7,
two-tailed, p=.05). For Professional Education, no BSW was 3.5, and BSW was 4.3
(t=2.9, two-tailed, p=.00). For Diversity Language, no BSW was 2.7, and a BSW 3.5
(t=3.2, two-tailed, p=.01). For Cross-Cultural Leadership, no BSW was 3.5, and BSW

was 4.4 (t=5.2, two-tailed, p=.00).

76

Table 6. Comparison of mean differences between BSW graduates (field and classroom

education) and No BSW for Standards 1-10, pre-test self-ratings of cultural competence

 

 

Standards n Pre-test sd t p
Mean

1. Values and Ethics
No BSW 69 2.9 .73 5.3 .00
BSW 19 3.9 .83

2. Self Awareness
No BSW 69 4.0 .64 2.4 .01
BSW 19 4.4 .58

3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
No BSW 69 3.3 .78 2.7 .01
BSW 20 3.8 .83

4. Cross-Cultural Skills
No BSW 69 2.7 .96 3.8 .00
BSW 19 3.7 .91

5. Service Delivery
No BSW 68 2.7 1.0 2.9 .00
BSW 20 3.4 .75

6. Empowerment/Advocacy
No BSW 69 3.0 .97 2.6 .01
BSW 20 3.6 1.1

7. Diverse Workforce
No BSW 69 3.6 .91 1.7 .05
BSW 19 4.0 .78

8. Professional Education
No BSW 69 3.5 1.1 2.9 .00
BSW 20 4.3 .88

9. Language Diversity
No BSW 69 2.7 .90 3.2 .00
BSW 18 3.5 .96

10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
No BSW 69 3.5 .99 5.2 .00
BSW 20 4.4 .52

 

77

Independent t-tests were used to examine mean differences for pre MSW self-
reported cultural competence between students in field education during their first
semester of MSW education (n=26) and students who were not in field (n=3 8) during

their first semester of MSW education.

Hypothesis 2

 

A higher level of cultural competence will be reported by students who have completed
one semester of field education in the MSW program.

Results 2. 1

Because hypothesis two was directional one-tailed t-tests were used. For pre-
MSW self-reported cultural competence, t-tests were run to examine mean differences
between students in field education and students not in field education. Table 7 shows no
significant group mean differences were identified for any of the ten competency
Standards scores - Values and Ethics, Self-Awareness, Cross-Cultural Knowledge, Cross-
Cultural Skill, Service Delivery, Empowerment and Advocacy, Professional Education,

Diverse Workforce, Diversity Language, and Cross-Cultural Leadership.

78

Table 7. Comparison of mean differences of students who have completed one semester
of MSW of field education and students who have not completed one semester of MSW

field education for Standards 1-10, post-test self-ratings of cultural competence

 

 

Standards n Post-test sd t p
Mean

1. Values and Ethics
MSW field education 26 4.1 .52 .62 .54
No MSW field education 38 4.0 .64

2. Self Awareness
MSW field education 26 4.4 .44 .24 .81
No MSW field education 38 4.4 .57

3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
MSW field education 26 3.8 .65 .60 .55
No MSW field education 38 3.9 .58

4. Cross-Cultural Skills
MSW field education 26 3.3 .78 .37 .71
No MSW field education 36 3.4 .99

5. Service Delivery -
MSW field education 26 3.2 .90 .73 .47
No MSW field education 37 3.4 .93

6. Empowerment/Advocacy
MSW field education 25 3.5 .77 .17 .86
No MSW field education 38 3.5 .89

7. Diverse Workforce ,
MSW field education 26 4.1 .71 .l l .92
No MSW field education 37 4.1 .76

8. Professional Education
MSW field education 26 4.0 .53 .98 .33
No MSW field education 38 4.2 .87

9. Language Diversity
MSW field education 26 3.1 .81 .96 .34
No MSW field education 38 3.4 1.1

10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
MSW field education 26 4.0 .60 .64 .52
No MSW field education 38 4.1 .75

 

79

Hypothesis 3

 

A higher level of cultural competence will be reported by students with diverse
demographic variables that include non-White race, self identify as LGBT, self identify
as an individual with a disability, report no religion or a religion other than Christian,
and by students who report coming from an urban inner city, international, military
geographic location or report being an international student.

Results 3.1

Hypothesis 3 was directional; therefore one-tailed independent t-tests were used
to examine mean differences in self-reported cultural competence pre—test ratings,
between students with a diverse race (all non-White students) and those students not from
a diverse race, i.e. White/Caucasian.

When diverse and non-diverse race categories were compared on students
reported level of cultural competence, no significant differences were found for Values
and Ethics, Self-Awareness, Cross-Cultural Skill, Service Delivery, Diverse Work,
Professional Education, Language Diversity, and Cross-Cultural Leadership. Table 8
shows significant differences were found in Cross-Cultural Knowledge and
Empowerment and Advocacy. Table 8 shows significant differences were identified for
two Standards. For pre-test Cross—Cultural Knowledge scores differences were such that
the mean self-reported rating for students of a diverse race is 3.3 was lower than the mean
for students not from a diverse race was 3.7 (t=1.9, one-tailed, p=.03). For
Empowerment and Advocacy for students of a diverse race was 3.0 and not from a
diverse race was 3.4 (t=1.8, one-tailed, p=.04). These two significant findings do not
support the hypothesis because they are opposite to the direction specified in Hypothesis

3.

80

Table 8. Comparison of mean differences between students from a diverse race

subgroup and students who do not come from a diverse race for Standards 1-10, pre-test

 

 

self-ratin gs
Standards n Pre-test sd t p
Mean

1. Values and Ethics
No diverse race 66 3.1 .87 .34 .37
Diverse race 26 3.2 .88 '

2. Self Awareness
No diverse race 65 4.1 .66 .06 .47
Diverse race 27 4.1 .58

3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
No diverse race 66 3.3 .78 1.9 .03
Diverse race 27 3.7 .81

4. Cross-Cultural Skills
No diverse race 66 2.9 .98 .84 .21
Diverse race 26 3.1 1.1

5. Service Delivery
No diverse race 65 2.8 .95 1.6 .06
Diverse race 27 3.1 1.0

6. Empowerment/Advocacy '
No diverse race 66 3.0 1.0 1.8 .04
Diverse race 27 3.4 9.7

7. Diverse Workforce
No diverse race 66 3.6 .89 1.3 .10
Diverse race 26 3.9 .87

8. Professional Education
No diverse race 66 3.6 1.1 .60 .28
Diverse race 27 3.8 1.2

9. Language Diversity
No diverse race 66 2.8 .92 1.2 .12
Diverse race 25 3.1 1.0

10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
No diverse race 66 3.7 .95 .92 .18
Diverse race 27 3.9 1.0

 

81

Independent t-tests, one-tailed, were used to examine mean differences between
those who identified as an individual coming from a diverse race and those not coming
from a diverse race and self—reported cultural competence post-test. No significant
differences were found for Self Awareness, Empowerment and Advocacy, Diverse
Workforce, and Language Diversity.

Table 9 shows for Values and Ethics scores, a significant differences was found
such that mean self-reported score for students of a Diverse race is 4.0 and the mean of
students not from a diverse race was 4.3 (t=] .7, one-tailed, p=.05). For Cross-Cultural
Knowledge for students of a diverse race is 3.8 and students not from a diverse race was
4.2 (t=2.4, one-tailed, p=.01). For Cross-Cultural Skills for students of a diverse race is
3.2 and students not from a diverse race was 3.8 (t=2.7, one-tailed, p=.00). For Service
Delivery for students of a diverse race is 3.2 and from a diverse race was 3.7 (t=2.2, two-
tailed, p=.02). For Professional Education for students of a diverse race is 4.0 and
students not from a diverse race was 4.5 (t=2.5, one-tailed, p=.01). For Cross-Cultural
Leadership for students of a diverse race is 4.3 and not from a diverse race was 3.9

(t=1.8, one-tailed, p=.04).

82

Table 9. Comparison of mean differences between students from a diverse race subgroup

and students who do not come from a diverse race for Standards 1-10, post-test self-

 

 

ratings

Standards n Post-test sd t p
Mean

1. Values and Ethics '
No diverse race 47 4.0 .59 1.7 .05
Diverse race 17 4.3 .56

2. Self Awareness
No diverse race 47 4.3 .54 1.5 .07
Diverse race 17 4.5 .41

3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
No diverse race 47 3.8 .60 2.4 .01
Diverse race 17 4.2 .53

4. Cross-Cultural Skills
No diverse race 46 3.2 .86 2.7 .00
Diverse race 16 3.8 .84

5. Service Delivery
No diverse race 46 3.2 .86 2.2 .02
Diverse race 17 3.7 .97 -

6. Empowerment/Advocacy
No diverse race 46 3.4 .79 1.3 .10
Diverse race 17 3.7 .94

7. Diverse Workforce
No diverse race 46 4.1 .70 1.4 .09
Diverse race 17 4.3 .79

8. Professional Education
No diverse race 47 4.0 .73 2.5 .01
Diverse race 17 4.5 .71

9. Language Diversity
No diverse race 47 3.2 .89 1.4 .08
Diverse race 17 3.6 1.1

10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
No diverse race 47 3.9 .68 1.8 .04
Diverse race 17 4.3 .68

 

83

Results 3.2

Independent t-tests, one tailed, were used to examine mean differences between
those who self identified with LGBT and those who did not identify with LGBT and self-
reported cultural competence pre-test. No significant differences were found for Values
and Ethics, Self-Awareness, Cross-Cultural Knowledge, Cross-Cultural Skill, Service
Delivery, Empowerment and Advocacy, Professional Education, Language Diversity, and
Cross-Cultural Leadership. Table 10 shows a significant difference was found for Diverse
Workforce where the mean score of those reported as identifying as LGBT was 4.3, and
those who do not identify with LGBT had a mean self-report of 3.6 (t= 1.9, one-tailed,

p=.03).

84

Table 10. Comparison of mean differences between students who identify with LGBT
and students who do not identify with LGBT for Standards 1-10, pre- test self-ratings of

cultural competence

 

 

Standards n Pre-test sd t p
Mean
1. Values and Ethics
LGBT 7 3.1 .81 .17 .43
No LGBT 81 3.1 .86
2. Self Awareness -
LGBT 7 4.5 .42 1.5 .06
No LGBT 82 4.1 .63
3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
LGBT 7 3.8 .66 1.4 .09
No LGBT 82 3.4 .81
4. Cross-Cultural Skills
LGBT 6 2.7 1.1 .58 .28
No LGBT 82 3.0 1.0
5. Service Delivery
LGBT 7 2.6 1.0 .87 .19
No LGBT 81 3.0 .99
6. Empowerment/Advocacy
LGBT 7 3.5 .77 1.0 .16
No LGBT 82 3.1 1.0
7. Diverse Workforce
LGBT 7 4.3 .71 1.9 .03
No LGBT 81 3.6 .89
8. Professional Education
LGBT 7 3.7 1.5 .04 .49
No LGBT 82 3.7 1.1
9. Language Diversity
LGBT 7 3.1 .83 .87 .19
No LGBT 80 2.8 .97
10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
LGBT 7 4.0 1.2 .95 .17
No LGBT 82 3.7 .96

 

85

Independent t-tests, one-tailed, were used to examine mean differences between
those who self identified with LGBT and those who did not identify with LGBT and self-
reported cultural competence post-test. No significant differences were found for Self-
Awareness, Cross-Cultural Knowledge, Cross-Cultural Skill, Service Delivery,
Empowerment and Advocacy, Diverse Workforce, Professional Education, Language
Diversity, and Cross-Cultural Leadership.

Table 11 shows a significant difference was noted for Values and Ethics where
the mean score of those reported as identifying as LGBT was 3.6, and those who do not

identify with LGBT had a mean self-report of 4.1 (t= 1.7, one-tailed, p=.05).

86

Table l I. Comparison of mean differences between students who identify with LGBT
and students who do not identify with LGBT for Standards 1-10, post-test self-ratings of

cultural competence

 

 

Standards n Post-test sd t p
Mean
1. Values and Ethics
LGBT 4 3.6 .69 1.7 .05
No LGBT 59 4.1 .58
2. Self Awareness
LGBT 4 4.3 .63 .64 .26
No LGBT 59 4.4 .50
3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
LGBT 4 4.0 .54 .31 .38
No LGBT 59 3.9 .61
4. Cross-Cultural Skills
LGBT 4 3.1 .85 .65 .26
No LGBT 57 3.4 .91
5. Service Delivery
LGBT 3 3.3 .88 .01 .50
No LGBT 59 3.3 .93
6. Empowerment/Advocacy
LGBT 4 4.0 1.1 1.2 .11
No LGBT 58 3.5 .83
7. Diverse Workforce
LGBT 4 4.4 .42 .79 .22
No LGBT 58 4.1 .75
8. Professional Education
LGBT 4 3.9 .57 .63 .27
No LGBT 59 4.2 .77
9. Language Diversity
LGBT 4 3.3 1.2 .05 .48
No LGBT 59 3.3 .96
10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
LGBT ’ 4 4.0 .54 .09 .46
No LGBT 59 4.0 .71

 

87

Results 3.3

Independent t —-tests, one tailed, were used to examine mean differences between
students who identified as having a disability and students who did not identify having a
disability and self-reported cultural competence pre-test. No significant difference was
found in Values and Ethics, Self-Awareness, Cross-Cultural Knowledge, Cross-Cultural
Skill, Service Delivery, Empowerment and Advocacy, Diverse Work, Language
Diversity, and Cross-Cultural Leadership. Table 12 shows a significant difference was
found for Professional Education where the mean score of those reported as having a
disability was 4.5, and those who do not have a disability had a mean self-report of 3.6

(t= 1.8 one-tailed, p=.04).

88

Table 12. Comparison of mean differences between students who identify having a

disability and students who do not for Standards 1-10, pre-test self-ratings of cultural

 

 

competence
Standards 11 Pre-test sd t p
Mean
1. Values and Ethics
Disability 4 3.6 1.3 1.1 .13
No disability 86 3.1 .84
. Self Awareness
Disability 5 4.5 .56 1.5 .07
No disability 85 4.1 .63
. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
Disability 5 3.9 1.0 1.3 .10
No disability 86 3.4 .79
. Cross-Cultural Skills
Disability 4 3.7 1.8 1.5 .07
No disability 86 2.9 .97
. Service Delivery
Disability 5 3.3 1.4 .88 .19
No disability 85 2.9 .97
. Empowerment/Advocacy
Disability 5 3.8 .84 1.6 .06
No disability 86 3.1 1.0
. Diverse Workforce
Disability 4 4.0 1.1 .74 .23
No disability 86 3.7 .89
. Professional Education
Disability 5 4.5 .73 1.8 .04
No disability 86 3.6 1.1
. Language Diversity
Disability 4 3.4 1.2 1.1 .13
No disability 85 2.8 .94
l0.Cross-Cultural Leadership
Disability 5 3.8 1.7 .18 .43
No disability 86 3.7 .93

 

89

Independent t -—tests, one-tailed, were used to examine mean differences between
students who identified as having a disability and students who did not identify having a
disability and. self-reported cultural competence post-test. With only one reporting in the
post-test as an individual with a disability, the t-test could not be run.

Results 3.4

An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to test for significant differences
among three levels for faith variables on pre-test self-reported cultural competencies.
The three levels for the faith variable are Christian, a report of no specific faith, and a
diverse faith (Muslim, Hindu, and Jew). No significant differences were found among a
report of no specific faith, diverse faith and Christian faith. The restricted number of
cases in the diverse faith subgroup (n=6) likely accounts for non-significant F ratios.

To further examine the faith variable, one-tailed t-tests were run to compare mean
cultural competence between a report of no faith and faith. Independent t-tests were used
to examine mean differences for self-reported cultural competence pre-test between those
who reported having no faith and those who reported a faith. Table 13 shows no
significant differences were found for Standards Values and Ethics, Self—Awareness,
Cross-Cultural Knowledge, Cross-Cultural Skill, Service Delivery, Empowerment and
Advocacy, Diverse Work Force, Professional Education, Language Diversity, and Cross-

Cultural Leadership.

