Abbreviations

AFRC Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse

AGD Attorney-General's Department

AIFS Australian Institute of Family Studies

CALD Culturally and linguistically diverse

ECC Ethnic Communities Council

FaHCSIA Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs

FRSP Family Relationship Services Program

MRC Migrant Resource Centre

NESB Non-English speaking backgroun

SPRC Social Policy Research Centre

UNSW University of New South Wales

2. Characteristics and experiences of CALD groups in Australia

2.1 What are the main CALD groups in Australia?

CALD groups comprise a significant proportion of Australia's population. Currently, 31% of Australians were born overseas and, of these, about two-thirds were born in non-English speaking countries (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2007). For consistency in this paper, CALD families refer to those born, or who have at least one parent born overseas, but the difficulty in defining the term needs to be acknowledged. On the one hand, it is an inclusive term when it is describing Australia's cultural and linguistic plurality (ABS, 1999) and so refers to all families. However, in research and practice especially, it is mostly used to distinguish the mainstream community from those in which English is not the main language and/or cultural norms and values differ. "CALD" therefore has superseded the term "non-English speaking background" (NESB) because of its reference to culture as an explanation for why differences between CALD and mainstream communities may occur, and so goes beyond linguistic factors.

CALD families, then, generally refer to those that originate from countries in which English is not the main language. Therefore, it refers to all people who are not English-speaking Anglo-Saxons/Celtics or Indigenous/Aboriginal Australians. According to the 2006 Census, in descending order of population size, the main CALD groups in Australia are from Italy, China, Vietnam, India, Philippines, Greece, Germany, Malaysia, Netherlands, Lebanon, and Hong Kong (see Table 1).

Most CALD communities in Australia, especially Asian communities, are concentrated in urban areas. Of people born in Vietnam, 97% lived in major urban areas in 2004, especially Sydney and Melbourne. Similarly, 96% of people born in China, 91% born in India, and 85% born in the Philippines reside in major urban areas (ABS, 2004).

Although it is recognised that a considerable proportion of permanent entries to Australia are via the Humanitarian Program, including refugees, it is beyond the scope of this paper to specifically address issues related to refugee families in Australia.

Notes: (a) If different from religion of Australian residents from this country. Methods of collection of this data may differ from those used by the ABS; therefore, caution should be exercised when interpreting results.
(b) Australian residents who were born in the United Kingdom, New Zealand and South Africa are not included as CALD.
(c) Although Zulu is the language used by the largest percentage of the population in South Africa, the main language of most South African migrants to Australia is English and so they are not included as CALD in this paper. Also, it is worth noting that there is a significant population of Australian residents from South Africa who are Jewish (the third most predominant religion among South Africans in Australia, according to ABS figures). 

Sources: Population: ABS. (2007). Migration Australia (3412.0): Estimated resident population at 30 June 2006. Religion: ABS. (2007). Perspectives on migrants (3416.0), at 30 June 2006. Language: Wikipedia.

Characteristics of the main CALD groups in Australia

Families both across and within cultural groups vary considerably from one another, and it is important for service providers and practitioners to be aware of and sensitive to this diversity. However, there are some general characteristics of cultural groups that can be useful in informing what constitutes effective and culturally appropriate service delivery for different CALD groups. The main characteristics service providers and practitioners should be aware of are:

• their language and religion; and
• the individualistic or collectivistic orientation of the family's cultural group.

Language and religion

The main CALD groups in Australia vary in their languages and religions. The most common languages spoken in each country are listed in Table 1. It is important to know the main languages when translation and interpreting services are required. Predominantly, East European countries are Christian; Asian dialectical philosophies (ADPs) such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism are common across Asia; and Islam is common across Asia, North Africa and the Middle East. It is also important to consider religious norms for culturally appropriate service delivery.

