Chapter One
Principles and Assumptions of Multicultural Social Work Practice
"A younger probationer (Native American) was under court supervision and had strict orders to remain with responsible adults. His counselor became concerned because the youth appeared to ignore this order. The client moved around frequently and, according to the counselor, stayed overnight with several different young women. The counselor presented this case at a formal staff meeting, and fellow professionals stated their suspicion that the client was either a pusher or a pimp. The frustrating element to the counselor was that the young women knew each other and appeared to enjoy each other's company. Moreover, they were not ashamed to be seen together in public with the client. This behavior prompted the counselor to initiate violation proceedings" (Red Horse, Lewis, Feit, & Decker, 1981, p. 56). If an American Indian professional had not accidentally come upon this case, a revocation order initiated against the youngster would surely have caused irreparable alienation between the family and the social service agency. The social worker had failed to realize that the American Indian family network is structurally open and may include several households of relatives and friends along both vertical and horizontal lines. The young women were all first cousins to the client, and each was as a sister, with all the households representing different units of the family. It is in marked contrast to the Western European concept of the "nuclear family" and what constitutes "family."
Of all the social sciences and helping professions, the history and legacy of social welfare and social work have their roots in the values of social justice, aiding marginalized and oppressed populations, service to society, and the dignity and worth of all persons (Lum, 2005; Morales & Sheafor, 2004; National Association of Social Workers, 1999; Zastrow, 2004). The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) makes it explicit in their Code of Ethics (1999) and Standards for Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice (NASW, 2001) that it is unethical to practice without the knowledge, expertise, and skills needed to provide culturally relevant services to an increasingly diverse population. Unfortunately, as in the case just described, a wide gap often exists between the stated aspirational standards and ethics of a profession and their implementation in actual practice. One of the main reasons is that social work and, by extension, social workers are no more immune from cultural encapsulation (Wrenn, 1962) than any other profession or professionals in this society. As a result, our education and training often reflect the larger values and biases of the society. Rather than helping, healing or liberating, social work practice can be guilty of cultural oppression, imposing one group's worldview (normality versus abnormality, healthy versus unhealthy, and definitions of "family") on another.
The Diversification of the United States and Implications for SocialWork
The disparity in providing culturally appropriate services, as in the example given, is likely to become more problematic unless the profession of social work adapts accordingly to an increasingly diverse population. Nowhere is diversification of society more evident than in the workplace, where three major trends can be observed: (a) the graying of the workforce (Burris, 2005), (b) the feminization of the workforce (Taylor & Kennedy, 2003), and (c) the changing complexion of the workforce (Sue, Parham, & Santiago, 1998).
The Graying of the Workforce and Society
As the baby boomers (those born between 1946 and 1961) head into old age, the population of those 65 and older will surge to 53.3 million by 2020, an increase of 63% from 1996 (Study: 2020 Begins, 1996). In 1950, elderly people comprised 8% of the population; in the year 2000, 13%; and by 2050 will comprise 20%. The dramatic increase in the elderly population can be attributed to the aging baby-boom generation, declining birth rates, and increased longevity (Huuhtanen, 1994; Keita & Hurrell, 1994; Sue, Parham, & Santiago, 1998). The median age of people in the workforce has risen from 36.6 years in 1990 to 40.6 in 2005. In 2005, it is estimated that 70% of workers will be in the 25-54 age group and the proportion of workers 55 and older will rise to 15%. The implications are many.
* There is a serious lack of knowledge concerning issues of the elderly and the implications of an aging population on social service needs, occupational health, quality-of-life issues, economic impact, and mental health needs (see Chapter 13). * In American society, the elderly suffer from societal beliefs and attitudes (stereotypes) that diminish their social status: According to these stereotypes, they have declining physical and mental capabilities, have grown rigid and inflexible, are incapable of learning new skills, are crotchety and irritable, and should step aside for the benefit of the young (Brammer, 2004; Zastrow, 2004). More important is the belief that their lives are worth less than those of their younger counterparts. * The elderly are increasingly at the mercy of governmental policies and company changes in social security and pension funds that reduce their benefits and protection as they begin their retirement years. * Social service agencies are ill prepared to deal with the social and mental health needs of the elderly. Many of these disparities are due to ageism.