90

Table 13. Comparison of mean differences between students who reported a specific
faith and students who reported having no specific faith for Standards 1-10, pre-test self-

ratings of cultural competence

 

 

Standards n Pre-test sd t p
Mean

1. Values and Ethics
Faith 57 3.2 .87 .72 .24
No faith 30 3.0 .88

2. Self Awareness
Faith 58 4.1 .66 .59 .28
No faith 29 4.2 .63

3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
Faith 58 ‘ 3.4 ..85 .17 .43
No faith 30 3.4 . .77

4. Cross-Cultural Skills
Faith 58 3.0 1.0 .08 .47
No faith 29 2.9 1.0

5. Service Delivery
Faith 57 2.9 .96 .25 .40
No faith 30 2.8 1.0

6. Empowerment/Advocacy
Faith 58 3.1 .98 .34 .37
No faith 30 3.0 1.0

7. Diverse Workforce
Faith 57 3.6 .87 50 .31
No faith 30 3.8 .93

8. Professional Education
Faith 58 3.6 1.2 .59 .28
No faith 30 3.8 .87

9. Language Diversity
Faith 57 2.9 1.0 .89 .19
No faith 29 2.7 .83

10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
Faith 58 3.7 .97 .30 .38
No faith 30 3.8 .99

 

91

Independent t-tests, one-tailed, were used to examine mean differences between
those who identify with an identified faith and those who reported having no specific
faith and self-reported cultural competence post-test. Table 14 shows no significant
differences were found for Values and Ethics, Self-Awareness, Cross-Cultural Skill,
Service Delivery, Empowerment and Advocacy, Diverse Work Force, Professional
Education, and Language Diversity. A significant difference was noted in Cross-Cultural
Knowledge where the mean score of those reported as having an identified faith was 4.0,
and those who reported having no faith had a mean self-report of 3.7 (t=1.7, one-tailed,
p=.05). For Cross-Cultural Leadership scores, a significant differences was found such
that mean self-reported score for students as having an identified faith was 4.1, and those

who reported having no faith had a mean self-report of 3.8 (t=] .7, one-tailed, p=.05).

92

Table 14. Comparison ofmean differences between students who reported a specific
faith and students who reported having no specific faith for Standards 1-10, post-test self-

ratings of cultural competence

 

 

Standards n Post-test sd t p
Mean
1. Values and Ethics
Faith 37 4.1 .61 1.4 .08
No faith 24 3.9 ‘ .53
2. Self Awareness ,
Faith 37 4.4 .53 .05 .48
No faith 24 4.4 .48
3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
Faith 37 4.0 .60 1.7 .05
No faith 24 3.7 .59
4. Cross-Cultural Skills -
Faith 36 3.4 .92 .88 .19
No faith 23 3.2 .86
5. Service Delivery
Faith 36 3 .4 .80 1.3 .09
- No faith 24 3.1 1.0
6. Empowerment/Advocacy
Faith 37 3.6 .80 1.6 .06
No faith 23 3.3 .89
7. Diverse Workforce
Faith 37 4.2 .78 .69 .25
No faith 23 4.0 .68
8. Professional Education
Faith 37 4.2 .74 .98 .17
No faith 24 4.0 .77
9. Language Diversity
Faith 37 3.4 1.0 1.4 .08
No faith 24 3.1 .92
10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
Faith 37 4.1 .65 1.7 .05
No faith 24 3.8 .75

 

93

Results 3.5

Independent t-tests, one-tailed, were used to examine mean differences between
those who identify being raised in a diverse geographic location (those being raised in a
inner city urban setting, military setting, international setting, or were an international
student) and those who were not raised in a diverse geographic location (suburban, large
urban setting or rural) and self-reported cultural competence pre-test. No significant
differences were found for Cross-Cultural Knowledge, Empowerment and Advocacy,
Diverse Work Force, Professional Education, and Cross-Cultural Leadership.

Table 15 shows for Values and Ethics scores, a significant differences was found
such that mean self-reported score for students not of a diverse geographic upbringing was
3.0, and those who do have an identified diverse geographic upbringing had a mean self-
report of 3.6 (t=2.9, one-tailed, p=.00). For Self Awareness, no diverse geographic
upbringing was 4.0, and diverse geographic upbringing was 4.3 (t=] .8, one-tailed, p=.04).
For Cross-Cultural Skills, no a diverse geographic upbringing was 2.8, and diverse
geographic upbringing was 3.4 (t=2.3, one-tailed, p=.01). For Service Delivery, no
diverse geographic upbringing was 2.8, and diverse geographic was 3.2 (t=2.0, one-tailed,
p=.02). For Language Diversity, a diverse geographic upbringing was 2.7 and no diverse

geographic upbringing was 3.4 (t=3.0 p=.00).

94

Table 15. Comparison of mean differences between students with a diverse geographic
upbringing and students without a diverse geographic upbringing for Standards 1-10, pre-

test self—ratings of cultural competence

 

 

Standards 11 Pre-test sd t p
Mean

1. Values and Ethics
No diverse geographic 71 3.0 .78 2.9 .00
Diverse geographic 22 3.6 1.0

2. Self Awareness
No diverse geographic 70 4.0 .64 1.8 .04
Diverse geographic 23 4.3 .62

3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
No diverse geographic 71 3.4 .79 1.3 .10
Diverse geographic 23 3.6 .81 .

4. Cross-Cultural Skills
No diverse geographic 70 2.8 .99 2.3 .01
Diverse geographic 23 3.4 .92

5. Service Delivery
No diverse geographic 70 2.8 .99 2.0 .02
Diverse geographic 23 3.2 .87

6. Empowerment/Advocacy
No diverse geographic 71 3.1 1.0 1.0 .16
Diverse geographic .. 23 3.3 1.0

7. Diverse Workforce
No diverse geographic 71 3.7 .90 .62 .27
Diverse geographic 22 3.8 .85

8. Professional Education
No diverse geographic 71 3.6 1.1 1.2 .12
Diverse geographic 23 3.9 1.3

9. Language Diversity
No diverse geographic 70 2.7 .94 3.0 .00
Diverse geographic 22 3.4 .82

10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
No diverse geographic 71 3.6 .96 1.5 .07
Diverse geographic 23 4.0 .98

 

95

Independent t-tests, one-tailed, were used to examine mean differences between
those who identify being raised in a diverse geographic location (those being raised in a
inner city urban setting, military setting, international setting, or were an international
student) and those who were not raised in a diverse geographic location (suburban, large
urban setting or rural), and self-reported cultural competence post-test. No significant
differences were found for Self-Awareness, Cross-Cultural Knowledge, Empowerment
and Advocacy, Diverse Work, Professional Education, and Language Diversity.

Table 16 shows a significant difference was found for Values and Ethics where the
mean score of those reported as having an identified no diverse geographic upbringing was
3.9, and those who do have an identified diverse geographic upbringing had a mean self-
report of 4.4 (t=—3.0, one-tailed, p=.00). For Cross-Cultural Skills no diverse geographic
upbringing was 3.1 and diverse geographic upbringing was 3.9 (t=2.9, one-tailed, p=.00).
For Service Delivery no diverse geographic upbringing was 3.2 and diverse geographic
upbringing was 3.8 (t=2.5, one-tailed, p=.01). For Cross-Cultural Leadership no diverse
geographic upbringing was 3.9, and diverse geographic upbringing was 4.4 (t=2.4, one-

tailed, p=.01).

96

Table 16. Comparison of mean differences between students with a diverse geographic
upbringing and students without a diverse geographic upbringing for Standards 1-10,

post-test self-ratings of cultural competence

 

 

Standards n Post-test , sd t p
Mean

1. Values and Ethics
No diverse geographic 47 3.9 .59 3.0 .00
Diverse geographic 17 4.4 .46

2. Self Awareness
No diverse geographic 47 4.3 .51 1.3 .10
Diverse geographic 17 4.5 .51

3. Cross-Cultural Knowledge
No diverse geographic 47 3.8 .59 1.4 .08
Diverse geographic 17 4.1 .64

4. Cross-Cultural Skills
No diverse geographic 45 3.1 .86 2.9 .00
Diverse geographic 17 3.9 .81

5. Service Delivery
No diverse geographic 46 3.2 .88 2.5 .01
Diverse geographic 17 3.8 .87

6. Empowerment/Advocacy
No diverse geographic 46 3.5 .82 .26 .40
Diverse geographic 17 3.5 .93

7. Diverse Workforce
No diverse geographic 46 4.0 .77 1.5 .07
Diverse geographic 17 4.4 .55

8. Professional Education
No diverse geographic 47 4.0 .73 1.4 .09
Diverse geographic 17 4.4 .80

9. Language Diversity
No diverse geographic 47 3.2 .93 1.4 .08
Diverse geographic 17 3.6 1.0

10.Cross-Cultural Leadership
No diverse geographic 47 3.9 .72 2.4 .01
Diverse geographic 17 4.4 .48

 

97

As the previous results demonstrate, hypotheses 1, 2, and 3 were not dispelled by
the statistical findings. The descriptive purpose of the study was addressed, through a
systematic exploration of demographic variable categories, with respect to Cultural
Competence Standards rated by participants at pre and/or post-test. A mixed method
research design, as was used in this project includes both quantitative and qualitative
methods. It is important to note that the quantitative portion of this study is dominant,
and the qualitative method is to explore student definition and understanding of cultural
learning within their first semester of study. The exploratory aspect of this research
involved two qualitative design elements. The first was an open—ended question asking
participants to define culture on the pre- and post-test questionnaires. The question was
asked to better understand students’ understanding of culture.

The second research design element was the use of two focus groups. Collecting
data through focus groups allows for qualitative expression that is analyzed independent
from the quantitative data, and is interpreted as part of the whole (Creswell, 2003). In
addition, the focus groups provide feedback for the researcher on the student educationirl
experience in cultural competence. The next chapter section reports the qualitative
findings from a content analysis of culture definitions. Analysis of the data collected
during the two focus groups follows these findings and concludes the chapter.
Qualitative Analysis & Findings

In addition to the 34 Likert-type scale items, students were asked to “Please write
your definition of culture” (see Appendix F). Of the 95 students that completed the pre-
test, 77 students (81.1%), provided a definition of culture. Of the 65 students that also

completed the post-test, 52 (80.0%) provided a definition for culture.

98

To evaluate the qualitative content area of the questionnaire, the definition of
culture, this researcher reviewed each definition given by students and identified themes
reflected in the definitions. Nine themes emerged from the definitions. These themes
were comprised of responses falling into the following categories: (1.) beliefs and values,
(2.) tradition, and language, (3.) identification with a group, (4.) family, religion, (5.)
society, race, ethnicity, nationality, (6.) geographic location, (7.) social location within
society, (8.) no discemable answer, and (9.) did not answer. After major dimensions of
the culture definitions were established by the investigator, a second post-graduate
research assistant was trained to distinguish among the identified eight themes. The
research assistant was directed to examine each culture definition and code for the
presence or absence of each theme.

Upon completion of the rating task by the second rater, a procedure was used to
establish the level of inter-rater reliability. The procedure consisted of each rater making
code assignments and comparing. An observed level of agreement of 72.4% was
calculated by comparing the themes assigned to each definition. This extent of
agreement was high but fell below the desired inter-rater reliability of 80% or better.
After further discussion and evaluation of the differences in assigned themes, a consistent
source of disagreement between raters was identified. Specifically, in the fourth theme
[society, race, ethnicity, nationality] the word society often was assigned when a
definition identified a community or a specific group. The other rater generally assigned
such definitions to the second theme [identification with a group] this within theme #2
identified group. This process resulted in recoding of definitions to reflect a change in

the wording for themes two and four.

99

Themes were restated in the following manner:

1. beliefs and values,

2. tradition and language,

3.. identification with a group, social group or community,

4. family, religion,

5. race, ethnicity, nationality,

6. geographic location,

7. social location within society,

8. no discemable answer

9. did not answer
Upon making the theme heading changes raters one and two completed the rating of
student definition a second time and resulted in a 97.4% agreement rating. Table 17
provides the pre-and post-test student definitions of culture.

Table 17. Definition of Culture

 

 

Themes Pre-test Post-test
Content of themes given to define Number Percentage Number Percentage
culture of of of of
Students Students Students Students
1. Beliefs and values 41 44.5% 37 56.9%
2. Traditions and language 40 43.4% 25 38.4%
3. Identification with a group, social 39 41% 25 38.4%
group or community '

4. Family, religion 31 32.6% 18 27.7%
5. Race, ethnicity, nationality 16 16.8% 8 12.3%
6. Geographic location 10 10.5% 5 7.7%
7. Social location within society 14 14.7% 5 7.7%
8. No discemable answer 3 3.2% 3 4.6%
9. Did not answer 18 18.9% 13 20%

 

100

Focus Group

Two focus groups were convened by invitation to students who completed
questionnaires at (pre/post)-test collection in (August/November). Volunteers Submitted
forms on which they indicated their willingness to participate in a focus group early in
their second semester. The focus group was described as an additional aspect of the
research to evaluate cultural competence in MSW students in greater detail. Students
participated in a focus group based on their personal availability. The addition of focus
groups was used to gain exploratory information about their first semester from MSW
students with respect to cultural competence. One focus group included students who
took courses on the main campus of the university and another focus group was
facilitated at a secondary campus at which MSW courses also are offered.

Students were asked when completing the post-test to participate in a focus group,
of thirty-six students that volunteered to participate, twenty-one students actually did
participate. Of the students that participated, 20 were females (95%) and 1 (4.8%) was
male. Three students (14%) came from a race other than white and 18 students (86%)
were white. The ages of students participating in the focus groups ranged from early 20’s
to early 50’s. Of the focus group sample 1 student was 21 years (4.8%), 6 students were
22 (29%), 2 students were 23 (9.5%), 2 students were 24 (9.5%), 1 student was 25
(4.8%), 1 student was 27 (4.8%), 2 students were 29 (9.5%), 1 student was 30 (4.8%), 2
students were 31 (9.5%), 1 student was 34 (4.8%), 1 student was 46 (4.8%), and 1 student
was 53 years (4.8%). The mean age of focus groups participants was 26 years.

Those who self-identified as LGBT, 3 (14.2%) and 18 (85.7%) who did not

identify as LGBT were focus group participants. Two individuals, (9.5%) identified as

101

having a disability and 19, (90.5%) did not report having a disability. Sixteen
individuals, (76.1%) stated they had an identified faith, 3 (14.2%) reported they had “no
faith”, and two (9.5%) did not answer the faith question. Of the students that participated
in the focus group, 4, (19%) identified coming from what this study has identified as a
diverse geographic location and 17 (80.9%) reported being raised in a geographic
location typically not associated as diverse.

Prior to beginning the focus group, participants were presented with a focus
group confidentiality form and asked to regenerate their unique identification number as
they had done for both the pre- and post-tests.

Students participating in the focus groups were shown a summary of collected
data from the pre- and post-tests. The Likert—type scale, used to rate the items in the
cultural competence scale, included the following answer choice anchors: no experience,
minimally competent, moderately competent, mostly competent and competent. These
response categories were coded as 1: no experience, 2=minimally competent,
3=moderately competent, 4= mostly competent and 5=competent. This value assignment
was explained to the students. The data summary was organized to show pre- and post-
tests mean scores for the level of cultural competence reported by students. The
subscores summary was arranged by, the NASW Cultural Competence Standards. In
addition, students were shown the sorted list of Standards, from highest to lowest, for

mean level of cultural competence as rated in the quantitative study.

Content Analysis of Focus Group Questions

Students were asked to review the displayed pre- and post-test data and discuss

the following questions:

1.

After reviewing the data gathered from the pre- and post-test, are there any
content areas that surprise you or on which you would like to comment?
Where did your Ieaming about cultural competence occur within your first
semester of MSW education?

Do you have program suggestions for the School to assist you in cultural

competence growth?

In response to question one, students provided a variety of comments. The following five

main themes were distilled from the student contributions.

0

Surprise at the overall high ratings in cultural competence given by students
Statements indicating pre-test self-ratings may reflect what students felt they
should answer as incoming social workers

Observations that post-test self-ratin gs reflected what students felt they should
answer after a semester of course work

Reports of finding the question difficult to answer at this point in their education
and career ‘

Surprise at reported level of competency in Values and Ethics, Empowerment and
Advocacy, Cross-Cultural Knowledge and Skills, Self-Awareness, and

Professional Education.

Students in both focus groups shared their surprise at the high level of cultural

competence reported by students in both the pre- and post-tests. Comments indicated that

103

they believed the high self-ratings at pre-test reflected what students thought they should
answer as incoming social workers. Students also commented on the post-test self-
ratings. They believed the high level of post-test cultural competencies reflected what
respondents thought they should answer after a semester of MSW course work.

