Module+2


 * Preliminary Narrative for Program #1: Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT) 2-Day Multcultural Training Workshop. **

[|MulticulturalTrainingtwodayworkshopslides1-30-07.ppt]

Per the instructions for this assignment, our goal with this portion of our project is to review, compare and contrast three different Multi-Cultural Training Programs (MCT), of varying quality, for clearly defined and measurable objectives, assessment methods and overall strategy.

The first program we looked at, prepared and offered by the Center for the Application of Substance Abuse Technologies (CASAT), is a two-day workshop presented to students via a PowerPoint presentation. It is simply titled “Multicultural Training.” Due to CASAT’s website being temporarily down (aside from the PowerPoint presentation) it was not possible to get more detailed information on CASAT at this time. CASAT does appear to be a counseling center associated with the University of Nevada, Reno.

Per slide #4 of the CASAT presentation, the workshop's goals are as follows:

• Increased //awareness// of own assumptions, values, and bias • Greater //knowledge// of the world view of the culturally diverse or different client • New //skill// with appropriate counselor interventions, strategies and techniques • A personal //action plan// for applying what you have learned

These objectives, though loosely defined and commendable, do not seem to be measurable. Rather, the first two goals represent a general framework for discussion. The latter two goals, though conceivably measureable, still seem to be set forth as abstract objectives as there is no apparent strategy for measuring student competency.

Per slide #5, the program is designed based on multicultural competencies developed by Sue, Arrendondo and McDavis (1992). This is the strategy/methodology employed and is cited up front.

The workshop begins with an icebreaker game of Bingo, in which people’s names (presumably those of participating students) are placed in the appropriate square based on specific criteria that they ‘fulfill.’ Several group activities follow the icebreaker Bingo. First, there is a Multicultural Needs Assesment. This consists of filling in a Matrix with ‘X’s and ‘O’s delineating whether one would be ‘not comfortable’ or ‘very comfortable’ engaging in certain activities with certain prospective companions. The vertical column contained the activities (7 in all), while the horizontal column contained the four distinct category of individual (children under 5, workshop trainers, zookeepers, supervisors). So, one square might in effect ask, ‘would you be comfortable going to the movies with your supervisor?’ Or, ‘would you be comfortable letting a workshop training take a sip of soda with your same straw?’ At the bottom of the matrix, ‘X’s are added up to provide an ‘uncomfortability’ index score. Following this, a series of questions were provided to discuss the results in groups of three. These questions were as follows:

• How did you feel when completing this exercise? When you were finished? • What were your thoughts in completing this exercise? • Anything surprising or anything that you didn’t expect to see? • More Xs that you anticipated? • More Os than you anticipated? • What were the hardest questions to answer? • What was it like to see Xs on your worksheet? • What are potential reasons why one or more groups are challenging for you? • Are these barriers you must overcome in order to provide effective services to these groups? • What resources would you need to address these barriers? • What did you learn from this self awareness and self assessment exercise? These results are discussed in the context of self-awareness only, therefore, not a means for measuring the objectives of the program.

The next activity was similar in that it provided questions for discussion in group interaction. These questions focused on attitudes and beliefs of different participants. Various activities and exercises follow in a somewhat game-like fashion seemingly to facilitate joviality (such as walking around with headbands on which something is written that only others can see. This is interspersed with informational slides. Strangely, during Day-2 another matrix is offered where ethnic/cultural differences are noted for different ethnic groups. This in itself might not be so odd, but the slides that follow seem to delineate stereotypical characteristics pertaining to different ethnic groups (though not necessarily derogatory). Here is just one example for //Asian American/Pacific Islander://

• __Religious Influences-__ Buddhist, Confucian, Christian • __Family Roles-__ Extended family, filial piety • __Communication Patterns-__ limited eye contact, use of silence • __Gender Roles-__ patriarchal, submissive females, authoritarian parenting • __Cultural Norms-__ collective orientation, shame, model minority • __Historical Context-__ internment camps, Vietnam War, boat people • __Mental Health Concerns-__ advice seeking, controlled emotions

Though a personal tool kit is provided for the participants (who are to be mental health/clinical counselor’s of some type, although this is unclear), there is no visible means of assessing the participant’s progress, or whether the program has met any defined/measurable objectives. This program apparently does not designate a performance rubric criterion. The strategy ((Sue, Arredondo & McDavis 1992) also referenced as based on Sue & Sue 1990) seems to be primarily one of increasing self-awareness in general terms. Three dimensions represent the premise of the approach:

1) //A culturally skilled counselor is one who is actively in the process of becoming aware of his or her own assumptions about human behavior, values, biases, preconceived notions, personal limitations, and so forth.//

2) //A culturally skilled counselor is one who actively attempts to understand the worldview of his or her culturally different client without negative judgments.//