Individualism/collectivism

Although families and cultures vary on a continuum in the extent to which their cultural norms, values, beliefs and practices are individualistic or collectivistic, these two theoretical viewpoints have heuristic value. While family responsibilities are important in both paradigms, generally collectivistic cultures emphasise family obligations over individual autonomy (Triandis, 1990). As such, social harmony and support tend to be prioritised over individuation, hierarchies based on age and gender are more socially acceptable, and the family provides relatively more social support than the state (Berry, 1980; Triandis, 1990). In addition, it is atypical for families to disclose or discuss their family-related concerns to outsiders, as this contravenes a typically collectivistic norm of "saving face" - protecting the family name (Berry, 1980; Lieh-Mak, Lee & Luk, 1984, cited in Forehand & Kotchick, 1996; Triandis, 1990).

Of the main CALD groups in Australia (as listed in Table 1), only Germany and the Netherlands are categorised as individualistic cultures according to Hofstede's (1980) classic study, in which nations were ordered according to their degree of individualism or collectivism.⁴ In individualistic cultures, individuals are generally socialised to be more autonomous, generally experience discomfort with non-egalitarian relationships, and expect and experience the role of the state in providing support to be relatively high (Bond, 2002). As a result, seeking help from the state and disclosing family problems to extra-familial sources of support is more commonplace among people from individualistic cultures (Bhui, Warfa, Edonya, McKenzie, & Bhugra, 2007; Broadhurst, 2003). It is thus important to understand how collectivistic cultural norms and practices can contribute to the barriers CALD families face when they access and use family relationship services.⁵

2.3 Why do service providers and practitioners need to consider the characteristics of CALD groups in their service delivery?

Service providers and practitioners need to consider the characteristics of CALD groups in their service delivery because the size of inequity in access to and use of services varies across the different CALD groups. In particular, migrant families from Germany and the Netherlands differ from the other main CALD groups in Australia in two important ways. Firstly, they are generally individualistic in their cultural norms and practices, similar to their Anglo-Australian counterparts. In addition, they are more likely to be proficient in English. As such, families from these two CALD groups are distinguished from the other main CALD groups in Australia. In this paper, the latter group are referred to as "ethnic minorities" because they are more likely to experience barriers to service access and use as a result of their variation both culturally and linguistically from the mainstream community. These barriers are described more fully in the following sections.

4. Recommendations for enhancing service accessibility and delivery for CALD families in service delivery

4.1 Overcoming the barriers experienced by CALD families in service delivery

There are a number of strategies that can be implemented to overcome or minimise the barriers and/or disadvantages experienced by CALD families in service delivery. Katz et al. (2007) outlined six main approaches that can be used to increase the engagement of CALD families in the family relationship services sector: personal relationships between staff and service users; practical issues; service culture; consultation, information and targeting; service delivery issues; and community development approaches. These six approaches are considered here to be subsumed within a three-tiered strategy for capacity-building to improve access to and use of services for CALD families, at:

• practitioner level;
• service level; and
• policy level.

Implementing strategies at all three levels is necessary to provide the holistic and appropriate support service that will best meet the needs of ethnic minority families in Australia. For example, organisations should not expect cultural competency to emerge simply by having a culturally diverse workforce that is representative of the local population; "a genuine willingness and desire to learn about other cultures, rather than simply being a managerial requirement" (Bhui et al., 2007, p. 4) of programs is important for the successful inclusion and engagement of CALD families.

Practitioner level

Service providers and practitioners who are culturally aware, sensitive and competent are more likely to offer effective and culturally appropriate services. The literature on cultural competency (e.g. Bhui et al., 2007; Braithwaite, 2003; Campinha-Bacote, 2002; Hsueh-Fen, Kao, Hsu, & Clark, 2004; Jones, Cason, & Bond, 2004; Korbin, forthcoming; Purnell, 2002; Reich & Reich, 2006; Zoucha, 2002) often groups these three terms together, and so distinctions between them are not clear. Based on the literature, we have redefined these factors and the contribution they each make to the concept of cultural competency.

Cultural awareness is defined here as being aware of or knowing what are the cultural norms, values, beliefs and practices common to a CALD group. This is information that can be obtained in a variety of ways, such as reading about the cultural group, or inviting personnel from CALD-focused services and centres in the local community to speak about the experiences, needs and challenges of families from different CALD groups. This information can be used to address practical issues such as knowing into which languages to translate service documents. Information and training are essential, as they form the base from which cultural sensitivity and competency can be developed.