Comments also reflected the idea that it was difficult to answer at this time in
their professional education and career. Various comments by students included
reference to specific Standards, in particular, surprise at reported levels of competency
for Values and Ethics, Empowerment and Advocacy, Cross-Cultural Knowledge and
Skills, Self-Awareness, Professional Education. Student comments included the surprise
that Values and Ethics in the post-test (4.0) was lower than other Standards. The students
commented that most courses taken within the first level of MSW education included the
NASW Code of Ethics and emphasized its importance so they thought this rating would
be higher. Students also commented on the high rating of Self-Awareness (4.4) as it did
not reflect what they experience from fellow students. Focus grOup participants stated
“they think they are self aware, but are not”. Students agreed with the self—rating of
Cross—Cultural Knowledge (3.9) and Skills (3.4) being rated lower than other Standards
as they have not learned the knowledge and skills to be culturally competent. Students
commented on the reported level of Professional Education competency (4.1) and
wondered if students understood the meaning of Professional Education within cultural
competence.

The second focus group question asked participants to discuss “where did your
Ieaming about cultural competence occur within your first semester of MSW education?”

The following five themes were gleaned from student contributions to the discussion.

104

o Personal/professional experience from instructors.
0 Formal but varied class sessions

0 Peers

0 Field education

0 Particular curriculum

When students were asked ‘where did your Ieaming about cultural competence
occur within your first semester of MSW education’ they responded that they learned
cultural competence when their professors shared their own personal and professional
experiences. They also said they learned cultural competence from a variety of
experiences including panels, guest speakers, class discussion, experiential Ieaming and
group presentations. Students related stories of how they learned cultural competence in
casual discussions with their peers including discussions with peers in response to
controversial statements made by professors. Students named specific courses in which
they learned cultural competence including Human Behavior in Social Environment
(HBSE), Policy, Practice classes and Field Education. Students reported that knowledge
learned in the class room is (or will be) solidified in field education.

The final focus group question asked participants to share their suggestions for the
social work graduate program that would assist their growth with respect to cultural
competence. Six themes emerged from student comments.

0 I Address level of ethnocentricity “us and them” [confront student ethnocentricity]
0 Safe environment to discuss cultural issues whether right or wrong [foster safer

environments for honest discussions]

105

0 Important to discuss history of specific people groups [provide more information
about history and experiences of many cultures]
0 Apply course content to practical social work settings which would include
Ieaming basic inquiry skills to help us within all cultural groups. [Assist with
applying class info to practice settings including honing inquiry skills.
0 Role-plays, videotaped, group critique, experiential Ieaming, reflective listening
that would remove intimidation [Use specific teaching techniques and exercises to
remove intimidating environment of classroom]
0 Courses specific to cultural competence should be part of required curriculum
[Importance and interest in curriculum changes to include required cultural
competence courses]
Students commented that ethnocentricity should be addressed in student and faculty
remarks. Students stated that during discussions about diverse groups, both faculty and
students sometimes refer to a diverse group as “them” and that this language fosters an
attitude of “us and them” whether spoken or implied. Students explained that professors
often didn’t allow debates or controversial discussions. Participants believed faculty
suppression of such difficult discussions resulted from “the faculty does not know how to
handle it.” Students also expressed that they want to grow in cultural competence but
often there is not a safe environment to discuss cultural issues where students can be
vulnerable and ask all types of questions.

Specific curriculum content, identified as helpful for Ieaming cultural
competence, was information about the history of specific people and groups and the

importance of Ieaming how to apply course content (articles, readings, lectures) to

106

practical social work settings. This content would include learning basic inquiry skills to
use across all cultural groups. Pedagogical suggestions included the need for role-plays,
videotaping, group critique of video recordings, experiential Ieaming, and reflective
listening exercises. Students requested integrating more information on a wider variety

’ of peoples or groups into course content and felt it would be helpful, in particular groups
such as Arabic, gangs, gays and lesbians, and people with disabilities. Students believed
these practical classroom experiences would remove some of the intimidation they feel.
An additional curriculum suggestion was the addition of a specific course in cultural
competence that would be a required part of the MSW curriculum. They believed the
course should be mandatory because all students needed to have the information, even

those who did not want to learn about or increase their cultural competence.

Summary

The analysis results described above addressed the quantitative and qualitative
purposes of the research. The descriptive function of the study was addressed through a
systematic exploration of demographic variable categories with respect to the cultural

competence subscales.

Chapter 5 provides a discussion of the exploratory findings. Discussion is
followed by conclusions, a review of the implications of the study for social work
education, NASW, and the social work profession. The limitations of the study are
described in detail. Recommendation for additional analyses in the area of cultural

competence is offered.

107

CHAPTERS V

DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This final chapter will provide an overview of the study and discussion of the
major research findings. Within the discussion, each hypothesis will be reviewed,
highlighting major findings for each, and providing discussion of quantitative and
qualitative findings as a whole. The chapter will identify implications for social work
education, social work curriculum policy, cultural competence Standards for the social
work profession, and tools for social work research and evaluation. The chapter concludes

with identification of study limitations and recommendations for further research.

Overview

The purpose of this study was to gain a better understanding of the level of
cultural competence of students entering a Master of Social Work (MSW) program, and
to evaluate whether there is a change in self-reported levels of cultural competence after
one semester of MSW education. The pre-test and post-test questionnaires administered,
provided students the opportunity to rate their individual level of cultural competence.
Each question was crafted to evaluate student cultural competence as it is defined in the
NASW Cultural Competence Standards (2001). This study explored change in the level
of reported cultural competence after one semester of classroom and field education. The
study also sought input from students to enhance understanding about sources of growth
in cultural competence during the first semester of MSW education. The study results
also explore whether traditional demographic characteristics (age, gender, sexual

orientation, race and ethnicity, religion, and geOgraphic location of nuclear family) are

108

related to a higher level of self-reported cultural competence. The findings reported in the
preceding chapter can be understood in a variety of ways. These multiple meanings
illuminate the multi-faceted nature of cultural competence.

This study was conducted using a mixed method, sequential explanatory strategy
to assess the levels of cultural competence among students who are entering an MSW
program, and explore where student growth in cultural competence occurs. Quantitative
data collection and data analysis was followed by qualitative data collection and analysis.
An interpretative analysis was done of the whole. Mixed methods were employed to
inform understanding from one method to another. The methodology also provided an
opportunity to confirm findings from different data sources (Creswell, 2003).

The questionnaire used in this study (see Appendix F) was designed by the
researcher to measure cultural competence as defined by the NASW Cultural
Competence Standards. The questionnaire consisted of 34 questions on cultural
competence within the social work profession. Each question was created to measure one
of the NASW Cultural Competence Standards. For example, Standard 1 concerns Values
and Ethics. Respondents were asked to rate their competence With:

Question 1. I am familiar with the NAS W Code of Ethics, and function in

accordance with to the values, ethics and Standards of the profession in my social

work practice.

Question 1 l. I recognize how my personal and professional values may conflict

with or accommodate the needs of diverse populations.

Question 21. I am familiar with the NAS W Cultural Competence Standards and

practice social work in accordance with the Standards.

109

In addition to the cultural competence scale, an open ended question was used to
identify students’ definitions of culture. The questionnaire also gathered demographic
information on age, gender, sexual orientation, religious background, education, and a
geographic description of the town or area in which the respondent was raised. The
target population for this study was full and part-time social work students entering a

MSW program at a large Midwest Research University in the Fall of 2007.

Major Findings

Quantitative findings

 

Research questions guiding this study were “how do students entering an MSW
program rate their level of cultural competence and do students report a higher level of
cultural competence after one semester of MSW education?” There was a statistically
significant increase after one semester of MSW education in students’ levels of self-
reported cultural competence from pre-test to post-test. This increase suggests that
students feel more confident in their level of cultural competence after one semester of
MSW education than they did at the beginning of the semester, hence reporting a higher
level of cultural competence in the post-test.

Answers to the research question “are there specific areas of social work practice
in which students report a higher level of cultural competence over other areas of social
work practice?” are displayed in Table 18. Means for students’ self-reported levels of
cultural competence at pre-test and post-test are ranked in descending magnitude by post-
test from highest to lowest mean self-reported ratings of cultural competence. The three
Standards for which students report a higher level of competence are Self-Awareness,

Diverse Workforce, and Professional Education and reflect beliefs related to cultural

110

competence. The three Standards on which the sample reported the lowest mean levels
of cultural competence are Cross-Cultural Skills, Service Delivery and Diversity of
Language and reflect practice or skill related Standards. Many incoming MSW students
have had previous education (87.3%), trainings (63.3%), other professional/volunteer
experiences (88.4%), or demographic characteristics related to different cultures and are
confident in their belief and value system around cultural competence. Many incoming
MSW students have not practiced social work (36.8%), and have entered an MSW
program to acquire the skills needed to practice social work. These findings seem
appropriate for incoming MSW students who enter the social work program with the
motivation and perceived confidence in their belief and value system, but desire

educational growth in the skills and service delivery of social work.

Table 18. Student Cultural Competence Levels

 

Are there specific areas of social work practice in which students report a higher
level of cultural competence over other areas of social work practice?

 

Standard Post
Self Awareness 4.4
Diverse Workforce 4.1
Professional Education 4.1 I
Cross-Cultural Leadership 4.0
Values and Ethics ‘ 4.0
Cross-Cultural Knowledge 3.9
Empowerment and Advocacy 3.5
Cross-Cultural Skills 3.4
Service Delivery 3.3
Diversity of Language 3.3

 

To explore perceptions about cultural competence among incoming MSW

students, this study examined associations between levels of self-reported cultural

lll

competence and age, social work experience, and social work education. No associations
were identified between age and reported levels of cultural competence suggesting that
general life experience does not relate to perceived cultural competence levels. Findings
for extent of prior social work experience through employment or volunteer work
suggests that social work related life experiences contribute to perceived cultural
competence. Greater amounts of structured education about diversity and cultural
competence, either through courses or trainings,irelated to significantly higher levels of
cultural competence for each Standard except for self-reported ratings on the Diversity of
Language subscale. This is to say that students are more confident in their level of
cultural competence after educational and/or social work experiences where they could
better understand cultural competence. This study supports the growing body of research
that emphasizes the importance of education in cultural competence (Cross, Bazron,
Dennis, & Isaacs, 1989; Devore & Schlesinger, 1996; Green, 1982; Lum, 1999; Orlandi,
1992; Roberts et al., 1990; Sue, 1990) and suggests that students who participate in
coursework and training in cultural competence identify as more confident.

A specific educational degree was used in this study as it compared students who
entered the graduate program having completed BSW (field and classroom) education
with students who entered the MSW program without a BSW for differences in reported
levels of cultural competence. Statistically significant differences were found between
these two groups of incoming students on pre-test scores for each of the ten Standards.
Again, students entering an MSW program with a BSW have had the educational and
social work experience that provides confidence in self-reporting their level of cultural

competence.

112

Table 19 summarizes the significant positive associations and differences for
these variables and each of the ten subscales used to measure the NASW Cultural

Competence Standards.

113

move .Bmm £3, mEoecoamB 8m ocoom 2833 :88 8am?— Emoficwa Q8583 88:8 a
mov 8 80:39:00 o>£mom 88$:me 3:85:83 88:8 ...

 

958284
8330-880

 

owmswcfi
8 58830

 

3121:

COSNUDUW
EcommmomOum

 

88:83 3835

 

it:

8883?,
can Eoananm

 

4t

59»on 838m

 

aim €38-88

 

omen—305—
12230885

 

11:1:

mwocopmaxxtm—Qw

 

SEE ecu mo:_m>

 

:oraoscm 22...— 3mm

:otaoscm
:8? 32%

3:28qu
:8?» 38m

7832880
88$ch 05
«we.

c8985

 

.9836 E coo—S $588 was SE80 .8 88:3: 2: 8 86808 was .EoEoomE

8:838 Bow S’mmv x83 38m .8 M86203 a we: we: 883m 2: b .moocotomxo 88:23 can
Eerie—85 x83 :88 @8285 ,3 owe. 883m ,3 8&6 EB 828888 18330 mo 68— entomom

 

80 $8288»: 8% meEE .2 2an

114

Table 19, shows that there is an association of incoming MSW students with
social work experience, and prior social work education to the level of reported cultural
competence and a significant difference in students who have had BSW field and
classroom education. As social work educators it is important to acknowledge that students
entering an MSW program who have had previous social work education through course
work, trainings and/or a BSW undergraduate degree experience, and students who have not
had these educational experiences have different learning needs. Most MSW programs
allow students with a variety of undergraduate degrees into their social work programs.
When cohorts include students with varying educational and social work experiences,
professors are challenged in presenting course content that all levels of students will
comprehend, and varied pedagogy that assists in building student cultural competence
confidence.

Hypothesis Two suggested differences would be found between students who are
currently enrolled in MSW field education during their first semester and those who are
not, and levels of reported cultural competence. The post-test was used to analyze if
students who were enrolled in social work field education during their first semester of
MSW education reported a higher level of cultural competence than students who were
not enrolled in social work field education. No significant difference was identified
between students who had completed one semester of MSW field education with any of
the ten Standards. This finding was surprising as it was assumed that students in the
practice of social work [field education] within their educational experience would be
provided with a variety of opportunities to engage cross-cultural clients. It could be

assumed, however, that after one semester of MSW education, which includes field

115

education for full time students, the students have not experienced a long enough
timeframe to feel comfortable and/or report a higher level of cultural competence.

Hypothesis Three states “a higher level of cultural competence will be reported by
students with diverse demographic characteristics which include non-White race, self-
identify as LGBT, self identify as an individual with a disability, report no religion or a
religion other than Christian, and by students who report coming from an urban inner
city, international, military geographic location or report being an international student”.
Within this study the previously mentioned geographic locations are identified as diverse
geographic locations. The assumption in hypothesis three is that students who have one
or more personal diverse characteristics will report a higher level of cultural competence
then those who do not report personal diverse characteristics.

While analyzing the demographic variables measured in hypothesis three and the
reported level of cultural competence, there are significant differences in non—White
students and White students, and those that have been raised in an inner city urban setting,
international setting, a military setting and are an international student compared to
students brought up in suburban, rural or a large city setting. When cohorts include
students from a variety of geographical locations, come from different races, ethnicities and
nationalities, identify as LGBT, identify as having a disability, and either identify with a
faith or do not have an identified faith, professors are challenged with the diversity within
the classroom and how it affects the Ieaming environment. This is not to say, that any
individual student can speak for the specific “group” for which they identify. Yet, it is
important to acknowledge that the diversity within the classroom provides a rich Ieaming

environment that needs to be tapped. The questions to ask are when diverse students report

116

a higher level of cultural competence, does that mean their life experiences can offer
something toward the learning environment and how do social work educators draw from

the life experiences of our students to augment the course content.

117

280:: 5 00880.08 0:82.288 88:8...

 

9:38.81—
88808800

 

0mm:m:3
.8 58830

 

88025
E88885

 

008.383
8830

 

AL

88038. 88.
808830qu

 

E0280 02>8m

 

maxm
8280-880

 

a

08238.0—
882:0-m8c0

 

wmocohmaafltM—om

 

x. *

*

830m
8:8 8:_m>

 

mom 0.5

 

08m 05

 

80m 2m

 

mom can

 

08m

 

0cm

 

5:88. 03.8808
3.828 028335

 

58..
8388:3080
83.88.. oz

 

8:538
oz
8:38:

 

Hawa—

 

82 88>:—

.0288.—
88>:—

 

.08—Exam

 

 

88:8 888825 8858 tome: 8 8802 023880le

858 8:038:85 .38 8:5 :88 :a 80¢ 8880 :88: 0:3 $888 .3 98 .:88:0 :85 8:8 88:0:
8 8 88:0: 0: 088: 5:588 m 5:» E8385 :8 mm @802 :8 FE: 8 £802 :8 .008 223 :o:

8205 85 83385 0308888 8838 .23 $888 .3 8888.: 8 EB 00:28:80 8380 .8 88. 8sz

 

ooze 882:: he aspen: 8888 3.8588 .8 user

118

 

Qualitative Findings
Comparison of NASW definition of culture and student definitions of culture

NASW defines culture as a human behavior that includes thoughts,
communications, actions, customs, beliefs, values, and institutions of a racial ethnic,
religious, or social group. Culture often is referred to as the totality of ways being passed
from generation to generation (NASW, 2001). The NASW definition of culture matches
student definitions in several ways. Most notably, both definitions refer to beliefs,
values, racial, ethnic, religious or social group. Listed below are two examples of student
definitions when asked to define culture.

Culture is defined as a group or population that share similar value systems,

beliefs and lifestyles.

Culture can be defined as a combination of ethnicity, religion, race, family values,

and community.

