Jani Cultural Competence Continuum Paper For this assignment you are a camp director for kids. please respond with 450 words. 150 words for each question.

Jani Cultural Competence Continuum Paper For this assignment you are a camp director for kids. please respond with 450 words. 150 words for each question. Answer #2,3 and 4

2. Do you, as a camp director feel committed to the principles of valuing difference, performing self-assessment, understanding dynamics, building cultural knowledge and adapting practices for your camp – including all (board, staff, campers, parents)? Yes or no? Please describe why or why not.Look at the cultural competence continuum .

3. Describe where you (personally) and your program fall on the culturlal competence continuum (attached)

4. Are you content with where you and your program fall on the continuum? Why or why not? Cultural Competence Continuum
by Terry L. Cross, M.S.W.
Reprinted with permission for the Fall, 1988 issue of “Focal Point”, the bulletin of The
Research and Training Center on Family Support and Children’s Mental Health,
Portland State University, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, (503) 725-4040.
Cultural competence is a set of congruent behaviors, attitudes and policies that come
together in a system, agency or professional and enable that system, agency or
professional to work effectively in cross-cultural situations. The word culture is used
because it implies the integrated pattern of human behavior that includes thought,
communication, actions, customs, beliefs, values and institutions of a racial, ethnic,
religious or social group. The word competence is used because it implies having the
capacity to function effectively. A culturally competent system of care acknowledges and
incorporates–at all levels–the importance of culture, the assessment of cross-cultural
relations, vigilance towards the dynamics that result from cultural differences, the
expansion of cultural knowledge and the adaptation of services to meet culturally unique
needs.
Certainly the description of cultural competence seems idealistic. How can a system
accomplish all of these things? How can it achieve this set of behaviors, attitudes and
policies? Cultural competence may be viewed as a goal toward which agencies can strive.
Accordingly, becoming culturally competent is a developmental process. No matter how
proficient an agency may become, there will always be room for growth. It is a process in
which the system of care can measure its progress according to the agency’s achievement
of specific developmental tasks. As the tasks are defined the system will be guided
toward progressively more culturally competent services. First, it is important for an
agency to internally assess its level of cultural competence.
To better understand where one is in the process of becoming more culturally competent,
it is useful to think of the possible ways of responding to cultural differences.
Imagine a continuum which ranges from cultural proficiency to cultural destructiveness.
There are a variety of possibilities between these two extremes. Here we discuss five
points along the continuum and the characteristics that might be exhibited at each
position.
Cultural Destructiveness. The most negative end of the continuum is represented by
attitudes, policies and practices which are destructive to cultures and consequently to the
individuals within the culture. The most extreme example of this orientation are programs
which actively participate in cultural genocide–the purposeful destruction of a culture.
Cultural Incapacity. The next position on the continuum is one at which the system or
agencies do not intentionally seek to be culturally destructive but rather lack the capacity
to help minority clients or communities. The system remains extremely biased, believes
in the racial superiority of the subdominant group and assumes a paternal posture towards
“lesser” races. These agencies may disproportionately apply resources, discriminate
against people of color on the basis of whether they “know their place” and believe in the
supremacy of dominant culture helpers. Such agencies may support segregation as a
desirable policy. They may act as agents of oppression by enforcing racist policies and
maintaining stereotypes. Such agencies are often characterized by ignorance and an
unrealistic fear of people of color. The characteristics of cultural incapacity include:
discriminatory hiring practices, subtle messages to people of color that they are not
valued or welcome, and generally lower expectations of minority clients.
Cultural Blindness. At the midpoint on the continuum the system and its agencies
provide services with the express philosophy of being unbiased. They function with the
belief that color or culture make no difference and that we are all the same. Culturally
blind agencies are characterized by the belief that helping approaches traditionally used
by the dominant culture are universally applicable; if the system worked as it should, all
people–regardless of race or culture–would be serviced with equal effectiveness. This
view reflects a well intended liberal philosophy; however, the consequences of such a
belief are to make services so ethnocentric as to render them virtually useless to all but
the most assimilated people of color.
Such services ignore cultural strengths, encourage assimilation and blame the victims for
their problems. Members of minority communities are viewed from the cultural
deprivation model which asserts that problems are the result of inadequate cultural
resources. Outcome is usually measured by how closely the client approximates a middle
class non-minority existence. Institutional racism restricts minority access to professional
training, staff positions and services.
Eligibility for services is often ethnocentric. For example, foster care licensing standards
in many states restrict licensure of extended family systems occupying one home. These