Cultural sensitivity in this paper builds on cultural awareness. It occurs when service providers and practitioners are familiar with how individuals and families within a CALD group differ from the norms, beliefs, values and practices typical of that culture, and so are less likely to stereotype families; they are aware of how cultural diversity expresses itself among individuals within a cultural group. We argue that cultural sensitivity is knowledge that develops with exposure to individual variation in a cultural group. As such, it is comparatively more difficult to attain than cultural awareness, because it develops over time and is a continuous process of learning. As service providers become more culturally sensitive, they are less likely to rely on stereotypes to inform their assessment of the nature and intensity of the family's problems.

Culturally aware and sensitive service providers and practitioners, who are "willing to let the family be the expert and the educator" (Shapiro, 1995, p. 5, cited in Forehand & Kotchick, 1996) in deciding what is problematic in the family, are less likely to under- or over-estimate the role of culture in the nature and expression of the issues their CALD family is experiencing (Bhui et al., 2007; Katz, 1996). That is, they will be less likely to misattribute culture to problematic behaviours or vice versa (Korbin, forthcoming). However, while it is important for practitioners to understand the norms from the family's point of view, as part of good practice they should not necessarily accept them at face value.

Cultural sensitivity is difficult to attain because cultural norms differ across the various CALD groups, it is subject to change pre- and post-migration, and it varies even within families. Some services work with many different cultural groups, and it is not possible for practitioners to understand the nuances of every culture. Thus, differences across CALD groups make judging deviations within cultural norms difficult. Nevertheless, practitioners can still be culturally sensitive by not stereotyping people or by simply asking them about their cultural norms. It may also be problematic to judge families by cultural norms, as these are especially likely to change after migration. Cultural norms that may be protective and adaptive in one context (e.g., in rural villages) may be potentially harmful in another context (e.g., in the inner city), and so families must be seen in their social and geographical as well as cultural context. Norms may also differ within families; for example, when children have conflict with parents.

To assist in making decisions about the needs or services a family may need, based on how the family or members in the family deviate from what is typical in that culture, it is important to include and involve ethnic minority families in decision making and the provision of services, as this facilitates a sense of ownership (Bell et al., 2005). For example, it is better for service providers and practitioners to "implement interview and engagement techniques that allow service users to articulate their needs, rather than create uncertainty for them" (Butt, 2006, p. 8). Further, this may help overcome any hesitation service providers and practitioners have for fear of appearing racist or ignorant (Brophy, Jhutti-Johan, & McDonald, 2005).

While cultural awareness requires service providers and practitioners to know about the cultural norms common to a CALD group, and cultural sensitivity requires them to be able to correctly judge deviations from these norms as problematic, we argue that cultural competency requires service providers and practitioners to also be aware of their own cultural norms. This helps to avoid judging the family's problems as deviations from the professional's norms as opposed to deviations from the cultural norms of the family. Such judgements can interfere with service delivery because the family are likely to perceive this as a lack of acknowledgement, respect or celebration of the differences.

Culturally competent service providers are those who are aware of differences without making people feel different. Therefore, we assert that cultural competency builds on and subsumes both cultural awareness and sensitivity. It should be noted, however, that circumstances where cultural norms violate Australian laws (e.g., genital mutilation) do not apply to the issue of cultural competency, as these are not deviations from the cultural norms of the professional's cultural group, but from Australian law.

Having reflected on the cultural differences between themselves and their CALD family, service providers and practitioners will be able to establish their common cultural ground. This can help demystify "the other", and stimulate the need to increase accessibility and the inclusiveness of the service culture to cultural groups that may, in fact, have more similarities with the culture of the practitioners than is otherwise perceived. Similar to cultural sensitivity, Braithwaite (2003) pointed out that cultural competency is a continuous process of learning, and requires service providers and practitioners to be generally interested in cultural diversity and to continuously strive to achieve the ability to effectively work within the cultural context of the family. Culturally competent service providers and practitioners are those who feel confident and have a sense of efficacy in being able to address the needs of CALD groups, are aware of differences between cultural groups without making members of that group feel different, and are less likely to judge the cultural norms of CALD groups. In addition, they are aware of the cultural strengths of the family and community, which they use in their service model and practice for engaging the family.