Another theme reflected in the NASW definition used the phrase, generation to
generation, which matches student definitions that refer to family. Family and religion
were given as part of the definition by 32.6% in the pre-test and 27.7% in the post-test.
One student defines culture as A person ’5 culture is a reflection of their background
including their family, education, religion, place of living, language, and their
relationship to governmental and societal systems. Another student states Different
beliefs in regards to religion, lifestyles, traditions, etc. based on geographical location

and family histories.

119

The NASW definition of customs aligns with student definitions of tradition.
When students defined culture, 44.2% in the pre-test and 56.9% in the post test included
beliefs and values as part or all of their definition. One student identifies Beliefs, values
and traditions supported by families and or individuals whereby identifies their heritage,
background and social systems as the definition of culture while another states A
collection of beliefs and activities/actions commonly practiced within a group of people.

Finally, the NASW definition includes reference to behavior including
communications match student definitions referring to language. Two definitions
provided by students include Language, customs, beliefs, and values that people within a
culture and A person 's belief tradition, values, language, and family. When students
defined culture, 43.4% in the pre-test and 38.4% in the post test included tradition and
language as part of their definition.

Table 21 shows that student definitions included two themes that the NASW’s
definition did not (1) geographic location and (2) social location within society. In the
pre-test, 41% of students’ defined culture by including identification with a group, social
group or community as part or all of their definitions and 38.4% included group
identification in their post-test definitions. Race, ethnicity, and nationality were given as
part of the definition by 16.8% in the pre-test and 12.3% in the post-test. Geographic
location was given as part of the definition by 10.5% in the pre-test and 7.7% in the post-
test. Social location within society was given as part of the definition by 14.7% in the
pre-test and 7.7% in the post-test. Although a small percentage of students included in
their definitions geographic location (pre-test 10.5% and 7.7 post-test) and social location

within society (pre-test 14.7% and 7.7% post-test), it is worth evaluating if these concepts

120

should be considered and tested as important aspects of definition for culture. The
NASW definition for culture does include the beliefs, values, traditions and language of
different people groups. Family, religion, race, ethnicity and nationality are also included.
However, to understand an individual or a group’s culture thoroughly, it is important to
understand the geographic location of the individual or group as well as an individual’s or
group’s social location within the bigger society.

Table 2]. Themes reflected in definitions of culture

 

 

Themes Pre-test Post-test NASW
Content of themes given to define Percentage Percentage Theme
culture of of reflected in
Students Students . NASW
definition
1. Beliefs and values 44.2% 56.9% X
2. Traditions and language 43.4% 38.4% X
2. Identification with a group, 41. % 38.4% X
social group or community
3. Family, religion 32.6% 27.7% X
4. Race, ethnicity, nationality 16.8% 12.3% X
5. Geographic location 10.5% 7.7%
6. Social location within society 14.7% 7.7%

 

Focus Group

Students in both focus groups shared their surprise at the high level of cultural
competence reported by students in both the pre— and post-tests. Student commented that
fellow student high self-ratings at pre-test may have reflected what participants thought
they should answer as incoming social workers. Students also commented on the high
means for post-test self-ratings. They believed the high levels of post-test cultural
competency ratings reflected what respondents thought they should answer after a
semester of MS W course work. Comments also revealed that it was diflicult to rate their

level of cultural competence at this time in their professional education, and early social

12]

work careers. Student comments suggest that there is a threat to the validity of this study
related to whether students could accurately assess their personal levels of cultural
competence within each Stande and in their answers to each scale item. This researcher
found it interesting that no students responded that they themselves felt they should gauge
their level of competence higher, but projected that other students probably responded in
that manner.

In general, participants expressed surprise at the average for reported levels of
competency. Various comments by students also included references to specific
Standards. Student comments included surprise that the mean of post-test ratings for
Values and Ethics subscale score (M =4. 0) was lower than other Standards. The
discussion revealed wide agreement that most courses taken within the first semester of
MSW education included the NASW Code of Ethics and emphasized its importance.
Because of this experience students remarked they thought the average rating for Values
and Ethics would be higher. Although students commented it was lower than other
Standards, a rating of 4.0 indicates respondents were identifying themselves as being
[mostly competent] on the specific questions addressing Values and Ethics. Although
students might be familiar with the NAS W Code of Ethics through course work, they
could see the need for growth in implementing the Code in professional practice. There
is a possibility that student familiarity with values and ethics through class and field
experience may have sensitized them or acquainted them with the nature of ethical
dilemmas in practice or challenges to their values during the first semester of graduate
education. A student rating of 4.0 [mostly competent] is still a high level of self—reported

cultural competence.

Focus group participants also commented on the high rating of Set/LA wareness
(M =4. 4) as it did not reflect what they experience from fellow students. Several
participants stated they think they are self aware, but they are not. The comments by
focus group participants about fellow student’s self-awareness, underscores that students
interpret self awareness in many ways. It is this researchers suspicion that when students
commented “they think they are self aware, but they are not” that they had one or two
specific fellow students in mind. In addition, no student commented that they themselves
thought they were self-aware, but after taking courses they found out they were not as
self-aware as they perceived. This interpretation of other students, and the lack of inward
disclosure, does not discredit the comment, but brings to question the understanding of
being self-aware or the ability to correctly self assess.

Participants concurred with the average self-rating of Cross-Cultural Knowledge
(M=3.9) and Skills (M=3.4) being rated lower than other Standards. The group
expressed agreement that they had not acquired the knowledge and skills to be culturally
competent. Students commented on the reported level of Professional Education
competency (M=4. I) and wondered if students understood the meaning of Professional
Education within cultural competence. Again, this comment is projected onto other
students understanding and does not disclose or make comment to their personal
response.

When asked “Where did your Ieaming about cultural competence occur within
your first semester of MSW education” students reported learning about cultural
competence when professors shared their own personal and professional experiences.

Students related stories of how they leamed cultural competence in casual discussions

with their peers including discussions with peers in response to controversial statements
made by professors. Comments included:

Often our professors did not address conflicts around culture within the class so

we talked during break or after class. I learned as much during those informal

discussions.

It helped to ask my friends in class about things our professor did not talk

about. I learned from my classmates.

Students named specific courses in which they learned cultural competence
including Human Behavior in Social Environment (HBSE), Policy, and Practice classes
and Field Education. Students reported that knowledge learned in the class room is (or
will be) “solidified” in field education. Students commented that ethnocentricity should
be addressed in student and faculty remarks. Students stated that during discussions
about diverse groups, both faculty and students referred to a diverse group as “them ”
which lead to an attitude of “us and them " whether spoken or implied. Students thought
that at times, professors often didn ’t allow debates or controversial discussions.
Participants believed faculty suppression of such difficult discussions resulted from the

faculty does not know how to handle it. This quotation refers to faculty not having the
knowledge or skill needed to facilitate classroom discussion and mediate conflict or strain
that occurred. Students also expressed that they want to grow in cultural competence but
stated often there is not a safe environment to discuss cultural issues where students can
be vulnerable and ask all types ofquestions. All of the above themes and experiences
affirm the work of first semester MSW faculty and provide insight into the types of

Ieaming experiences that assist students with cultural competence growth. Yet, again it

124

must be said that student input was on fellow students and no personal disclosure was
contributed.

Specific curriculum content, identified as helpfiil for learning cultural
competence, was obtaining information about the history of specific peoples and groups
and the importance of learning how to apply course content (articles, readings, lectures)
to practical social work settings. Such content would include learning basic inquiry
skills to use across all cultural groups. Pedagogical suggestions included the need for
role-plays, videotaping, group critique of video recordings, experiential learning, and
reflective listening exercises. Students requested instruction or help in course content
with integrating more information on a wider variety of peoples or groups. The
particular groups or people, about whom more information would be helpfirl, included
Arabic communities, gangs, gays and lesbians, and people with disabilities. Students
believed practical classroom experiences would remove some of the intimidation they
feel. Student dialogue expanded to say they often dare not speak in classroom discussions
as they do not know how to formulate questions on diverse groups. An additional
curriculum suggestion was the addition of a course specifically about cultural
competence that would be a required part of the MSW curriculum. They believed the
course should be mandatory because all students needed to have the information, even
those who did not want to learn about or increase their cultural competence.

Within this mixed method study, the qualitative data analyzed assists in
interpreting the quantitative data. For example, the student definition to culture provides
insight into student interpretation of being culturally competent when answering the

questionnaire. Student definitions of culture were summarized by seven themes. Of the

seven themes, five are included within the NASW definition for culture. However,
student definitions went beyond the NASW definition of culture to include geography
and social location within society. When looking at student definition of culture
compared to the NASW definition, a conclusion was drawn that students’ displayed an
understanding of culture and could accurately answer the questions within the
questionnaire.

Although the qualitative analysis of student definition shows students understand
culture, focus group respondents state that students reported high levels of competence
because they want to be culturally competent and assume they need to be culturally
competent to be a good social worker. When completing the pre-test questionnaire, some
students felt confident in stating their true level of cultural competence, yet some focus
group participants believed the high levels of cultural competent scores reflect the level
of competence they want to have or should have as a social worker. Focus group
participants stated that students also could have rated post-test questionnaires according
to what they were expected to learn during their first semester of MSW education and
question if they became more culturally competent.

Both qualitative data sources, i.e. the definitions of culture and the results of focus
groups, provide insight into students’ responses on the questionnaires. The aggregated
definitions of culture demonstrate students’ understanding of culture. The focus group
respondents state they have a desire to be culturally competent social workers. The mean
self-reported level of cultural competence overall at pre-test corresponds with being
moderately competent (M=3.4) at post-test the mean reported level of cultural

competence increased and was closer to a rating of mostly competent (M=3.8). Both pre-

126

and post-test levels of self-reported cultural competence [moderately competent and
mostly competent] on the 1-5 point scale, are higher than average. It is important for
social work educators to communicate to incoming MSW students that cultural
competence is a lifelong journey. According to NASW (2001) “cultural competence is
never fully realized, achieved, or completed, but rather cultural competence is a lifelong
process for social workers who will always encounter diverse clients and new situations
in their practices”.

Within focus groups, participants commented on Ieaming from their peers.
Students appreciated individuals with diverse life experiences sharing their stories.
Statistical tests that compared post-test cultural competence scores between students from
a diverse race with the group not from a diverse race, revealed significantly higher levels
for those from a diverse race on 7 of the 10 cultural competence Standards. In addition,
individuals raised in diverse geographic locations reported a higher level of cultural
competence on five Standards at pre-test and four Standards at post-test. Do students
from a diverse race or students raised in a diverse geographic location stimulate insight

for their peers in the area of cultural competence?

Implications

Social Work Education
The results of this study illustrate a need for continued focus on cultural
competence within social work education. As reviewed earlier within this document,
C SWE requires diversity content within each social work course in accredited social

work programs (EPAS, 2001). The literature review of this study documents that the

127

importance of cultural competence has evolved within social work education and the
social work profession. Student focus groups within this study support the importance of
incorporating cultural competence content and skills within courses such as HBSE,
policy, practice and field and challenge social work educators to evaluate pedagogy
around cultural competence. Continuing to prioritize research in cultural competence
will provide attention, discussion and education to social work students,,social work
educators and CSWE to better serve those from varied cultures.

Social work researchers Garcia and VanSoest (2000) address the challenges and
dynamics of teaching cultural diversity content within social work education stating that
the effect evoked in students places heightened pressure and responsibility on faculty to
be responsive to process issues that include students’ emotional as well as Ieaming needs.
The heightened emotional classroom situation described by Garcia and Van Soest was
supported by students within the focus groups of this study. Students desire that when
discussions of cultural issues arise within the classroom, that faculty allow discussions to
occur and facilitate the process. Garcia and Van Soest (2000) state that critical thinking
skills can be valuable in assisting faculty while they facilitate intensive class discussions
while maintaining a focus on Ieaming. They go on to challenge social work educators to
address their personal pedagogy while teaching diversity content, and encourage
educators to evaluate how their personal beliefs impact teaching. The continued growth
of social work educators in facilitating difficult conversations will add to the quality of
the education.

In addition to pedagogy, social work educators are called to provide a classroom

atmosphere of acceptance in order that all students, regardless of their level of cultural

128

competence, feel comfortable sharing their experiences and have an opportunity to learn
form others who are different from themselves. Social work educators are challenged to
establish an atmosphere of mutual respect and emotional safety in the classroom so that
sensitive and at times controversial issues can be discussed. A safe classroom
environment is essential for student learning. A number of authors recommend setting up
discussion ground rules or guidelines (Chan & Traeacy, 1996; Good, 1995; Hyde & Ruth,
2002) and have students design norms for class discussions and activities (Fassinger,
1995). Using storytelling as a way of creating shared experience (Rockline, 1983) and
discussing social identities to normalize students’ feelings (Garcia & Van Soest, 1997)‘
are additional methods that have been described as a beneficial learning experiences,
reinforcing common understanding, in a safe environment. Within this study it could be
interpreted that student feedback which consisted of projections of other students, and no
or little reflection of personal confidence and/or comfort in cultural competence,
demonstrates that the students did not feel safe within the focus group. As educators we
must continue to evaluate how to create a safe atmosphere of mutual respect and safety.
Educators within all disciplines are challenged to expand the paradigm of
teaching and understand the responsibility of educators to the learner. Whether in “lecture
halls, seminar rooms, field settings, labs and even electronic classrooms- the place people
now receive their formal education-teachers possess the power to create conditions that
can helps students learn a great deal-or keep them from learning much at all. Teaching is
the intentional act of creating those conditions, and good teaching requires that we
understand the inner sources of both the intent and the act” (Parker, 1998, p.8). This

study suggests that students desire a variety of activities while Ieaming cultural

129

competence in a safe environment. Suggestions incorporate varied classroom activities
including lecture, panels of diverse individuals, role-playing, and experiential Ieaming
exercises which will assist students in developing or improving their levels of cultural
competence. Students describe the importance of faculty sharing their own professional,
cross-cultural experiences in practice settings. This pedagogical approach can allow
students to ask questions to clarify cross-cultural interactions. Social work educators
continue to be challenged to approach teaching using modalities that will resonate with
students with varied life and professional experience. As educators expand their
pedagogy to include varied classroom activities, this study suggests students will grow in
their understanding and comfort in becoming a culturally competent practitioner.

A key area of cultural competence within social work education lies within
experiential learning. Within all CSWE accredited social work programs students
complete field education within social services agencies as part of the curriculum. This
experience allows students to practice social work while taking practice courses. Often
assignments are given to students to assist their learning in field education and this study
suggests that students understanding and growth in cultural competence can occur in this
manner. Other areas of experiential Ieaming within course work can include assignments
that give students “hands on” experience with cultures different than their own.
Assignments that can be included are shadowing a social worker in a social service
agency, volunteering in a setting whose culture is different than the student, and/or
interviewing an individual who has had different life experiences or comes from a
different culture than the student. The above mentioned provides experiential learning

that complements the traditional reading, lecture and group work that occurs in the

130

classroom. This style of Ieaming benefits the inexperienced student seeking to interface

with a diverse setting, working with diverse people, and diverse clients.

There is currently a new edition of EPAS within CSWE in DRAFT form. The
DRAFT of the new EPAS, soon to be published by CSWE, addresses diversity within
Standard 3. Standard 3 states that each CSWE accredited program’s learning
environment must show a commitment to diversity (CSWE, 2007).

3.1.] The program describes the specific and continuous efforts it makes to provide a
Ieaming environment in which respect for all persons and understanding of
diversity and difference (including age, class, color, disability, ethnicity, gender,
immigration status, political ideology, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation)
are practiced.

3.1.2 The program describes how its Ieaming environment (including its institutional
setting; selection of field education settings and their clientele; composition of
program advisory or field committees; educational and social resources; resource
allocation; program leadership; speakers series, seminars, and special programs;
support groups; research and other initiatives as well as the demographic make-up
of its faculty, staff, and student body) models affirmation and respect for diversity
and difference.

3.1.3 The program discusses specific plans to improve the learning context to affirm
and support persons with diverse identities.

CSWE continues to require an infusion of diversity content within social work education

and requires a learning environment that respects and acknowledges the diversity of

students, faculty and the greater community. The structure that C SWE requires aligns

l3'l

with student focus group feedback within this study. Providing a safe learning
environment that respects and acknowledges diverse student life experience is
foundational to social work education.

This study also challenges social work education to continue developing ways to
measure student cultural competence. The instrument used in this study is a preliminary
tool offered as a way to begin measuring cultural competence among incoming MSW
students’ cultural competence. In order to refine and improve the evaluative process
begun in this study, it is important for social work education to continue conducting
empirical studies about cultural competence.