agencies may participate in special projects with minority populations when monies are
specifically available or with the intent of “rescuing” people of color. Unfortunately, such
minority projects are often conducted without community guidance and are the first
casualties when funds run short. Culturally blind agencies suffer from a deficit of
information and often lack the avenues through which they can obtain needed
information. While these agencies often view themselves as unbiased and responsive to
minority needs, their ethnocentrism is reflected in attitude, policy and practice.
Cultural Pre-Competence. Culturally competent agencies are characterized by
acceptance and respect for difference, continuing self-assessment regarding culture,
careful attention to the dynamics of difference, continuous expansion of cultural
knowledge and resources, and a variety of adaptations to service models in order to better
meet the needs of minority populations. The culturally competent agency works to hire
unbiased employees, seeks advice and consultation from the minority community and
actively decides what it is and is not capable of providing to minority clients.
Advanced Cultural Competence. The most positive end of the scale is advanced
cultural competence or proficiency. This point on the continuum is characterized by
holding culture in high esteem. The culturally proficient agency seeks to add to the
knowledge base of culturally competent practice by conducting research, developing new
therapeutic approaches based on culture and publishing and disseminating the results of
demonstration projects. The culturally proficient agency hires staff who are specialists in
culturally competent practice. Such an agency advocates for cultural competence
throughout the system and improved relations between cultures throughout society.
In conclusion, the degree of cultural competence an agency achieves is not dependent on
any one factor. Attitudes, policies, and practice are three major arenas where
development can and must occur if an agency is to move toward cultural competence.
Attitudes change to become less ethnocentric and biased. Policies change to become
more flexible and culturally impartial. Practices become more congruent with the culture
of the client from initial contact through termination. Positive movement along the
continuum results from an aggregate of factors at various levels of an agency’s structure.
Every level of the agency (board members, policymakers, administrators, practitioners
and consumers), can and must participate in the process. At each level the principles of
valuing difference, self-assessment, understanding dynamics, building cultural
knowledge and adapting practice can be applied. As each level makes progress in
implementing the principles, and as attitudes, policies and practices change, the agency
becomes more culturally competent.
Back to NYSCCC Home Page | Back to Transracial Directory
NYS Citizens’ Coalition for Children, Inc.
410 East Upland Road • Ithaca, NY 14850
607-272-0034 • office@nysccc.org
Cultural Competence Continuum: Agencies and Professionals
Cultural Competence Continuum
Cultural
Destructiveness
(is intentionally
destructive)
— practices cultural
genocide (e.g. Boarding
schools for Native
Americans)
–dehumanizes or
subhumanizing clients of
color
–denies clients access to
their natural helpers or
healers
–removes children from
their families on the basis
of race
–risks client’s well-being
in social or medical
experiments without their
knowledge or consent
Cultural
Incapacity
Cultural
Blindness
Cultural PreCompetence
Basic Cultural
Competence
Advanced
Cultural
Competence
(is not intentionally destructive
but lacks capacity to help people
of color)
–takes paternal posture toward
“lesser” races
(expresses a philosophy of
being unbiased)
–has acceptance and
respect for differences
–holds culture in
high esteem
–engages in continuing
self-assessment
regarding culture
–thinks all people should be
served with equal effectiveness
–realizes its weaknesses
in serving minorities and
attempts to make
specific improvements
–tries experiments; hires
minority staff, explores
how to reach clients,
trains staff on cultural
sensitivity, recruits
minorities for their
boards and advisory
committees
–has commitment to
civil rights
-disproportionately applies
resources
–believes helping approaches
used by dominant culture are
universally acceptable and
universally applicable
–ignores cultural strengths,
encourages assimilation, and
blames clients for their
problems
–may feel a false sense
of accomplishment that
prevents further
movement
–works to hire unbiased
workers
–adds to knowledge
base by doing
research, developing
new approaches
based on culture,
publishing results of
demonstration
projects
–hires staff who are
specialists in
culturally competent
practice
–advocates for
cultural competence
throughout the
system and improved
relations between
cultures throughout
society
–discriminates based on whether
clients “know their place” and
believes in the supremacy of
dominant culture helpers
–may support segregation as a
desirable policy
–enforces racist policies and
maintains stereotypes
–promotes ignorance and
unrealistic fears of people of color
–maintains discriminatory hiring
practices
–gives subtle “not welcome”
messages
–has lower expectations of
minority clients
–follows cultural deprivation
model (problems are the result
of inadequate cultural
resources)
–practices institutionalized
racism
–sets ethnocentric eligibility
for services
–may engage in
tokenism
–seeks advice and
consultation from
minority community
–believes that color or culture
make no difference; we’re all
the same
–makes adaptations to
service models in order
to meet client needs
Source: University of Minnesota Duluth, Department of Social Work http://www.d.umn.edu/sw/culturalcomp/Cultural%20Competence%20Conti.htm
Adapted with permission from Terry L. Cross, MSW, Director National Indian Child Welfare Association, Portland, Oregon

Purchase answer to see full
attachment