[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: race matching and child welfare - - what IS diversity?
<x-html>
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=windows-1252">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY
style="MARGIN-TOP: 2px; FONT: 10pt Microsoft Sans Serif; MARGIN-LEFT: 2px">
<DIV>I agree that diverse teams make sense in many ways. However, it is
important to face a good deal of controversy that exists with regard to
"matching" or "diverse teams" which many people of general good will are loathe
to confront.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Often the ethnicities of the "diverse" team members do NOT match the
ethnicities of the children served, even if the team IS "diverse." Poverty
populations tend to be that way because of a relative lack of education, and
that, in turn, affects the availability of social work professionals whose
backgrounds MATCH the clients from that background. We take qualified,
well-motivated people wherever we can find them, and we DO have a shortage of
people willing to work in Child Protective Services who have the BASIC
qualifications and stamina and are willing to work for the pay we can give
them.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> In California, it is usually more important to have the languages
spoken by client populations, and in Southern California, that means a variety
of languages, some East Asian, some South Asian, some European, some African,
but mostly Spanish-speaking, and from county to county, varieties of Spanish can
be important. In addition, in MY county, we need people, if we can find
them, who are skilled at working with a large Mixtec population, even if they do
not THEMSELVES SPEAK Mixteco. We also have rural-origin Mayan
families. Among both the Mixteco and Mayan populations (mostly from
Mexico), there has been a longstanding preference that women not learn Spanish
(let alone READ Spanish OR English). L. A. has rural Salvadorans and
Guatemalans of other indigenous groups, as well as Spanish-speaking people from
El Salvador and Guatemala, and many people from various language communities of
the former Soviet Union, groups from the various countries formerly a part
of the British Raj, as well as East Asians of SEVERAL countries AND generations
of immigration, some back to the turn of the century.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Diversity, to many, has long meant having workers of "my" particular ethnic
group. Unfortunately, many people who have prepared for social work
careers have not also prepared themselves to speak the languages of the CURRENT
batch of folks in poverty. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In a recent meeting of a large think tank in the San Francisco Bay area
talking about this issue, folks were asked whether certain teams were
"diverse": 1) all Hispanic, 2) African American and Hispanic individuals
(not individuals of mixed ethnicity) and no "whites", 3) all Asian (without
regard to country of origin or language facility). Each person of a
particular "non-white" ethnic group, with a few exceptions, thought a team was
diverse EVEN if it did not have any members of any other group besides their
own, as long as it had the group HE/SHE belonged to represented.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Well, as a former affirmative action officer (and as an English language
pedant) NONE of those teams I listed above are "diverse".....which was a shock
to the folks who thought that was what "diversity" meant, as well as a shock to
the "white" members of the group who felt excluded and "hurt" that the other
group members thought that a team that excluded "whites" was O.K., as long as
THEIR OWN group was INCLUDED. Of course, for Asians, "Asian" is
entirely a construct which was created to lump statistically small groups of
people from Asian countries (which was the case back in 1970 or so when
affirmative action got going) who have NEVER viewed themselves as sharing much
with folks even from the country next door in Asia, let alone with all of the
peoples who have inhabited Asia at one time or another. I venture to say
that most East Asians do not think that Koreans, Chinese (Guangdong dialect or
Mandarin-speakers), and Japanese origin folks are "interchangeable" although we
lump them statistically as "Asians". By the way, many Chinese in various
parts of California do not SPEAK Mandarin as a first language, and are better in
English than another Chinese dialect.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Finally, as the African-American population in Los Angeles prepared its
youth for a career in public social service, especially for the purpose of
providing professional social services to the African American population in
poverty, the reality of there now being vastly more NON-African-American,
Spanish-speaking families in poverty, for whom speaking Spanish is a bar to
receiving services from NON-Spanish speaking social workers has thrown another
monkey wrench into the career aspirations of justifiably proud people who worked
hard to attain this professional status and role, but who are not fluent in
Spanish.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some of the demand for "diverse" services is real and related to clients'
needs. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Some of it is a political statement that there should be more jobs for
people of "my" ethnic group. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>There are very clear rules about when the racial or ethnic background of a
potential employee may be taken into consideration in employment
decisions in the United States, and those rules override a general desire
to "be diverse" where the rights to employment of particular candidates are
concerned, especially in public agencies funded by government dollars. It
has not been established that you need to BE Mixteco, for instance, to
serve Mixtecos, although some folks might like to see that there be more Mixteco