Research Measurement

The new tool within this study is to assist in measuring perceptions of cultural
competence as it is described in the NASW Cultural Competence Standards. Program,
classroom and individual educational research respond directly to concerns about better
learning and effective teaching. Program and classroom research encourages
academicians and students to become more systematic and sensitive observers of learning
as it takes place every day in programs and classrooms (Angelo, T.A., & Cross, K.P.).
Self-report assessment provides an avenue for students to actively be involved in their
learning which is lauded as essential in higher education. The report titled The Conditions
of Excellence in American Higher Education (1984) states “There is now a good deal of
research evidence to suggest that the more intensely they engage in their own education,
the greater will be their satisfaction with their education experiences, and their
persistence in college, and more likely they are to continue their learning” (p.17). Active

engagement in higher learning implies and requires self-awareness and self-direction. By

using self-report, students’ present their awareness and understanding of their skills,
performance, and habits which will assist social work educators in creating an
atmosphere of learning. Challenges for educators include students varied awareness,
understanding and skill within one classroom. We continue to seek the balance of
creating a safe environment which provides respect and dignity of each student no matter
their level of knowledge, values and skills.

Within this study a newly developed tool was created to allow students to report
their level of cultural competence as described in the NASW Cultural Competence
Standards. While answering the questions, students were able to draw on their personal
awareneSs, life and professional experience in the area of cultural competence. This tool
has demonstrated internal reliability within this study, yet further testing is needed to
ensure continued reliability. This measure and other measures of cultural competence are
important for social work educators and social work professionals as it provides a self-
report instrument that can be used in a variety of settings. Although designed to measure
cultural competence in MSW students, educators can use it to stimulate conversation
about the NASW Cultural Competence Standards and to study concepts of cultural

competence within the knowledge, values and skills paradigm.

Social Work Profession
Although the focus of this study has been on cultural competence in MSW students,
this study holds implications for the social work profession as a whole. Measuring cultural
competence as part of MSW education begins the process for the profession. Measurement

of professional competencies, in this case cultural competence, is vital for social work

133

practice whether practiced at a micro, mezzo or macro level. Being able to serve diverse
individuals, families and groups with dignity and respect is the goal of social workers being
culturally competent. Understanding needs of specific cultural groups helps social workers
provide community programming and services targeted for those being served. Measuring
professional cultural competence will provide social workers with a better understanding of
their knowledge and skills to provide such services.

The NASW Cultural Competence Standards provide conceptualization of cultural
competence in 10 key areas. Social work professionals can use measurements of cultural
competence for personal evaluation and goal setting within social service agencies. The
tool used within this study is transferable to social service settings and can be used to
educate staff at all organizational levels on the NASW Cultural Standards.

In addition, this study prompts the next step in evaluating perceptions of
organizational cultural competence. Although the measure developed for this study was
intended to be used by an individual, there is a body of literature and tools to evaluate
cultural competence within a specific social service agency (Alvesson, 1993; Cooke &
Szuma12000;Golembiewski, I988; Kilmann, 19985; Schwartzman, 1993). Individual
and organizational evaluation findings could prompt agencies to offer trainings on
cultural competence. Such trainings will encourage staff to better understand and serve a
diverse population, and better meet the needs of clients.

Findings related to cultural competence levels of social workers and/or staff
within a social service agency could be useful in fund development processes, when
responding to requests for proposals (RFP) or for grant seeking. Often, social service

agencies are competing with other agencies to provide similar services. Finding a

134

concrete way to promote competent workers and a competent work environment could
give the edge in the awarding of contracts. The research tool developed for this study
provides an evidence-based method that can measure social work cultural competence in
social service agencies. If social service agencies show funding sources the importance
they put on cultural competence, (through measurement, trainings, skills etc.) it could

provide an edge to contracts being awarded.

NAS W Cultural Competence

Formal standards in cultural competence in social work practice and education
were adopted by the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) in 2001. The
NASW Cultural Competence Standards brought definition to cultural competence, but
there has been a void in the research examining cultural competence among social work
students and professionals with regard to knowledge, attitudes, and skills. This study
contributes to the body of knowledge about cultural competence within social work
education and practice. This study can assist social work educators and students with
gaining a better understanding of the NASW Cultural Competence Standards by
identifying the educational experiences graduate social work students have or seek out to
improve their cultural competence.

This study also challenges NASW's definition of culture. NASW uses the
definitional concepts, (1.) beliefs, values, tradition, and language, (2.) identification with
a group, (3.) family, religion, (4.) society, race, ethnicity, nationality, within the
professions definition of culture. However, the aggregation of student definitions

included two additional concepts. These two additional themes refer to the importance of

geographic location and social location within society. Both concepts expand the NASW
definition of culture in a way that acknowledges geographic location as part of an
individual or group culture. These two additional themes recognize and emphasize that
culture does not standalone, that culture can be viewed only from within its social

location in society.

Social Work Licensing

Recognizing cultural competence as important to social work practice the ASWB
continues to address cultural competence in licensing. As social work NASW continues
to measure cultural competence per the NASW Cultural Competence Standards, it will
impact requirements for licensed social workers. Currently questions within social work
licensing exams are primarily knowledge based, in order to obtain a comprehensive and
accurate measure of cultural competence, questions related to social work values and
skills will need to be included. In addition to testing for cultural competence, this study
has implications for continued education (CECH’s) credits needed to maintain individual
social work licenses. Individual states have content specific CECH’s; this study suggests

that CECH’s in cultural competence will benefit social workers.

How Culturally Competent are Social Workers?
Within this study we have looked at cultural competence requirements within
social work education as described by CSWE. In addition, we have reviewed the NASW
Code of Ethics and the NASW Cultural Competence Standards and licensing

requirements. It is a priority of the profession that social workers grow in their cultural

competence. Yet, how culturally competent are social workers? To answer this question
it is important to look at the social work programs, faculty, field education directors, field
instructors and agency personnel.

As mentioned previously, accredited Schools of social work must adhere to EPAS
within the program mission, goals and policy. EPAS states programs must provide an
environment:

in which respect for all persons and understanding of diversity and difference

(including age, class, color, disability, ethnicity, gender, immigration status,

political ideology, race, religion, sex, and sexual orientation) are practiced

(CSWE, 2007).

There are faith based Schools whose College/University mission conflicts with EPAS 3.1
in the area of sexual orientation, diverse religions and in some occurrences political
ideology. Because of these differences, some faith based social work programs do not
choose to have an accredited program but offer a bachelor’s of science degree, with a
social work major. But, there are accredited programs that submit an addendum during
the accreditation process, to provide documentation on ideological differences. When all
accredited programsdo not provide allegiance to teach cultural competence as required
by C SWE, how culturally competent are social work programs?

Within this study student focus groups stated often our professors did not address
conflicts around culture. Another student stated during discussions about diverse groups,
both faculty and students referred to a diverse group as “them” which lead to an attitude
of “us and them" whether spoken or implied. These student comments lead this

researcher to ask the question, how comfortable are social work faculty in addressing

137

issues around cultural competence? It is assumed that social work faculties are culturally
competent, and teach from a fundamental belief and value system with a commitment to
cultural competence. Yet, as Garcia and Van Soest (2000) discuss in the prior mentioned
study, faculty responses to classroom situations around diversity represent a wide level of
responses which are described as a harm-to-help continuum. The five levels described are
Level l, cultural destructiveness, involves colluding and harm-doing through the use of
humor, Level 2, cultural incapacity, represents an inability to use the event as Ieaming
experience for the class; Level 3, cultural blindness, takes a position of neutrality rather
than examining issues of race directly; Level 4, cultural pre-competence, attempts to
address the issue with confrontational tactics; and Level 5, cultural competence, attempts
to address the issue in an open way in order to transform it into a teachable moment
(Garcia & Van Soest, 2000). The authors of the study state they found that the faculty
surveyed in their study show similarities of social work faculty in general. So the
question must be asked, how comfortable are social work faculty in addressing issues
around cultural competence?

Field education placement is often described by students as the highlight of their
social work education yet, how culturally sensitive are social work field education
directors when placing students in social service agencies? Is student culture and agency
culture considered? Messinger (2004) in her study with gay and lesbian students in social
work field education, identified interpersonal issues which included homophobic attitudes
and behaviors, heterosexist attitudes and behaviors, unfriendly climate of placement,
conflicts in intimate relationships, conflicts with field instructors, and general feelings of

lack of safety or anxiety as interpersonal issues within the practicum setting. Messinger‘s

I38

work with gay and lesbian social work students offers the profession a glimpse into the
field education experience of a sample of gay/lesbian students. This study provides a
voice to the students’ personal experiences, their social contexts of family and fiiends,
their social work programs, and the social work agencies at which they were placed. At
times these issues can be overlooked or minimized in the context of field education, yet
Messinger’s work challenges the directors of field education, field instructor’s and
agencies to ensure gay and lesbian students’ experiences are not overlooked and offer
areas where social work educators can provide support. And lastly, students within the
study identified institutional issues which included homophobic attitudes and behaviors,
heterosexist attitudes and behaviors, an absence of gay and lesbian issues, unfiiendly
climate in placement, and general feel of lack of safety or anxiety as issues from an
institutional perspective (p.192). The question remains, how comfortable are

field education directors, field instructors, agency personnel and social service

agencies as a whole in addressing areas of difference?

When looking at cultural competence within School’s of social work, faculty,
field education directors, and field instructors, it is important to look at the geographic
location of the individuals within the educational and practice settings. Some School’s
prioritize hiring diverse faculty and seek out field education settings with diverse field
instructors and clientele. Some geographic locations do not attract diverse faculty to the
College or University and social service agencies do not have diverse field instructors or
diverse clientele. Geographic locations with little or no diversity make it difficult for

students to learn to work with individuals different then themselves and develop their

l39

cultural competence. Some students have never interacted with diverse people groups.
Could it be that some students have never interacted with individuals from a different
race or ethnicity than their own? If a student is attending a faith based College that does
not teach inclusiveness of diverse religions or gay and lesbian individuals, how well are
students trained in the area of cultural competence with gay and lesbian individuals
and/or diverse religions? Although we can not create diverse geographic locations, it
would be extremely important for School’s of social work to prioritize student
understanding of cultural competence in all settings, and ensure students can research
best practices while providing culturally competent services.

To conclude the implications section of this study, we must ask how culturally
competent are students? When School’s of social work, faculty, field directors, field
instructors, and social service agencies all provide varied input on cultural competence,
how will we know the level of student cultural competence? This study provides a tool
for student self rating in the area of cultural competence as described in the NASW
Cultural Competence Standards. It is important to expand self rating in cultural
competence to include faculty, field directors, field instructors and agency personnel to

begin open dialogue about cultural competence.

Limitations ofthe Study

This study has several limitations. The limitations are related to measurement,
sampling, research design, and procedures. The remainder of this section details the
nature of the limitations. When relevant, limitations are discussed with respect to

limitations in the existing literature

I40

First, the credibility of an outcome study depends, in large part; on sample size
(Montcalm & Royse, 2002). A sample of 67 participants completed both the pre- and
post-tests. This size sample compares to other published studies in which sample sizes
were smaller (Coumeya & Friedenreich, 1999). However, description of subgroups for
demographic variables of race, LGBT, disability, faith other than Christian, and
geographic locations revealed a homogeneous sample that is not representative of the
population. This homogeneity may be accurate and reflect the incoming class of MSW
students but it resulted in very restricted numbers for subgroup comparisons.

An additional study design limitation was that the study sample was not randomly
selected. The study relied on the voluntary participation of students entering an identified
MSW program in fall of 2007 in a large Midwest University. Although students were
given the option to not participate, the atmosphere at a graduate social work program
orientation often lends to students following directions and not questioning their new
environment.

This study was initiated at the MSW orientation held in August, prior to the
beginning of the fall semester. The atmosphere at orientation introduced another
limitation. Many students entering the program were changing careers or had limited
social work experience. During the delivery of instructions and explanation of the
research for informed consent this researcher stressed that if a respondent had limited or
no experience, it was appropriate to indicate no experience as an answer choice.
Although clearly explained to students during the study introduction, that there was no
expectation about the level of students' cultural competence at entry to an MSW

program, as an educator, my experience has shown that students want to put their best

14]

foot forward as they begin educational programs. Student participants confirmed this
observation during the focus groups. Participants noted the high level of reported cultural
competence in pre- and post-tests and wondered whether students self—reported having
the level of cultural competence they believed to be appropriate for new social work
graduate students.

A related procedural issue posed another limitation. The pre-test on cultural
competence was not the only questionnaire the students were completing during
orientation. The coordinators of the social work graduate orientation had a pre-program
questionnaire for attendees to complete. The multiple demands brings into question the
level of attention respondents brought to completing the cultural competence study
questionnaire.

An additional limitation was the homogeneity of the sample. Out of 67 total
participants at in the pre- and post-test, only seven males (11%), four individuals who
identified as LGBT (6.8%), one student reported having a disability (1.6%) and six
students reported practicing a faith other than Christian (9.5%). These small subgroups
hinder the representativeness of the sample and limit the generalizability of study
findings.

The geographic location of the sample also is a limitation. Using only the
students attending a Midwest University as the sampling frame, the sample does not
capture the diversity that could be gleaned from a study using multiple program sites and
different locations to select a sample. Although the sample was drawn from two separate
university campuses it cannot replace the strength gained by sampling from a variety of

programs at varying geographic locations.

With students completing the questionnaire using a self-report methodology, this
provides only one pre and post data points, both provided by the student. Self-report
limits a study of cultural competence to the student’s sense of their personal cultural
competence.

The questionnaire itself posed limitations on the validity of this study. The
questionnaire was crafted for the purposes of this study with the content and structure
taken from the NASW Cultural Competence Standards and NASW Cultural Competence
Standard Indicators. The Likert-type response scale used in the cultural competence
questionnaire included five answer choices: no experience, minimally competent,
moderately competent, mostly competent, and competent. This researcher identified no
experience, as a stand alone rating option, and minimally competent, moderately
competent, mostly competent and competent as a four point rating scale for student’s that
did have some experience. However, when five rating options are available to a
respondent, the center of a rating scale could be perceived as a safe self-rating. In this
study the middle answer choice was moderately competent. This value corresponds
closely to the observed means for each of the subscales.

The post-test of the study was distributed to students at the end of their first
semester during a class session in their Human Behavior and the Social Environment
theory course. During each day that the post-test was given, the professors teaching the
course also were given an end of semester post-test to assess the extent of knowledge
learned in the course. Student attentiveness may have been compromised by needing to
complete multiple questionnaires during one class period and thereby posed another

limitation to the study.

143

Lastly, a limitation of the study was present in the relationship of this researcher
and the students. Although for purposes of anonymity it was important that there was no
relationship between students and researcher, it also did not lend to a safe environment of
mutual respect. As discussed earlier, students seek a safe environment to learn and grow
in cultural competence. Student lack of disclosure and response of projection of fellow
students, is an example of that. This was a limitation.

Despite these constraints on the generalizability, validity and reliability of
findings, this research has sufficient strengths to sustain a discussion of recommendations

and has compelling heuristic value.

Recommendations

The study findings prompt questions about: social work students’ and
professionals’ demographic characteristics and backgrounds, valid methods for assessing
cultural competence, discussion of cultural competence extending beyond educational
settings to practicing professionals; evaluation outcome research on social work
programs’ achievement of curriculum goals and attainment of practice Standards.

First, it is important that research continue in cultural competence within social
work education and the social work profession. Within social work education,
suggestions for next steps include expanding data collection to beyond student self-report
to include multiple data points. Key individuals to provide evaluation of student cultural
competence include social work professors, field liaisons, and field instructors.
Developing a complimentary cultural competence evaluation of student for use by
professors and field education instructors would strengthen student cultural competence

evaluation by providing self-report evaluation and professor and field education

144

’ instructors’ evaluation. A related recommendation for social work education relates to a
pre-program and post-program self-report from social work students. Continued
evaluation of students’ levels of cultural competence would allow students to evaluate
their own level of cultural competence after completing the entire MSW curriculum.
Comparison of pre and post program questionnaires completed by students with professor
and/or field instructor evaluations of students’ self-reported cultural competence would
enhance validity of student evaluations at a variety of points in time.

Second, future assessment should not only include students but should expand to
include practicing social workers and agencies. The questionnaire designed for this study
could be used by professionals and their supervisors to provide evaluation of practicing
social workers with respect to cultural competence. It is recommended that the cultural
competence of social service agencies also be evaluated. Although this questionnaire
does not lend itself easily to use for agency evaluation, a complimentary agency
evaluation of cultural competence would benefit the field of social work and the clients
served.

Third, it is important within social work education and the social work profession
to broaden the definition of cultural competence. Redefining cultural competence should
include not only race and ethnicity, but all groups that contribute to a diverse US.
society.