In summary, culturally competent service providers and practitioners are those who:

• are generally interested in and respect cultural diversity;
• continuously strive to effectively work within the cultural context of an individual, family or community;
• are aware of how the cultural norms of the CALD group differ from their own; and
• feel confident and efficacious to address the issues of their CALD clients, even if they are unfamiliar with the CALD group.

This awareness and confidence can inform service providers and practitioners about the appropriateness of referral and to whom referral should be made (Bhui et al, 2007). It can also inform practical issues, such as knowing important festival dates to avoid organising services on those days.

Service level

Based on a review of the literature (e.g., Butt, 2006; Box et al., 2001; Bell et al., 2005; Page et al., 2007; Taylor, 2005; Weerasinghe & Williams, 2003), a number of recommendations were identified that can be implemented at the organisational service level to promote good practice with CALD families. For example, to overcome language barriers, service providers and practitioners can offer interpreting and translation services to CALD families with low English proficiency. Plain language in both verbal and written communications is necessary (Weerasinghe & Williams, 2003). It is also important to explain professional jargon as much as possible, and to use simple English and simple sentences. Practical issues, such as the location of the outlet, opening hours and nearby childcare facilities, also need to be considered.

Promoting the dissemination of services, for example through community newsletters, local businesses, and religious and community groups, can also be useful. These should be translated into the main languages spoken by the most prominent CALD groups in the community, should emphasise the cultural diversity of the staff (where applicable), and include pictures of a range of ethnic minority families to increase their perception that the service is relevant to and inclusive of them (Becher, & Hussain, 2003; Lloyd & Rafferty, 2006).

Confidentiality and trust issues may be heightened for CALD families compared to their Anglo counterparts because of concern that the community may find out or because of fear of authorities. To help overcome this, and as part of normal practice with all families, it is important for service providers and practitioners to be honest and comprehensive in the protocols and boundaries on sharing information. For example, individuals should be informed that some information they disclose is subject to mandatory reporting, such as when child abuse is suspected. However, based on the particular concerns that some CALD families may have regarding confidentiality, it seems important to pay particular attention to informing them that, except in these circumstances, information is confidential and will not be disclosed to other members of their family or community, or immigration and other authorities.

Finally, it is important to be aware of, partner with, and have respectful and cordial relations with personnel in CALD-focused centres and organisations in the local community. Partnerships with CALD-focused centres or organisations are useful for a number of reasons. Firstly, they can provide interpreting and translation services and they may provide or be aware of other services that may be more useful or appropriate for the CALD family. Further, personnel from these community centres can be consulted on issues of culturally appropriate service delivery and accessibility (Moffat & Tung, 2004). Lack of minority ethnic participation in the planning and development of services has been noted in the literature (e.g., Box et al., 2001). Finally, personnel can be invited to speak at seminars to service providers and practitioners about the experiences, needs and issues of CALD families, as a form of cultural awareness training for staff. This holistic approach to service delivery builds relationships and the CALD capacity of the family relationship service outlet. As Page et al. (2007) pointed out:

Go out and meet people and build relations and trust. Be aware of different communities and cultural backgrounds and be sensitive to their needs. (p. 31)

Policy level

The policy and service culture of the family relationship organisation plays an overarching role in the efficacy and success of personal and organisational level strategies. There are two main policies that can be implemented to increase the inclusion and engagement of CALD families in the family relationship services sector: equal employment opportunity policies and multicultural/diversity policies.

Equal employment opportunity policies can increase the cultural diversity of the outlet's staff profile to be more representative of the ethnic mix of the local population. In turn, they can facilitate the engagement of hard-to-reach groups (Katz et al., 2007) and the eradication of systemic barriers to access (Weerasinghe & Williams, 2003). Notwithstanding, difficulties in recruiting qualified family and relationship workers from CALD backgrounds appropriate for the local area may be amplified in rural and remote areas.