3) //A culturally skilled counselor is one who is in the process of actively developing and practicing appropriate, relevant, and sensitive intervention strategies and skills in working with his or her culturally different clients (Sue, Arredondo & McDavis 1992).//

A summary statement may shed light on why this program really has no measurable objectives or performance criterion:

//These three goals stress the fact that becoming culturally skilled is an active process, that it is ongoing, and that it is a process that never reaches and end point. Implicit is recognition of the complexity and diversity of the client and client populations, and acknowledgement of our own personal limitations and the need to always improve (Sue, Arredondo & McDavis 1992).//


 * Sue, D. W., Arrendondo, P. & McDavis, R. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and standards: A call to the profession. //Journal of Counseling & Development, 70,// 477-486.**

[|Cultural Diversity.ppt] [|cultural diversity test.doc]
 * Preliminary narrative for Program #2: Powerpoint presentation titled " Learn About Cultural Diversity Competencies,” offered through the Education, Training and Development (ETD) Department of the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System. **

The second MCT program we looked at is also a PowerPoint-based lecture format created by the Education, Training and Development (ETD) Department of the Southern Arizona VA Health Care System. Immediately, we recognize that there are no established objectives or training strategy for delivery of the course. The slides simply begin a discussion of cultural diversity, describing the United States as a melting pot, or in their words, more appropriately as a tossed salad of many different intermixed cultural influences. Several key questions are asked and then elaborated upon as the presentation progresses. First, “Why should I learn about diversity?” Obvious reasons are cited in very general terms. Adding some credibility to the premise of the presentation, statistics are used to illustrate the current state of multi-cultural presence in the American workforce. For example, per slide #11, in the year 2000, out of every 100 workers, 10 were immigrants, 16 were U.S.-Born Hispanic, African American or other people of color, and 47 were women (including 12 women of color). Additionally, the presentation notes that out of every 100 children in American classrooms, 33 were children of color.

The next question addressed is “What makes each person unique?” Cultural/ethnic background is only one of many characteristics that are delineated, was also includes education, appearance, sexual orientation, income, religion, etc (slides 13 and 14). The main difference we observe between this an the first program is that it seems to be purely lecture with no observed student interactions, role-plays, exercises, and so forth. Particular attention is paid to the inherent differences of people with an emphasis on being sensitive (i.e. not telling ethnic or sexual jokes), not judging or stereotyping (don’t make someone a spokesman for an entire group), and be open. The next question posed to participants is “What are Cultural Competencies?” A clear definition is not provided, however, only a general progression of the same basic guidelines, albeit this time specifically oriented toward presumably VA workers in a culturally diverse patient population. Treat each patient as an individual, yet consider each patient’s cultural background when provided care (still very general). In the program’s defense, it might be surmised that the lecturer would elaborate on the basic bullet-style information presented in the slides. And lastly, “Why learn about cultural competencies?” The answer: to help patients receive more effective care, to help your facility meet JCAHO (Joint Commission on accreditation of healthcare organizations) standards, and improve your job performance.

The remainder of the presentation focuses on the importance of awareness, similar to the first program. Specific cultural factors addressed are the patient’s country of origin, preferred language, communication style, views of health, family and community relationships, religion, and food preferences. These are first listed, then elaborated individually. Following this the discussion returns to the development of cultural competencies, offering strategies such as asking questions, being conscious of particular needs, and perhaps most relevant to this student audience, learn about how the patient talks about his or her specific symptoms or condition. “For example, some cultures classify illnesses as “hot” or “cold” and treat each type differently (Slide 72).”

Though the majority of the program seems to be directed toward patient care, almost as an afterthought, cultural diversity within the work force is addressed in one of the last slides. It basically says, ‘oh yeah, demonstrate cultural competency with your co-workers too.’

Although no specific measurable objectives are established at the outset of this program, it does contain a competency quiz as a basis for measuring student cultural competency. This competency quiz consists of 10 True/False questions related to appropriate cultural competency and sensitivity in the treatment of a mult-culture patient population.


 * Preliminary Narrative for Program #3 and Concluding Summary Paragraph: 1.5 to 2 hour diversity workshop, titled //'Diversity Awareness Training,'// prepared by the Missouri Long Term Care Ombudsman for their quarterly meeting.**

[]

The third program we surveyed is titled ‘Diversity Awareness Training’ and is prepared by the Missouri Long Term Care (LTC) Ombudsman for presentation at the LTC Ombudsman quarterly meeting. This training is very brief, only 1.5 to 2 hours in length. Though vague, the objective is set forth at the outset: //To help volunteer ombudsman, or participants in the training, to be aware of issues that evolve with the diversity in long term care.// The training progression is outlined in a PDF file (for the instructor), and includes a PowerPoint presentation and a handout ‘packet’ for the participants. The PDF Thoroughly breaks down, by the minute, how the presentation/workshop is to unfold. For such a brief program, it seems that there are considerable resources for engaging the participants and evaluating the intended outcome (though it appears primarily for self-assessment purposes). In particular, there is a ‘Diversity Knowledge Quiz,’ and a ‘Diversity Self-Assessment.’ It is specified that students do not need to share their score.