The Feminization of the Workforce and Society
Women are increasingly playing a larger and more significant role in society. Over the 15-year period from 1990 to 2005 women came to account for 62% of the net increase in the civilian labor force. The upward trend is dramatic: 38% in 1970, 42% in 1980, and 45% in 1990 (U.S. Department of Labor, Women's Bureau, 1992). The trend is not confined to single women alone but also includes married women. For example, in 1950 married women accounted for less than 25% of the labor force; only 12% of women with preschool children worked, and only 28% with school-age children worked. Now, however, 58% of married women are in the labor force, 60% with preschoolers work, and 75% with school-age children work. The problem, however, is that women continue to occupy the lower rungs of the occupational ladder but are still responsible for most of the domestic responsibilities. The implications of these changes and facts are many.
* Common sense would indicate that women are subjected to a greater number of stressors than their male counterparts. This is due to issues related to family life and role strain. Studies continue to indicate that working women continue to carry more of the domestic burden, more responsibility for child care arrangements, and more responsibility for social and interpersonal activities outside of the home than married or partnered men (Morales & Sheafor, 2004). * Family relationships and structures have progressively changed as we have moved from a traditional single-earner, two-parent family structure to families with two wage earners. The increasing number of women in the workforce cannot be seen in isolation from the wider social, political, and economic context (Farley, Smith & Boyle, 2003). For example, one quarter of the nation's families are poor, one sixth have no health insurance, one in six small children live in a family where neither parent has a job, women continue to be paid less than men, and 25% of children will be on welfare at some point before reaching adulthood. Social workers must be cognizant of these changes and the implications for their work. * These disparities are systemic in nature. If social workers are concerned with social welfare, then it is imperative that meaningful policies and practices be enacted to deal with gender disparities.
The Changing Complexion of the Workforce and Society
People of color have reached a critical mass in the United States, and their numbers are expected to continue increasing (Lum, 2004). The rapid increase in racial/ethnic minorities in the United States has been referred to as the "diversification of the United States" or, literally, the "changing complexion of society." From 1990 to 2000, the U.S. population increased 13% to over 281 million (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2001). Most of the population increase consisted of visible racial/ethnic minority groups (VREGs): The Asian American/ Pacific Islander population increased by almost 50%, the Latino/Hispanic population by over 58%, African Americans by 16%, and American Indians/Alaska Natives by 15.5%, in marked contrast to the 7.3% increase of Whites. Currently, people of color constitute over 30% of the U.S. population, approximately 45% of whom are in the public schools (D. W. Sue et al., 1998; U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2000). Projections indicate that persons of color will constitute a numerical majority sometime between 2030 and 2050 (D. W. Sue et al., 1998).
The rapid demographic shift stems from two major trends: immigration rates and differential birthrates. The current immigration rates (documented immigrants, undocumented immigrants, and refugees) are the largest in U.S. history. Unlike the earlier immigrants who were primarily White Europeans oriented toward assimilation, the current wave consists primarily of Asian (34%), Latin American (34%), and other VREGs who may not be readily assimilated (Atkinson et al., 1998; Sue & Sue, 2003). In addition, the birthrates of White Americans have continued to decline (Euro-American = 1.7 per mother) in comparison to other racial/ethnic minorities (e.g., African American = 2.4, Mexican American = 2.9, Vietnamese = 3.4, Laotian = 4.6, Cambodian = 7.4, and Hmong = 11.9). Societal implications of the changing complexion are many:
* Approximately 75% of those now entering the labor force are visible racial/ethnic minorities and women. The changing complexion and feminization of the workforce have become a reality. * By the time the so-called baby boomers retire, the majority of people contributing to the Social Security and pension plans will be racial/ethnic minorities. In other words, those planning to retire (primarily White workers) must depend on their coworkers of color. If racial/ethnic minorities continue to encounter the glass ceiling and to be the most undereducated, underemployed, underpaid, and unemployed, the economic security of retiring White workers looks grim. * Businesses are aware that their workforces must be drawn increasingly from a diverse labor pool and that the current U.S. minority marketplace equals the entire gross domestic product of Canada; projections are that it will become immense as the shift in demographics continues. The economic viability of businesses will depend on their ability to manage a diverse workforce effectively, allow for equal access and opportunity, and appeal to consumers of color. On a much larger scope, however, a nation that deprives equal access and opportunity to these groups bodes poorly for our future viability. * Students of color now constitute 45% of the population in our public schools. Some school systems, such as that in California, reached 50% students of color as early as the late 1980s. Thus, it appears that our educational institutions must wrestle with issues of multicultural education and the development of English as a Second Language (ESL). * The diversity index of the United States stands at 49, indicating that there is approximately one chance in two that two people selected at random are racially or ethnically different.