Multicultural policies influence the welcoming nature of the service culture when providing and administering the family relationship outlet (Chand & Thoburn, 2005; Salveron, Arney, & Scott, 2006). Multicultural health policies are those that are reflective, inclusive, responsive and sensitive to the social and cultural values of the diverse ethnocultural communities (Weerasinghe & Williams, 2003) in Australia. The service culture of the organisation affects the first impression CALD families have, and first impressions are crucial; "if we get this wrong we will lose parents" (Page et al., 2007, p. 47). Best practice in the frontline provision of services is characterised by confident and competent service providers and practitioners who:

• communicate effectively;
• use their knowledge in a non-stereotypical manner;
• demonstrate flexibility in their approach;
• have resources⁷ to draw on; and
• have access to managers who are knowledgeable about diversity and are competent supervisors (Butt, 2006).

Multicultural policies can be implemented in a variety of ways. For example, CALD community members can join management boards for greater representation from diverse populations, or resources can be dedicated to creating outreach groups and programs that target hard-to-reach groups (Harachi, Catalano, & Hawkins, 1997; Page et al., 2007). Management can provide cultural awareness training to their staff to facilitate the inclusion of CALD families. They can also influence the extent to which data on culture are collected and monitored (Butt, 2006), such as country of birth for family members, year of arrival in Australia, main language(s) spoken at home, and the self-rated cultural identity of each family member. Overall, successful policy recommendations require a commitment to:

• increase investment;
• monitor ethnic minority participation; and
• involve minority ethnic families more effectively (Box et al., 2001).

4.2 Prioritising strategies for improving the CALD capacity of a service outlet

This Issues paper has outlined a number of practitioner-, service- and policy-level recommendations that can be implemented to improve the CALD capacity of a service outlet and help enhance service accessibility and delivery of family relationship services to CALD and ethnic minority families. These three levels of recommendations all affect one another in a mutually interactive way. For example, a welcoming and culturally inclusive service influences, and is influenced by, culturally competent practitioners and service providers, as well as equal opportunity and multicultural policies that govern the service outlet.

However, to help prioritise the implementation of strategies, we recommend the following:

1. Improve the overall quality of the service. Although many of the recommendations below are specific to improving access by CALD families to services, this review has indicated that high-quality, well-resourced services with dedicated, well-trained and well-supported staff are the basic ingredients for accessible services. Practices that encourage diversity, client participation and good worker-client relationships will benefit all clients, not only CALD families. Indeed, the Australian-born population is itself very diverse, and these policies and practices will impact equally on them.
2. Implement equal employment opportunity and multicultural policies to increase recruitment of CALD staff. If possible, recruitment should reflect the local ethnic mix in the community.
3. Collect data on factors that measure or assess culture, such as the country of birth of family members, their year of arrival in Australia, main language(s) spoken at home, and their self-rated cultural identity. This will allow the service outlet to monitor the size of (in)equity of access to and use of services, especially across the different types of services that the outlet offers.
4. Market and promote services to increase awareness of them, and their perceived relevance, to CALD and ethnic minority families. This can occur through local community networks, such as newsletters, local businesses, religious and community groups, and should be translated or indicate that translated versions are available. The cultural diversity of the staff profile should be indicated and pictures of ethnic minority families should be included.
5. Service providers and practitioners in the outlet should receive training in cultural competency to become aware of:
   • cultural norms, values, beliefs and practices typical of a CALD group;
   • the need to pay attention to individual variation within a cultural group in order to avoid stereotyping or homogenising the needs of all ethnic minority families and misattributing problematic behaviours to culture or culture to problematic behaviours; and
   • differences in cultural norms between themselves and their client family to avoid judging behaviours as deviations from their own cultural norms rather than as deviations from the cultural norms of the CALD family.
6. Consider practical issues, such as the physical locality of the service, the layout of the rooms, opening times, staff profile and links between different services. This may be relevant for enhancing service accessibility and delivery to all families, not just those from a CALD background.
7. Partner with other CALD-focused centres or organisations in the local community to receive:
   • support through networks;
   • advice and consultation on appropriate service delivery;
   • clear referral pathways for CALD families;
   • language services;
   • cultural awareness training; and
   • provision of more holistic support for CALD families by building the CALD capacity of the service outlet; that is, the service outlet will be better able to respond to the needs of their CALD families because of the collective knowledge, experience and support of a culturally diverse and competent workforce.