The review of literature reported earlier in this study states that NASW

acknowledges diversity and defines cultural competence as

the process by which individuals and systems respond respectfully and

effectively to people of all cultures, languages, classes, races, ethnic

I45

backgrounds, religions, and other diversity factors in a manner that
recognizes, affirms, and values the worth of individuals, families, and
communities and protects and preserves the dignity of each (NASW,

2000b,p.6l)

As social workers, we must continue to broaden individual student and
professional definitions of cultural competence to include all peoples from all
cultures. Through this study, MSW students suggest including geographic
location and social location within society to the definition. This study suggests
culture to be defined as the process by which individuals and systems respond
respectfully and effectively to people of all cultures, languages, classes, races,
ethnic backgrounds, religions, and other diversity factors within all geographic
locations in a manner that recognizes, affirms, and values the worth of
individuals, families, and communities and protects and preserves the dignity of
each.

Fourth, we must continue to expand our knowledge on whether and why various
demographic variables have an impact on individual and organizational levels of cultural
competence. This study just begins to inform the profession’s understanding of how
individuals involved in social work education and social service agencies with varied
demographic characteristics attain higher levels of cultural competence. Research should
continue in this area to provide a better understanding to C SWE and social work
professors on how specific pedagogy that embrace diverse student bodies can help all

students grow in their understanding, knowledge and practice of cultural competence. As

I46

students grow in their level of cultural competence, clients and communities stand to gain
more competent social workers.

These recommendations lead to a fifth recommendation. As social work
educators we must better understand the experiences and expertise students bring to the
Ieaming environment around cultural competence. Do diverse students coming from a
diverse race or ethnic group, that self-identify as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual or Transgender,
report having a disability, come from a diverse geographic location, enter MSW
programs with a higher level of cultural competence than incoming students that do not
have these characteristics or life experiences? Does student diversity change the way we
teach or our curriculum or the way students utilize this experience? This is not to suggest
that any one student who comes from a diverse group is asked to speak for the diverse
group. It is important to identify specific pedagogical exercises, writings, role- plays,
panel discussions, and case studies that allow for student experience to be shared. These
curricular experiences can only take place in an environment of respect where students
can ask questions and struggle about differences with their classmates.

Finally, the NASW Cultural Competence Standards have existed since 2001. To
use these Standards to benefit students and practicing social workers in their work with
clients and communities, although this study only is a preliminary attempt at measuring
cultural competence, it possibly provides a new measurement instrument. This new
measure has empirical evidence of internal scale reliability strong enough to warrant
additional use and refining. Suggested future expansion to this tool includes determining
where each question fits within the knowledge, values and skills paradigm. As social

workers rate their level of cultural competence, educators and agency supervisors can

I47

better understand where student/employee confidence lies (knowledge, values or skills)
and what areas need growth. It is suggested that researchers continue to use the
instrument developed for this study to measure cultural competence in academic settings
and social service agencies. This instrument can be used to inform and challenge all
social work professionals to measure and improve their cultural competence. Increased
cultural competence has the potential to benefit clients, communities and organizations in
better service delivery, intervention effectiveness, and increased quality of life for

professionals and the general population.

Conclusion

This study is a call to social workers to be culturally competent. As noted by
NASW, cultural competence is a life-long journey, which begins while students are in
their programs and continues throughout a professional life of social work practice. By
providing continued research attention to cultural competence in social work education
and social work practice, our profession strives for excellence on all levels of service

delivery to the diverse cultures within our world.

148

Appendix A
Definitions

Culture The customs, habits, skills, technology, arts, values, ideology, science, and
religious and political behavior of a group of people in a specific time period.

Cultural bias A belief about the supposed superiority or inferiority of individuals,
groups, or nations based on their cultural or ethnic affiliations.

Cultural care The transmission of values and traditions, especially to people who have
been isolated from the sociocultural group of their heritage. This can take the form of
special group or individual educational programs, returning to groups to participate in the
traditions, or efforts by the group to reach out and re-engage those who have become
isolated.

Cultural diversity The existence within a social context of various racial, religious, and
ethnic groups, as well as other distinct groups, each of which has different values and
lifestyles. An appreciation of those variations, rather than efforts to facilitate
assimilation, has been the goal of social workers in ethnic-sensitive practice. Cultural
diversity is also known as cultural pluralism.

Culturally diverse Pertaining to individuals, families, groups, or communities who do
not have full access to the society in which they live because of such factors as poor
education, geographic isolation, discrimination, poverty, and political or ethnic conflicts.

Culturally sensitive practice In social work, the process of professional intervention
while being knowledgeable, perceptive, empathic, and skillful about the unique as well as
common characteristics of clients who possess racial, ethnic, religious, gender, age,
sexual orientation, or socioeconomic differences. Theoretically, all professional social
work practice is culturally sensitive practice. The term is synonymous with ethnic-
sensitive practice.

Cultural marginality Belonging to two or more cultural groups while being fully
accepted by neither. This often occurs with people from racially mixed or interfaith
marriage or with individuals who immigrate.

Cultural pluralism The existence within a society of various racial, religious, and
ethnic groups, as well as other distinct groups, each of which has different values and

lifestyles.

Cultural racism The belief in the inherent inferiority of a particular cultural group's
language, music, art, interests, lifestyles, and values.

149

Cultural relativism The view that specific norms or rituals can be understood
accurately only in the context of a culture’s goals, social history, and enviromnental
demands.

Culture of poverty A premise according to which poor people are impoverished
because their values, norms, and motivations prevent them from taking advantage of
widespread opportunities to achieve economic independence.

Ethnicity 1. An orientation toward the shared national origin, religion, race, or language
of a people. 2. A person’s ethnic affiliation, by virtue of one or more of these
characteristics and traditions. Ethnicity is a powerful determinant of an individual’s
patterns of feeling, thinking, and behaving.

Ethnic-sensitive practice Professional social work that emphasizes and values the
special capabilities, distinctive cultural histories, and unique needs of people of various

ethnic groups. Social work values and ethics emphasize ethnic-sensitive practice.

Ethnic stereotyping Perceived, usually negative, ideas about the behaviors of a racial,
religious, or geographic group.

Ethnocentrism An orientation or set of beliefs that holds that one’s own culture, racial
or ethnic group or nation is inherently superior to others.

Ethnography The study and description of the behavior patterns of specific cultures or
groups of people.

150

Appendix B

NASW Cultural Competence Indicators

Standard 1: Ethics and Values

Social workers shall function in accordance with the values, ethics, and Standards of the
profession, recognizing how personal and professional values may conflict with or accommodate
the needs of diverse populations.

Culturally competent social workers will demonstrate:

1. Knowledge of the NASW Code of Ethics.
2. Ability to describe areas of conflict and accommodation between personal values,
professional values and that of other cultures.
3. Ability to recognize the convergence and disparity between the values of the dominant society
and the values of the historically oppressed under-represented and underserved populations.
4. Appreciation and respect of differences and strengths in culture.
5. Awareness of the dilemmas they may encounter when they recognize the needs of diverse
clients in domains such as:
o Boundaries
o Norms of Behavior
0 Advocacy
o Controversial Issues (i.e. abortion, gay, lesbian)
0 Dual Relation

Standard 2: Self A wareness

Social Workers shall develop an understanding of their own personal and cultural values and beliefs
as a first step in appreciating the importance of multicultural identities in the lives of people.

Culturally competent social workers will:

1. Examine and describe their cultural background and identities to increase awareness of
assumptions, values, beliefs and biases and determine how these impact services and
influence relationship with clients.

2. Identify how ignorance, fears, and “isms” (within the multicultural spectrum such as
racism, sexism, ethnocentrism, heterosexualism, ageism, classism) have influenced their
attitudes, beliefs, and feelings.

3. Demonstrate an awareness of personal or professional limitations that may warrant the
referral of a client or organization to another resource that can better meet their needs.

4. Demonstrate increased comfort with self- and other-awareness about cultural customs
and views of the world.

Standard 3: C ross-C ultural Knowledge

Social workers shall have and continue to develop knowledge and understanding about the
history, traditions, values, family systems and artistic expressions of major client groups served.

Culturally competent social workers will:

1. Expand their cultural knowledge and expertise by studying:
a. The help-seeking behaviors of diverse client groups

151

b. The historical context of diverse communities

c. The role of language, speech patterns and communication styles of diverse client
groups

d. The impact of social service policies on diverse groups served

e. The resources such as agencies, people, informal helping networks and research
that can be mobilized on behalf of diverse clients

2. Possess specific knowledge about traditional and non-traditional providers and client
groups which they serve, including:

a. Historical experiences, resettlement patterns, individual and group oppression,
adjustment styles, socioeconomic backgrounds, life processes

b. Learning styles, cognitive skills, world-views, and specific cultural concerns and
practices

c. Their definitions of and beliefs about the causation of wellness and illness or
normality and abnormality; and how care and services should be delivered

3. Demonstrate knowledge of the power relationships in the community and institutions,
and how these impact diverse groups.

4. Possess specific knowledge about US, global, social, cultural, and political systems, and
how they operate and how they serve or fail to serve client groups. These groups include
institutional, class, culture, and language barriers to service.

5. Identify the limitations and strengths of current theories, practice models, and select
which have applicability and relevance to the diverse groups with which they work.

6. Transfer awareness of personal heritage to becoming culturally aware of the culture and
heritage of others.

7. Describe how privilege is manifested by people within different dominant groups

8. Describe the effects that dominant and non-dominant status plays in the workplace
regarding interpersonal relations and group dynamics.

9. Distinguish between intentional and unintentional assertion of privilege and
manifestation of institutionalization of “isms”.

10. Describe how group membership in the context of world-view is associated with patterns
of privilege and internalized oppression.

I 1. Understand the interaction of the cultural systems of the social worker, client, the
particular setting, and the broader immediate community.

Standard 4. C ross Cultural Skills

Social workers shall use appropriate methodological approaches, skills, and techniques that
reflect the workers ’ understanding of the role of culture in the helping process.

Culturally competent social workers will:

I. Engage a wide range of persons who are culturally different or similar to themselves.

2. Display proficiency in discussing cultural difference, and helping clients to be
comfortable with these discussions.

3. Conduct a comprehensive assessment of clients in which cultural norms and behaviors
are differentiated from problematic or symptomatic behaviors.

4. Assess cultural strengths and limitations, and their impact on individual and group
functioning, integrating this understanding into intervention plans.

5. Select and develop appropriate methods, skills and techniques that are attuned to their
clients’ cultural, bicultural or marginal experiences in their environments.

6. Adapt and use a variety of culturally proficient models.

152

Communicate effectively with culturally and linguistically different clients through
language acquisition, proper use of interpreters, verbal and nonverbal skills, and
culturally appropriate protocols.

Effectively employ the clients’ natural support system in resolving problems, for
example, folk healers, indigenous remedies, storefronts, religious leaders, fiiends, family
and other community residents and organizations.

Advocate, negotiate, and employ empowerment skills in their work with clients.

. Consult with supervisors and colleagues for feedback and monitoring of performance,

and identify features of their own professional style that impede or enhance their
culturally competent practice.

Standard 5. Service Delivery

Social workers shall be knowledgeable about and skillful in the use of services available in the
community and broader society and be able to make appropriate referrals for their diverse

clients.

Culturally competent social workers will:

I.

4.

Identify the formal and informal resources in the community, describe their strengths and
weaknesses, and facilitate referrals as indicated, tailored to the culturally relevant needs
of the client.

Actively advocate for and cooperate with efforts to create culturally competent services
and programs.

Actively recruiting multi-ethnic staff and including cultural competence requirements in
job descriptions and performance and promotion measures.

a. Reviewing the current and emergent demographic trends for the geographic area
served by the agency to determine service needs for the provision of
interpretation and translation services

b. Creating service delivery systems or models that are more appropriate to the
targeted client populations or advocating for the creation of such services

c. Including participation by clients as major stakeholders in the development of
service delivery systems

d. Ensuring that program decor and design is reflective of the cultural heritage of
clients and families using the service

e. Attending to social issues (for example, housing, education, policy, and social
justice) that concern clients of diverse backgrounds

f. Not accepting staff remarks that insult or demean clients and their culture
Supporting the inclusion of cultural competence Standards in accreditation
bodies and organizational policies as well as in licensing and certification
exanfinafions

h. Developing staffing plans that reflect the organization and the targeted client
population (for example, hiring, position descriptions, performance evaluations,
training).

i. Developing performance measures to assess culturally competent practice

j. Participation of client groups in the development of research and treatment
protocols.

Culturally competent programs, organizations, and service systems build culturally
competent organizations through:

a. Effective recruitment of multilingual and multicultural staff

b. Staff composition reflecting the diversity ofthe client population

Service planning strategy that includes an assessment of the demographics and
demographic trends of the service community

Expanded service capacity to improve the breadth and depth of services to a
greater variety of cultural groups

Meaningful inclusion of clients representing relevant cultural groups and/or
community members representing relevant cultural groups in decision-making
and advisory governance entities, program planning, program evaluation, and
research endeavors

Physical plant designed and decorated in a manner that is welcoming to the
diverse cultural groups served

Engagement in advocacy to improve social issues relevant to client group

A work climate, through formal and informal means, that addresses workforce
diversity challenges and promotes respect for clients and colleagues of different
backgrounds

Documented advocacy for culturally competent policies and procedures of
accrediting, licensing, certification bodies, contracting agencies, etc.

Inclusion of cultural competency as a component of human resource management
- job descriptions, performance evaluations, promotions and training, etc.

Standard 6. Empowerment and Advocacy

Social workers shall be aware of the effect of social policies and programs on diverse client
populations, advocatingfor and with clients whenever appropriate.

Culturally competent social workers will:

I. Advocate for public policies that honor the cultural values, norms and behaviors of
diverse groups.

2. Select appropriate intervention strategies to help colleagues, collaborating partners, and
institutional representatives examine their own conscious or unconscious manifestations
of an‘ ‘ism” ,exclusionary behaviors, or oppressive policies.

a.

b.

C.

Assess level of readiness for feedback and intervention of the dominant group
member

Select either education, dialogue, increased intergroup contact, social advocacy,
or social action as a strategy

Participate in social advocacy and social action to better empower diverse clients
and communities at the local, state, and/or national level

3. Use practice methods and approaches that facilitate the client to connect with Their own
power in a manner that is appropriate for Their cultural context
4. Provide support to diverse cultural groups who are advocating on their own behalf

3.

Partner, collaborate and ally with client groups during advocacy efforts to
increase the members’ skills and sense of self-efficacy as social change
advocates

C onsciously choose when to assert personal values during advocacy work and
when to avoid imposing personal values during empowerment work
Demonstrate intentional effort to assure that they do not to impose their own
personal values in practice

l54

Standard 7. Diverse Workforce

Social workers shall support and advocate for recruitment, admissions and hiring, and retention
efforts in social work programs and agencies that ensure diversity within the profession.

Culturally competent social workers will:

1. Advocate for and support human resource policies and procedures that ensure diversity
and inclusion within their organization.

2. Work to achieve a workforce and organization that reflects the demographics of the
population served throughout all levels of the organization.

3. Advocate for and support policies that assure equity and appropriate compensations for
social workers who bring special skill or knowledge to the profession, such as bicultural
and bilingual skills or American Sign Language skills.

4. Advocate for and support recruitment and retention strategies to social work programs
and schools of social work that increase the diversity within the profession.

5. Promote and maintain the expectation that all staff regardless of cultural membership
continuously engage in the process of improving cultural proficiency and capacity to
serve a variety of populations.

Culturally competent organizations will:

1. Have in place human resource and other organizational policies and procedures that
support staff diversity.

2. Regularly monitor the extent to which their management and staff composition reflect the
diversity of the client population.

3. Take corrective action as appropriate and refocus recruitment efforts. Review their
selection policies for inadvertent exclusion of the underrepresented, underserved, and
oppressed cultural group.

4. Regularly monitor and take remedial action as needed to ensure that client groups may
receive services in their native language.

a. Actively recruit and seek to retain multilingual staff

b. Provide “second language” courses to existing staff

c. Provide appropriate compensations for social workers who bring special
language skill or knowledge to the profession, such as bicultural and bilingual
skills or American Sign Language skills

5. Include cultural competency as a requirement for job performance, by including these
requirements in job descriptions, performance evaluations, promotions, and training.

6. Foster a work climate, through formal and informal means, that addresses workforce
diversity challenges and promotes respect for clients and colleagues of different
backgrounds. ’

7. Establish cultural norms of openness and respect for discussing situations in which
insensitive or exclusionary behaviors were experienced.