These three pressing trends are only the tip of the iceberg in considering the importance of diversity (the elderly, women, and people of color) in social work practice. For the profession to respond adequately, it must also address issues of sexual orientation, ability/disability, religion, socioeconomic status, and so forth (Guadalupe & Lum, 2005).
Cultural Diversity and the Challenge to Social Work
How has the profession of social work done so far? If we assume that cultural encapsulation can be minimized through multicultural education and training, then we can ask whether the profession is practicing what it preaches. In a review of cultural content coverage in three major social work journals (Families in Society-formerly Social Casework-Social Service Review, and Social Work) and 36 social work practice texts, one study revealed that (a) only 9% of articles in these journals addressed multicultural issues, (b) only 5% of the total pages of textbooks covered such topics, and (c) people of color were largely absent in publications over a more than 30-year history (Lum, 2004). Were we to conduct a similar study on other diverse groups like gays/lesbians, people with disabilities, religious groups, and so on, we would probably find similar results. The conclusion drawn is that social workers continue to be trained in traditional monocultural ways that do not enhance their cultural competence in dealing with diverse groups.
But what is culturally competent social work practice? How can we become adequately prepared to deal with the challenge? How can we make sure that we do not inappropriately impose our values and biases on our clients? How applicable are social work standards of practice for racial/ethnic minority populations, gays/lesbians, women, and other culturally diverse groups? Is there any difference, for example, between working with White clients and working with Black clients? What do we mean by multiculturalism and diversity? Do other diverse populations such as women, gays and lesbians, the elderly, and those with disabilities constitute a distinct cultural group? What do we mean by the phrase cultural competence?
Without an ability to answer and clarify these questions, social workers may be prone to misunderstandings and disagreements and may fail to understand the sociopolitical implications of hot-button issues like racism, sexism, heterosexism, homophobia, and classism. Let us use an example to illustrate the emotional context of acknowledging and considering sociodemographic groupings.
Professor Jonathon Murphy felt annoyed at one of his Latina social work graduate students. Partway through a lecture on family systems theory, the student had interrupted him with a question. Dr. Murphy had just finished an analysis of a case study on a Latino family in which the 32-year-old daughter was still living at home and could not obtain her father's approval for her upcoming marriage. The caseworker's report suggested excessive dependency as well as "pathological enmeshment" on the part of the daughter. As more and more minority students entered the program and took Dr. Murphy's classes on social work and family therapy, this sort of question began to be asked more frequently and usually in a challenging manner.
Student: Aren't these theories culture-bound? It seems to me that strategies aimed at helping family members to individuate or become autonomous units would not be received favorably by many Latino families. I've been told that Asian Americans would also find great discomfort in the value orientation of the White social worker. Professor: Of course we need to consider the race and cultural background of our clients and their families. But it's clear that healthy development of family members must move toward the goal of maturity, and that means being able to make decisions on their own without being dependent or enmeshed in the family network.
Student: But isn't that a value judgment based on seeing a group's value system as pathological? I'm just wondering whether the social worker might be culturally insensitive to the Latino family. She doesn't appear culturally competent. To describe a Latino family member as "excessively dependent" fails to note the value placed on the importance of the family. The social worker seems to have hidden racial biases, as well as difficulty relating to cultural differences. Professor: I think you need to be careful about calling someone incompetent and racist. You don't need to be a member of a racial minority group to understand the experience of discrimination. All human interactions are to some extent multicultural. What we need to realize is that race and ethnicity are only one set of differences. For example, class, gender, and sexual orientation are all legitimate group markers.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Multicultural Social Work Practiceby Derald Wing Sue Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.