social workers. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Heck, we have a shortage of social workers PERIOD! Speaking Spanish
is a plus - - Whatever color or background you have! We have
Chinese and Korean social workers who serve, in Spanish, our largely
Mexican-origin poverty population, and they do it well, not to speak of "whites"
who are former Peace Corps workers with years of experience IN social
services in Latin American countries before coming to work for us, but who
are not, technically "Hispanic". They are good, too, and many such
people have a clear "vocation" to serve, which I regard as an essential
component of of good social worker, regardless of background, language fluency,
or ethnic group.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Thanks, I thought this was an important consideration to raise. It is
time to examine some "politically correct" views more closely in order to
really move to better services to our cllients and fairness to our
employees.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Freya Schultz</DIV>
<DIV>Santa Barbara County Social Services</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><BR><BR>>>> lfontes@rcn.com 12/12/03 05:57AM >>><BR>Even
if race matching is NOT used, it would make sense to have diverse<BR>treatment
teams AT ALL LEVELS to:<BR>1) help colleagues educate each other about
cultural issues (make ALL<BR>workers more competent to work w people from a
variety of cultures)<BR>2) help assure that policies and procedures are fair to
people from<BR>diverse groups<BR>3) help clients feel comfortable when working
with the agency, to feel<BR>that the agency is FOR them rather than against
them<BR>4) improve the ability of the agency to recognize and access
resources<BR>within diverse clients' families and communities (churches,
community<BR>leaders, even media).<BR>5) Professionals from diverse backgrounds
can help improve the ability<BR>of an agency to serve families from diverse
circumstances. Diverse<BR>professionals can generate a wider range of
solutions/options/<BR>viewpoints. By diverse I am referring to gender,
ethnicity, national<BR>origin, sexual orientation, age, SES, ability,
etc.<BR><BR>In other words, diversity is a benefit whether or not cultural
matching<BR>is used.<BR>Lisa Fontes, Ph.D.<BR>Springfield
COllege<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From:
owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu<BR>[<A
href="mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu]";>mailto:owner-CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu]</A>
On Behalf Of<BR>bill higgins<BR>Sent: Monday, December 01, 2003 12:51 PM<BR>To:
Child Maltreatment Researchers<BR>Subject: Re: race matching and child
welfare<BR><BR><BR>If there is no research to support matching of clients<BR>and
workers then why is there a big push for more<BR>African American
caseworkers? I thought this was<BR>believed to improve outcomes for
African American<BR>children in foster care.
<BR><BR>Bill<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR>--- Karen Adshead <karen@kadshead.com>
wrote:<BR>> Most of the research I have read looks at developing<BR>>
cultural competency in<BR>> workers, not culture matching. Cultural
competency<BR>> does not assume that<BR>> workers, by virtue of belonging
to the same cultural<BR>> contexts as their<BR>> clients, are competent
solely through their<BR>> membership in the group. This<BR>> assumes that
there is a heterogeneity within<BR>> culture, diversity exist within<BR>>
culture, and certainly within race. The priority<BR>> then becomes in
providing<BR>> culturally appropriate, rather than of culturally<BR>>
specific, services to<BR>> clients, and ensuring that a workers
responses,<BR>> interventions and planning<BR>> are cognisant and
articulate how they will consider<BR>> and support the cultural<BR>>
identity of the child.<BR>> <BR>> You might want to consider looking at
matching in<BR>> some cases. For instance,<BR>> some First Nations
communities in Canada have had<BR>> their authority over their<BR>> own
children recognized, and have established, or<BR>> are in the process
of<BR>> establishing, separate aboriginal child<BR>> protection/child
welfare authorities<BR>> and services. This example of a
post-colonial<BR>> context, where there is an<BR>> attempt to redress
structural inequity and practices<BR>> of cultural genocide<BR>> which
have occurred as a result of assimilationist<BR>> policies in Canada.<BR>>
<BR>> Karen Adshead<BR>> ----- Original Message -----<BR>> From: "Bill
Moore" <wmoore@cinci.rr.com><BR>> To: "Child Maltreatment
Researchers"<BR>> <CHILD-MALTREATMENT-RESEARCH-L@cornell.edu><BR>>
Sent: Monday, November 24, 2003 1:27 PM<BR>> Subject: Re: race matching and
child welfare<BR>> <BR>> <BR>> > And in fact here in Ohio the state
was fined by<BR>> the feds for this very<BR>> > practice, extending the
time significantly for<BR>> minority children to be<BR>> >
adopted.<BR>> ><BR>> > bill moore<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
> > It's illegal to consider race in making a<BR>> placement except for
the<BR>> > > specific needs of a specific child. That
might<BR>> actually be a violation<BR>> > > of the law.<BR>> >
><BR>> > > >>> bill_higginsus@yahoo.com 11/21/03 17:02
PM<BR>> >>><BR>> > > We are running a training for new
workers.<BR>> Someone<BR>> > > asked about matching the race of the
child with<BR>> the<BR>> > > race of the worker. Is there any
research on<BR>> this<BR>> > > topic? Does it seem to make a
difference?<BR>> > ><BR>> > > Bill Higgins<BR>> >
><BR>> > > __________________________________<BR>> > > Do
you Yahoo!?<BR>> > > Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now <A
href="http://companion.yahoo.com/";>http://companion.yahoo.com/</A><BR>> >
><BR>> > ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
<BR><BR><BR>__________________________________<BR>Do you Yahoo!?<BR>Free Pop-Up
Blocker - Get it now<BR><A
href="http://companion.yahoo.com/";>http://companion.yahoo.com/</A><BR><BR></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>