Standard 8: Professional Education

Social workers shall advocatefor and participate in educational and training programs that
help advance cultural competence within the profession.

Culturally competent social workers will:

1. Promote professional education that advance cultural competency within the profession.

155

2.

5.

Advocate the infusion and integration of cultural competency Standards in social work
curricula and research in the BSW, MSW, and Ph.D. levels.

a. Conduct research that adds to cultural competent knowledge

b. Advocate state-of-the art professional education on diversity and working with
diverse populations

c. Train staff in cross-cultural conununication, culturally diverse customs, and
techniques for resolving racial, ethnic or cultural conflicts between staff and the
clients served

Culturally competent organizations will:

1. Provide ongoing training and support for improving cultural competency skills to
all employees, including top management, middle management, front line
supervisors, front-line staff, and administrative/custodial staff.

2. Resolve racial, ethnic or cultural conflicts between staff and the clients served
and among employees within the organization itself.

3. Conduct evaluation research to determine their effectiveness in serving or
interacting with client groups from different populations.

Standard 9: Language Diversity

Social workers shall seek to provide and advocate for the provision of information, referrals, and
services in the language appropriate to the client, which may include the use of interpreters.

Culturally competent social workers will:

H
0

Demonstrate an understanding that language is part of the total identity of a client.
Advocate for rights of individuals and groups to receive resources in their own language.
Provide and advocate for information, referrals, and services in appropriate language for
the client.

Provide jargon-free print materials in easy to read, low literacy, and picture and symbol
formats for individuals with limited English proficiency.

Advocate for the preservation and appreciation of language diversity among clients.
Advocate for reasonable accommodations of the client’s language needs, including the
provision of professional sign language interpreters and translators. '

Improve their own linguistic proficiency.

Understand that words and phrases, especially those translated from one language to
another, or one region of the country to another, may have different meanings, and check
to ensure accurate communications when working with client groups.

Standard 10: C ross-C ultural Leadership

Social workers shall be able to communicate infomration about diverse client groups to other
professionals.

Culturally competent social workers will:

I.

Take leadership roles within the profession to promote cultural competence within the
profession.

156

Take leadership roles in communicating and disseminating information on cultural
competency and diverse clients to other professionals through activities such as serving
on committees, making presentations writing articles, developing guidelines, and
conducting research.
Take leadership roles in empowering diverse clients to assume advocacy roles within
own organization and in the community.
a. Advocate fair and equitable treatment for diverse groups in and outside of
profession
b. Create a proactive process that empowers individuals, families, groups,
organizations, and communities.
Establish strategies for people and organizations within the profession to share
information and Ieaming with one another on how to engage in culturally competent
behavior and promote culturally competent practices and policies.
Model culturally competent behavior in their interactions with client groups, other
professionals, and each other.

157

Appendix C

Dear Social Work Student:

I am requesting your help with a research project. As a doctoral student in social work, I am
currently working on my dissertation which is a study to evaluate MSW social work student
cultural competence. The NAS W Cultural Competence Standards were adopted by NASW in
2001 as a way to provide definition to cultural competence within the social work profession.
The questionnaire used in this study directly coincides with the Standards. The benefits that will
result from this study do not accrue to you directly. This project helps me fulfill a doctoral
program requirement. The goal of this project is that the research will provide ongoing
information to the social work profession that can be used to assess social work education in the
area of cultural competence. In the long run the results of this study will assist social work
educators in understanding where, how and if MSW social work students learn cultural
competence in their education. In addition, this study will evaluate the questionnaire tool used.

Completing the questionnaire will take 15-20 minutes. Your participation is voluntary. You may
choose not to participate at all, or you may refuse to participate in certain procedures or answer
certain questions or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits.
Your decision to complete or not complete the questionnaire will not affect your grade in any
course either negatively or positively. Your response to the questionnaire is confidential; I will
not know which questionnaire is yours. Your identity and privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law.

As with all research projects there are risks and benefits associated with this study. The risks to
you may involve the emergence of painful memories or strong emotions that people sometimes
experience when thinking about cultural injustices. If you experience any distress or troubling
thoughts as a result of completing this questionnaire please contact MSU’s Counseling
Department at 355-8270 (TTY 353-7278).

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator Dr. Rena
Harold, 254 Baker Hall, School of Social Work, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824-1118,
she also can be reached by phone at (517) 353-8616, or by email to haroldr@msu.edu .
(Judi Ravenhorst Meerman, 3333 E. Beltline NE Grand Rapids, Mi. 49425, (616) 988-
3706, e-mail: ravenhor@ssc.msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding your
rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study,
you may contact — anonymously, if you wish —Peter Vasilenko, Ph.D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517)432-4503, e-mail: irb@msu.edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824. The primary investigator and supervising faculty member also is
available to address your concerns.

 

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study. You will
not write your name on the questionnaire but will choose a unique personal identifier number
which will be explained. Since each questionnaire is anonymous you will not be able to
withdraw from the research once you have returned the completed questionnaire.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Judi Ravenhorst Meerman, LMSW. PhD. (ABD)

158

Dear Social Work Student:

I am requesting your help with a research project. As a doctoral student in social work, I
am currently working on my dissertation which is a study to evaluate MSW social work
student cultural competence. The NAS W Cultural Competence Standards were adopted
by NASW in 2001 as a way to provide definition to cultural competence within the social
work profession. The questionnaire used in this study directly coincides with the
Standards. The benefits that will result from this study do not accrue to you directly. This
project helps me fulfill a doctoral program requirement. The goal of this project is that
the research will provide ongoing information to the social work profession that can be
used to assess social work education in the area of cultural competence. In the long run
the results of this study will assist social work educators in understanding where, how
and if MSW social work students learn cultural competence in their education. In
addition, this study will evaluate the questionnaire tool used.

The focus group will last about 1 hour. Your decision to participate in the focus group
will not affect your grade in any course either negatively or positively. Your
participation is completely voluntary and confidential. Your responses to focus group
questions are confidential. Your identity and privacy will be protected to the maximum
extent allowable by law.

As with all research projects there are risks and benefits associated with this study. The
risks to you may involve the emergence of painful memories or strong emotions that
people sometimes experience when thinking about cultural injustices. You have the
option to discontinue the focus group at any time. If you experience any distress or
troubling thoughts as a result of participating in the focus group, please contact MSU
counseling center at 355-8270 (TTY 353-7278).

If you have any questions about this study, please contact the investigator Dr. Rena
Harold, 254 Baker Hall, School of Social Work, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824-1118,
she also can be reached by phone at (517) 353-8616, or by email to haroldr@m'su.edu .
(Judi Ravenhorst Meerman, 3333 E. Beltline NE Grand Rapids, Mi. 49425, (616) 988-
3706, e-mail: ravenhor@ssc.msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns regarding your
rights as a study participant, or are dissatisfied at any time with any aspect of this study,
you may contact — anonymously, if you wish -Peter Vasilenko, Ph. D., Chair of the
University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects by phone: (517) 355-
2180, fax: (517) 432- 4503, e- -mail: irb@msu. edu, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East
Lansing, MI 48824. The primary investigator and supervising faculty member also is
available to address your concerns.

 

Your signature below indicates your voluntary agreement to participate in this study.
Thank you in advance for your time.

, J-udi Ravenhorst Meerman, LMSW, PhD. (ABD)

159

Appendix D

Focus Group Participation

I am willing to participate in further research in the area of cultural competence as a
member of a focus group in January of 2008.

 

Print name

The best way to communicate with me is by email/telephone. (Circle)

 

Email and/or telephone number.

160

Appendix E

PERSONAL UNIQUE IDENTIFIER

To create your unique identifier, please fill in the following spaces with the requested
information.

 

What are the first two letters of your mother’s maiden name?

 

What are the last two digits of the year you graduated high school or
finished your GED? Example: l983=83

 

How many siblings do you have? Example: 2: 02

 

 

What is the day portion of your date of birth?
Example: February 1, 1980 = 01

 

 

Please record these eight digits at the comer of the questionnaire.

161

 

Appendix F

Cultural Competence Questionnaire

No Experience- (NO EX) I have no experience in this area of social work.
Minimally Competent- (MIN CO) I have little experience and barely feel competent.

Moderately Competent- (MOD CO) I have some experience and somewhat feel competent.

Mostly Competent- (MOS CO) I have experience and generally feel competent.
Competent- (COM) I have a lot of experience and feel competent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . 8 >~ ’5 3‘ ‘E E ‘5
Please crrcle the answer that best describes your level of o 5 E § § ,3 32» 8 ,3
competence. Z i E g. ”8” g. E g. 2.
£3 2 8 z 8 8 8
l. I am familiar with the NAS W Code of Ethics, and NO MIN MOD MOS
function in accordance with to the values, ethics and EX CO CO CO COM
Standards of the profession in my social work practice.
2. I am aware of my own personal and cultural values and NO MIN MOD MOS
beliefs. EX CO CO CO COM
3. I understand the history of oppression that has occurred NO MIN MOD MOS
within some diverse populations. EX CO CO CO COM
4. I am skilled at attending to verbal responses of clients of NO MIN MOD MOS
various cultures. EX CO CO CO COM
5. I am skilled at identifying formal resources tailored to the NO MIN MOD MOS
culturally relevant needs of the client. EX CO CO CO COM
6. I am aware of the effect that social policies have on NO MIN MOD MOS
diverse populations. EX CO CO CO COM
7. I support the need for a diverse workforce within social NO MIN MOD MOS
service agencies. EX CO CO CO COM
8. I actively support professional education that advances NO MIN MOD MOS
cultural comgnency within the profession. EX CO CO CO COM
9. I understand that language is part of the total identity of a NO MIN MOD MOS
client. EX CO CO CO COM
10. I model culturally competent behavior in my professional NO MIN MOD MOS
interactions. EX CO CO CO COM
11. I recognize how my personal and professional values may NO MIN MOD MOS
conflict with or accommodate the needs of diverse EX C O CO CO COM
populations.
12. I recognize cultural values and beliefs that are different NO MIN MOD MOS
from my own. EX CO CO CO COM
13. I understand family systems within a variety of cultural NO MIN MOD MOS
contexts. EX CO CO C 0 COM
14. I am skilled at attending to non-verbal responses of NO MIN MOD MOS
clients of various cultures. EX CO CO CO COM
15. I am skilled at evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of NO MIN MOD MOS
resources in the community. EX CO C O CO COM
16. I am aware of the effect that social programs have on NO MIN MOD MOS
diverse populations. EX C O C O CO COM
17. I am aware ofthe diversity hiring policies within my NO MIN MOD MOS
agency. ‘ EX CO CO CO COM
18. l have taken one or more courses and have gained NO MIN MOI) MOS
knowledge and skills in diversity. EX CO (’0 CO COM

 

 

162

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. . 8 2‘. E 3‘ E? E? ‘5
Please crrcle the answer that best descrrbes your level of o 5 7g: ,3 9.; ,3 é‘ ,3 g
competence. 2 g E cg: '6'; g. E cg. g.
63 2 u 2 u u u
19. I provide referrals to agencies that provide bi-lingual NO MIN MOD MOS
services. EX CO CO CO COM
20. I take leadership roles within the profession to promote NO MIN MOD MOS
cultural competence. EX CO CO CO COM
21. I am familiar with the NAS W Cultural Competence NO MIN MOD MOS
Standards and practice social work in accordance with EX CO CO CO COM
the Standards.
22' I can recognize when my personal values and beliefs NO MIN MOD MOS
interfere with providing the best services to clients. EX CO CO CO COM
23. I am aware of traditions, values, and artistic expressions NO MIN MOD MOS
within diverse populations. EX CO CO CO COM
24. I am skilled at completing a client assessment by NO MIN MOD MOS
attending to the culturally relevant needs of the client. EX CO C O CO COM
25. I am skilled at evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of NO MIN MOD MOS
resources in the community. EX CO CO CO COM
26. I participate in social advocacy and social action to better NO MIN MOD MOS
empower diverse populations. EX CO C O CO COM
27. I participate in advocacy efforts toward a diverse NO MIN MOD MOS
workforce. EX CO CO CO COM
28. I have attended one or more diversity trainings and have NO MIN MOD MOS
gained knowledge and skills in diversity. EX CO CO CO COM
29. I advocate for the rights of individuals and groups to NO MIN MOD MOS
receive resources in their own langu_age. EX CO CO CO COM
30. l advocate for fair and equitable treatment for diverse NO MIN MOD MOS
groups in and outside of the profession. EX CO CO CO COM
31. 1 am skilled at completing a treatment plan by attending NO MIN MOD MOS
to the culturally relevant needs of the client. EX CO CO CO COM
32. 1 am skilled at making appropriate referrals within the NO MIN MOD MOS
community tailored to the culturally relevant needs of the EX CO CO CO COM
client.
33. I ensure that information provided to clients is in their NO MIN MOD MOS
first language. EX CO CO CO COM
34. At this time, I would rate my overall cultural competence NO MIN MOD MOS
as.... EX CO CO CO COM
35. Did you participate in field education this semester as part of your MSW education? (please

 

circle) Yes or No

 

Pleasewritey our definition ofculture _ ____

163

 

Personal Characteristics and Background

For each of the following questions please choose the response that most clearly describes you.
If none of the answer choices listed is accurate feel free to write in your preferred response.

 

Age Sex Male Female Other (Please specifiy)
Ethnicity: (Please check all that apply)

African American Asian American Caucasian American

Latino American Middle Eastern First Nations Biracial
International

Other (please specify)

 

Do you identify as LGBT Yes/No
Do you identify as a person with a disability Yes/No

Do you identify with a specific faith community Yes/No
If yes, which faith community?

 

Education

 

Degree What was your major? Where did you graduate?

 

BSW Social Work

 

BS

 

BA

 

 

DUDE]

Previous Master’s
Degree

 

 

 

Years of previous social service volunteer experience?

Years of previous social work employment?

Number of courses completed in diversity?

Number of trainings completed in diversity?

Will you be enrolled in field education (internship) this semester? Yes/No

Which community best describes where you spent your childhood? (pick all that apply)

Urban (large densely populated city) International (1 am an
international student)
Urban (inner city) Military

Suburban (suburb outside of large city)
_Rural (farmed or unused acreage)
International (US. citizen living in international setting)

164

 

References
Addams, J. (1910). Twenty Years at Hull-House. New York: Macmillan.

Alvesson, M. (1993). Reflections: Ethnographic content analysis. Qualitative Sociology,
10, 75-77.

Anderson, H., Goolishian, H. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: preliminary
and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process,
27, 371-93.

Angelo, T.A., & Cross, K.P. (1993). Classroom assessment Techniques: A handbook for
college teachers (2“! ed). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Austin, D.M. (1986). A history of social work education. School of Social Work: The
University of Texas at Austin.

Baradat, LP, (1997). Political ideologies: Their origins and impact (6th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Bell, L.A., (1997). Theoretical foundations for social justice education. Teaching for
Diversity and Social Justice: A Sourcebook, 3-15.

Benavides, E. Lynch, M. M. & Velasquez, J .S. (1980). Toward a culturally relevant
fieldwork model: The community Ieaming center project. Journal of education
for Social Work, 16(2), 55-62.

Bogo, M., & Vayda, E. (1991). The practice of field education in social work: Theory
and process. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.

Bogdan, R.C. & Biklen, SK. (2003). Qualitative research for education. Boston, Pearson
Education Group.

Bracy, W.D. (1996). Approaches to the incorporation of diversity: Implications for
inclusive curriculum. Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work, 2(1), 43—64.

Brieland, D. (1995). Social work practice: History and evolution. In R. L. Edwards (Ed.-
in-Chief), Vol. 3. Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., pp. 2247-2258).
Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Brookfield, S. D. (1995). Becoming a critically reflective teacher. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass.

Cafferty, J. & L., Chestang, (1976). The diverse society: implicationsfor social policy.
Washington, D. C.: National Association of Social Workers.

165

Carpenter, D. (1996). Constructivism and social work treatment. In F. J. Turner (Ed.),

Social work treatment: Interlocking theoretical approaches (4th ed., pp. 146-
167). New York: Free Press.

Carter-Black, J. (2007). Teaching cultural competence: an innovative strategy grounded
in the universality of storytelling as depicted in African and African American
storytelling traditions. Journal of Social Work Education, 43(1).

Chan, D.S. & Treacy, M. J. (1996). Resistance in multicultural courses; Student, faculty
and classroom dynamics. American Behavioral Scientist, 40, 212-22.

Clay, C. & Shulman, L. (2003). Teaching about practice and diversity: content and
process in the classroom and the field. Council on Social Work Education.