Again, as with the prior programs we examined, the premise is primarily increased self-awareness in the context of multi-cultural and diversity sensitive environments. Of the programs (and material available for review), this program seems to provide the best resource for the presenter (the PDF file) to ensure effective delivery. Merriam-Webster dictionary definitions are provided for relevant terms, such as ‘diversity,’ ‘culture,’ and ‘ethnicity.’ There is an interesting activity that serves as the basis for discussion of diversity statistics that allows the participants to assume the world population of 6 million people were shrunk down to 100. Then a statistical narrative paragraph with blanks for the numerical distribution of distinct cultural categories is provided for students to surmise the correct distribution (totaling 100, or perhaps, 100 percent). This is followed by several ‘thought’ questions for the student to fill in, such as ‘Why is this information important?’ Additional statistics are provided for the elderly population (hence long term care), including several census tables and charts illustrating the current ethnic makeup of America’s elderly population, and projecting the ethnic makeup of future elderly populations (2050). This is specifically designed to illustrate the direction we are moving as a society in multi-cultural/diversity terms.

The diversity knowledge quiz poses interesting questions (more particular to specific ethnic and interesting concerns that the previously surveyed diversity quiz). Questions include, //‘Most African-Americans don’t wash their hair every day because they would remove the natural oil,’// – which is marked on the key as //‘True.’// The questions are not restricted to culture or ethnic group, however, and include questions regarding age discrimination, sexual orientation, mental illness and the disabled. The idea is that participants discuss results openly.

Following this, students separate into groups to engage in an even more interesting discussion of hypothetical and potentially challenging diversity-specific (religious, gender, culture, etc.) scenarios. Examples include:

// Religious or Spiritual Diversity Issue: Henry is upset that you blow out his candles and turn on his lights early Saturday morning to prepare him for a morning walk. Henry happens to be Jewish. // //National Diversity Issue: Munirah is from// //Kuwait// //and does not have tea to offer her guests. She is quite bothered by this and often lashes out at the staff.//

The ‘Diversity Self-Assessment’ is a standard ‘Always/Never’ 1-5 degree survey of 20 hypothetical statements. This is again is solely for the student’s benefit in considering his or her own values as they pertain to diversity. The PowerPoint presentation seems to be the weakest part of this program, with only 11 slides, mainly highlighting statistical points. In some ways, this presentation though brief, seems superior to the preceeding two. The activities seem more thought provoking and engaging, and therefore, more revealing...even if this is primarily only in a self-informative way.

The main deficiencies common to all three of these MCT programs is that they lacked a means of measurably testing the progress, or level of student’s perspectives and knowledge of diversity related issues and concerns. They don’t attempt to evaluate where each participant stands, only offer guidelines as to where they should stand. In other words, they seemed primarily informational rather than evaluative. The strategy employed for all three programs seems primarily to focus on increasing student’s awareness of his or her own positions regarding diversity related issues, without really documenting it. My experience of these types of presentations and workshops is that they are treated as PC formalities that must be endured and are dismissed accordingly. Nevertheless, on an unconscious level, it seems that these programs do increase self-awareness as one approaches implicitly understood boundaries and taboos. Perhaps this is enough.







The three programs we are wanting to use...

Multicultural Training

A real World guide to Diversity in the workplace

Diversity Awareness After looking at the supplemental article I noticed the sample matrix showing the CCT method



Awareness not measurable || Cooperative learning ( group) Ice breakers ( Bonding) Setting Ground rules and parameters Setting expectations Self awareness and evaluation/reflection Grand discussion Developing common vocabulary || *Development of personal toolkit with goals Looking at cultural dimensions – Federal Five -Cultural groups Matrix to show cultural dimensions Cultural Identity model Development of a personal toolkit ||  ||
 * || **Measurable Objectives** || **Instructional Strategies** || **Assessments align with objectives** || **Common Elements** || **Unique Elements** || **Classification of CCT program** ||
 * **Multicultural training** || Personal Action plan implementing what you have learned
 * Beliefs
 * Knowledge
 * Skills
 * Practice scenarios to develop hypothesis and goals
 * Plan for treatment || Awareness || Defining multicultural terms to develop common language
 * **A real world guide to diversity in the workplace** ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||
 * Diversity Awareness ||  ||   ||   ||   ||   ||   ||