Coggins, K. & Hatchett, BE (2002). Field practicum: skill building from a multicultural
perspective. Eddie Bower Publishing Co. Inc., Peosta, Iowa.

Colvin-Burque, A., Davis-Maye, D. &Zugazaga, C. (2007). Can cultural competence be
taught? Evaluating the impact of the soap model. Journal of Social Work
Education, 43(2).

Cook, DA, (1994). Racial identity in supervision. Counselor Education and
Supervision ,34, 132-139.

Cooke, R.A., & Szumal, J. (2002). Using organizational culture inventory to understand
the operating cultures of organizations. In Neal Askanasy, Celeste Wilderom, &
Mark Peterson (Eds), Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 147-
162). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Council on Social Work Education. (2001). Educational policy and accreditation
Standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Creswell, J .W. (2003). Research design: Qualitative quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (2“d ed). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage Publications.

Cross, T., Bazron, 8., Dennis, K., & Issacs, M. (1989). Towards a culturally competent
system of care. (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Child
Development Center.

Davis, R, & Donald, B. (1997). Multicultural counseling competencies: Assessment,
evaluation, education and training, and supervision. Thousand Oaks, DA, Sage

Publications.

Dean, R. G. (1993). Teaching a constructivist approach to clinical practice. Journal of
Teaching in Social Work, 8, 55-75.

166

 

Devore, W. & Schlesinger, E.G. (1981). Ethnic-sensitive social work practice. St. Louis,
Missouri: CV. Mosby Co.

Devore, W. & Schlesinger, E.G. (1987). Ethnic-Sensitive Social Work Practice (2mI
ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Devore, W. & Schlesigner, E.G. (1999). Ethnic sensitive social work practice (5th ed).
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dickson, M.W., Aditya, R.N. & Chhokar, J.S. (2000). Definition and interpretation of
cross-cultural organizational culture research: Some pointers from The GLOBE
research program. In Neal Askanasy, Celeste Wilderom, & Mark Peterson (Eds),
Handbook of organizational culture and climate (pp. 447-464). Thousand Oaks,
California: Sage Publications.

Dye, TR. (2002). Understanding public policy (101h ed). Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall. '

Efran, J. S., Lukens, R. J ., & Lukens, M. D. (1988). Constructivism: What's in it for you?
Family Therapy Networker, 12, 26-35.

Elkaim, M. (1990). If you love me, don't love me: Constructions of reality and change in
family therapy. New York: Basic Books.EIIiott, L. J. (1931). Social work ethics,
New York: American Association of Social Workers.

Ewalt, PL (1994). Visions of ourselves. Social Work, 39, 5-7.

F assinger, PA. (1995). Understanding classroom interaction. Journal of Higher
Education, 66(1), 82-96.

Fischer, A.R., Jome, L.M. & Atkinson, DR. (1998). Reconceptualizing multicultural
counseling: Universal-healing conditions in a culturally specific context.
Counseling Psychologist, 26, 524-564.

Flexner, A., (1915). “Is Social Work a Profession?” (paper presented at the National
Conference on Charities and Correction, 1915), 581, 584—588, 590.

Fong, R., (2004). Education for Multicultural Social Work Practice. Council on Social
Work Education, Inc.

Fong, R., & Furuto, S. (2001). C ulturally competent practice: Skills, interventions, and
evaluations. Boston, Allyn and Bacon.

Gallegos, J.S. (1982). The ethnic competence model for social work education. B.W.

White, Color in a white society (pp. 1-9). Silver Spring, MD: National
Association of Social Workers.

167

 

Garcia, B. (1997). Changing perceptions of diversity and oppression: MSW students
discuss the effects of a required course. Journal of Social Work Education,
34, 119-129.

Garcia, B. & Van Soest, D. (1997). Changing perceptions of diversity and oppression:
SW students discuss the effects of a required course, Journal of Social Work
Education, 33 (I), 119-130.

Garcia, 8., & Van Soest, D., (1999). Teaching about diversity and oppression: Ieaming
fiom the analysis of critical classroom events. Journal of Teaching in Social

Work, 18 (1/2), 149-167. "

Garcia, B. & Van Soest, D. (2000). Facilitating Ieaming on diversity: Challenges to the
professor, Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 9(1/2).

Gaventa, J. (1988). Participatory research in North America. Convergence, 24
(2-3):19-28.

Gergen, K. J. (1985). Social constructionist inquiry: Context and implications. In K. r.

Gergen & K. E. Davis (Eds), The social construction ofthe person (pp. 3-18).
New York: Springer-Verlag.

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and relationship. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.

Gerstle, G. (2001). American crucible: Race and nation in the twentieth century,
Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

Gilson, S. (2002). Perceived levels of cultural competence through social work education
and professional development for urban school social workers. Journal of Social

Work Education, 38(1), 153-165.

Golembiewski, RT, (1988). Organization theory. In Jack Rabin & Marcia Steinhaur
(Eds), Handbook on human services administration (pp.3-44) New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc.

Good, GE. (1995). Students’ perceptions of a gender issues course: A qualitative and
quantitative examination. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34, 308-321.

Goolishian, H. A., & Winderman, L. (1988). Constructivism, autopsies and problem
determined systems. Irish Journal of Psychology, 9, 130-143.

168

 

Grossman, B., Levine-Jordano, N., & Shearer, P. (1990). Working with students’

emotional reactions in field: An educational framework. The Clinical
Supervisor, 8(1), 23-39.

Gonzalez, N. (1995). Processual approaches to multicultural education. Journal of
Applied Behavioral Sciences, 31, 234-244.

Green, J .W. (1982). Cultural awareness in human services. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice Hall.

Green, J .W. (1995). A social constructivist framework for integrating cross-cultural
issues in clinical social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 35, 21-37.

Greene, R. (I 994). Human behavior theory: A diversity framework. New York: Aldine.

Greene, G. J ., Jensen, C., & Jones, DH. (1996). A constructivist perspective on clinical
social work with ethnically diverse clients. Social Work, 41,172-180.

Greene, G.J., Jones, D.H., Frappier, G, Klein, M., & Culton, B. (1996). School social
workers as family therapists: A dialectical-systemic-constructivist model. Social
Work in Education, 18, 222-236.

Guba, E.G. & Lincoln, Y.S. (1998). Competing paradigms in quantitative research.
London, Sage.

Gutierrez, L. (1999). Perspectives of social work faculty on diversity and societal
oppression content: results from a national survey. Journal of Social Work
Education, 35(3), 409-419.

Gutierrez, L. (2004). Multicultural social work research: Implications for social work
education. Council of Social Work Education, Inc.

Hall, B. (1981). Participatory research, popular knowledge and power: A personal
reflection. Convergence, 3(4), 6-19.

Held, B. S. (1995). The real meaning of constructivism. Journal of Constructivist
Psychology, 8, 305-315.

Herek, G.M. (1992a). Psychological heterosexism and anti-gay violence: the social
psychology of bigotry and bashing. In G.M. Herek & K.T. Berril (Ed.), Hate
Crimes (pp.l49-169). Thousand Oaks, CA.

Ho, M. K. (1987). Family therapy with ethnic minorities. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage
Publications.

169

 

Hughes, D. (1999). Science, epistemology, and difference. Transformations, 10(1),
106-118.

Hyde, C.A., & Ruth, B.J. (2002). Multicultural content and class participation: Do
students self-censor? Journal of Social Work Education, 38, 241-256.

Johnson, A. (1955). Educating professional social workers for ethical practice. Social
Service Review, 29, 125-136.

Jones, D.H., Greene, G.J., & Ruhala, R.G. (1993). On-campus practicum: A model for
accelerating the social construction of professional social work identity. Journal
of Teaching in Social Work, 7, 3-16.

Joseph, M. V. (1989). Social work ethics: Historical and contemporary perspectives.
Social Thought, 15(3/4), 4-17.

Knobel, D. T., (1996 Feb). The invention of the white race, racial Oppression and
social control. The American Historical Review, 101(1).

Lee, M. (1998). A social constructivist fiamework for integrating cross-cultural issues in
teaching clinical social work. Journal of Social Work Education, 35(1)
21-37.

Leiby, J. (1978). A history of social work and social welfare in the United States. New
York: Columbia University Press.

Loewen, J.W. (1995). Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History
Textbook Got Wrong. New York: New Press, 1995.

Lum, D. (1992). Social work practice and people of color: A process stage approach
(2“d ed.) Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

(1999). Culturally competent practice. A framework for growth and action.
Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

(2000). Social work practice and people of color. Brooks/Cole, Belmont,
California.

(2003). Culturally competent practice: a framework for understanding diverse
groups and justice issues. Belmont, California, Brooks/Cole.

Lowman, J, (1995). Mastering the techniques of teaching. (2nd ed.) San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass Publishers.

170

Lyddon, W.J., (1995). Forms and facets of constructivist psychology. In R.A. Neimeyer
& M.J. Mahoney (Eds), Constructivism in psychotherapy, (pp.69-92).
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. J. (1992). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of
human understanding (rev. ed.). Boston: Shambala.

Messinger, L. (2004). Out in the field: Gay and lesbian students’ experiences in field
placement. Journal of Social Work Education, 40(2), 187-204.

Middleman, R.R., & Wood, CG. (1991). Seeing/believing/seeing: Perception-
correcting and cognitive skills. Social Work, 36, 243-246.

National Association of Social Workers. (1996). NASW Code of Ethics Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved February 24, 2007, from
www.socialworkers.org/sections/credentials/cultural.

National Association of Social Workers. (2001). NASW Standards for cultural
competence in social work practice. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
Retrieved February 24, 2007, from
www.socialworkersorg/sectioi/credentia1s/cultural.

National Association of Social Workers. (2004). Draft Revision: NASW policy statement
on cultural and linguistic competence in the social work profession. (Proposed
revisions for consideration at 2005 NASW Delegate Assembly. Retrieved
Retrieved February 24, 2007, from ~
www.ocialworkers.org/sections/credentials/cultural.

National Association of Social Workers. (2005. Draft Revision: NASW policy statement
on cultural and linguistic competence in the social work profession. (Proposed
revisions for consideration at 2005 NASW Delegate Assembly. Retrieved
Retrieved February 24, 2007, from
www.socialworkers.org/sections/credentials/cultural.

Newman, B. (2002). Theoretical approaches to disability in social work education.
Journal of Social Work Education, 38(32) 273-288.

Norton, DE, (1978). The dual perspective. New York: Counsel of Social Work Ed.

Orlandi, M.A. (1992). The challenge of evaluating community-based prevention
programs: A cross-cultural perspective. In M.A. Orlandi, R. Weston, & L.G.
Epstein (eds). Cultural competence for evaluators: A guide for alcohol and other

drug abuse prevention practitioners working with ethnic/racial communities
(pp.l-22). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Office
for Substance Abuse Prevention.

171

Ott, R.L. (2001). An introduction to statistical methods and data analysis (5th ed).
Thompson Learning, Wadsworth Group.

Palmer, P., (1998). The Courage to Teach. Jossey—Bass, San Fransico, CA.

Pinderhuges, E., (1984). Teaching empathy: Ethnicity, race and power. The American
Journal of Social Psychiatry, 4(1).

Pinderhuges, E. (1989). Understanding race, ethnicity, and power. The Free Press, New
York.

Pumphrey, M. W. (1959). The teaching of values and ethics in social work education.
New York: Council on Social Work Education. .

Queralt, M. (1996). The social environment and human behavior: A diversity
perspective. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Reamer, F. G. (1998). Ethical Standards in social work: A critical review of the NAS W
Code of Ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Reynolds, B. C. (1951/1991). Social work and social living. Washington, DC: National
Association of Social Workers.

Rockline, E. L. (1983 March). The resonance of dialogue: Composing a literature class.
Paper resent at the 34’h Annual Meeting of the Conference on College
Composition and Communication, Detroit, MI.

Ronnau, J .P., (1994). Teaching cultural competence: practical ideas for social work
educators. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 3(1), p. 29-42.

Roberts, A. & Jackson, M. (2007). Expanding knowledge and competencies to reflect our
diversity: a special section by alumni scholars of the minority fellowship program.
Journal of Sacral Work Education, 43(1).

Ronnau, J .P., (1994). Teaching cultural competence: practical ideas for social work
educators. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 3(1), 29-42.

Rosen, H. (1996). Meaning-making narratives: Foundations for constructivist and social
constructionist psychotherapies. In H. Rosen & K. T. Kuehlwein (Eds),
Constructing realities: Meaning-making perspectives for psychotherapists (pp. 3-
54). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Royse, D. (1996). Field instruction; a guidefor social work students. Longman
Publishers, Inc. White Plains, NY.

172

Schlesinger, E., & Devore, W. (1995). Ethnic sensitive social work practice: The state of
the art (Special issue). Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 22 (91), 29-58.

Schlesinger, E. (2005). Education for Multicultural Social Work Practice, Council of
Social Work Education.

Social Work Examination Services Comprehensive Study Guide and Practice Questions,
Volume 1. 2005, Social Work Exam Services, Inc. Brookline, MA.

Solomon, BB. (1976). Black empowerment: Social work in oppressed communities.
New York: Columbia University Press.

Sue, S. (1998). In search of cultural competence in psychotherapy and counseling.
American Psychologist, 51, 440-448.

Sue, S.W. & Sue, S. (1990). Counseling the culturally diflerent: Theory and practice.
New York: Wiley.

Sue, D., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies
' and Standards: a call to the profession. Journal of Counseling and Development,
7, 477-486.

Sue, D. & Sue, D. (1999). Counseling the culturally different (3rd ed.). New York: Wiley.

Takahashi, R. (2004). Infusion of multicultural diversity content in social policy courses.
Lum, D. (ed). Education for Multicultural Social Work Practice. Council of
Social Work Education, Inc.

Teasley, M. (2005). Perceived levels of cultural competence through social work
education and professional development for urban school social workers.
Journal of Social Work Education, 41(1), 85-98.

Tolson, E. R., & Kopp, J. (1988). The practicum: clients, problems, interventions and
influences on student practice. Journal of Social Work Education, 24(2),
123-134.

Uehara, E., Sohng, 8., Bending, R., Seyfried, S., Richey, C., Morelli, P., etal. (1996).
Toward a values-based approach to multicultural social work research. Social
Work, 41, 613-621.

Uehara, E., (1996). Toward a Values-Based Approach to Multicultural Social Work
Research. Social Work, 41(6), 613-21.

Van Den Bergh, N. & Crisp. (2004). Defining culturally competent practice with sexual

minorities: implications for social work education and practice. Journal of Social
Work Education, 40(2).

173

VanVoorhis, RM. (2001). Coverage of gay and lesbian subject matter in social work
journals. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(1), 147-59.

Van Soest, D. (1995). Multiculturalism and social work education: the non-debate about
competing perspectives concerning oppression. Journal of Social Work
Education, 31, (1).

Van Soest, D. (1996). The impact of social work education on student beliefs about
justice and commitment to social justice advocacy. Journal of teaching in Social

Work, 9(1/2), 49-69.

Van Soest, D. & Garcia, B. (1998). Sensitivity to racism and social work professors
responsiveness to critical class room events. Journal of Social Work Education,
32, 191-202.

Van Soest, D. & Garcia, B. (2003). Diversity education for social justice: Mastering
teaching skills. Alexandria, VA: Council on Social Work Education.

Van Soest, D. (2004). Structural barriers to multicultural competence in the field
practicum, in Culturally Competent Practice in the 21st Century by L. Gutierrez,
M. Zuniga, & D. Lum (Eds).

Van Voorhis, R.M., (1998). Culturally relevant practice: A framework for
teaching the psychosocial dynamics of oppression. Journal of Social Work
Education, 34, (1).

Walker, R. & Staton, M. (2000). Multiculturalism in social work ethics. Journal of Social
Work Education, 36, (3).

Wartenberg, TE. (1990). T he forms of power: From domination to transformation.
Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

Water, G., Strom-Gottfiied, K., & Sullivan, M. 1998). Assembling pieces in the diversity
puzzle; A field model. Journal of Social Work Education, 34, (3).

Weaver, H.N., (1999). Indigenous people and the social work profession: defining
culturally competent services. Social Work, 44, (3).

W011, CH. (1996). What difference does culture make? Providing treatment to women
different from you. Journal of Chemical dependency Treatment, 6, 67-85.

Young, 1. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton, NJ: University Press.

Zuni ga, M. (1999, June). Memorandum to the CS WE Board of Directors. (Available
from Council on Social Work Education), 1725 Duke Street, Suite 500,

Alexandria, VA, 22314-3457.

174