References

• Australian Bureau of Statistics. (1999). Standards for statistics on cultural and language diversity (Cat. No. 1289.0). Canberra: Author.
• Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2004). Australian social trends (Cat. No. 4102.0). Canberra: Author.
• Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Year book of Australia (Cat. No. 1301.0). Canberra: Author.
• Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Migration Australia (Cat. No. 3412.0). Canberra: Author.
• Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Perspectives on migrants (Cat. No. 3416.0). Canberra: Author.
• Babacan, H. (2005). Locating identity: Sense of space, place and belonging. International Journal of Diversity in Organisations, Communities and Nations, 5(5), 113-124.
• Becher, H., & Hussain, F. (2003). Supporting minority ethnic families: South Asian Hindus and Muslims in Britain. Developments in family support. London: NFPI.
• Bell, A., Bryson, C., Barnes, M., & O'Shea, R. (2005). Use of childcare among families from black and minority ethnic backgrounds. London: National Centre for Social Research.
• Berry, J. W. (1980). Acculturation as varieties of adaptation. In A. M. Padilla (Ed.), Acculturation: Theory, models, and some new findings. Boulder, CO: Westview.
• Bhui, L., Warfa, N., Edonya, P., McKenzie, K., & Bhugra, D. (2007). Cultural competence in mental health care: A review of model evaluations. BMC Health Services Research, 7, 15.
• Bond, M. H. (2002). Reclaiming the individual from Hofstede's ecological analysis: A 20 year odyssey. Comment on. Psychological Bulletin, 128(1), 73-77.
• Box, L., Bignall, T., & Butt, J. (2001) Supporting parents through provision of childcare. London: Race Equality Unit.
• Braithwaite, A. C. (2003). Selection of conceptual model/framework for guiding research interventions. The Internet Journal of Advanced Nursing Practice, 6(1). Retreived 17 March 2008, from: http://www.ispub.com/ostia/index.php?xmlFilePath=journals/ijanp/vol6n1/research.xml
• Broadhurst, K. (2003). Research review: Engaging parents and carers with family support services. What can be learned from research on help-seeking? Child and Family Social Work, 8, 341-350.
• Brophy, J,. Jhutti-Johal, Y., & McDonald, E. (2005). Minority ethnic parents, their solicitors and child protection litigation. Oxford: Oxford Centre for Family Law and Policy.
• Butt, J. (2006). Are we there yet? Identifying the characteristics of social care organisations that successfully promote diversity (Race Equality Discussion Paper 01). London: Social Care Institute for Excellence.
• Campinha-Bacote, J. (2002). The process of cultural competence in the delivery of healthcare services: A model of care. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 13(3),181-184.
• Chand, A., & Thoburn, J. (2005). Research review: Child and family support services with minority ethnic families. What can we learn from research? Child and Family Social Work, 10(2), 169-178.
• Coakley, E., & Scoble, K. (2003). A reflective model for organizational assessment and interventions. Journal of Nursing Administration, 33(12), 660-669.
• Cortis, N., Sawrikar, P., & Muir, K. (2007). Participation in sport and recreation by culturally and linguistically diverse women. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.
• Forehand, R. & Kotchick, B. A. (1996). Cultural diversity: A wake up call for parent training. Behaviour Therapy, 27, 187-206.
• Forehand, R., & Kotchick, B. A. (2002). Behavioural parent training: Current challenges and potential solutions. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 11(4), 377-384.
• Harachi, T., Catalano, R., & Hawkins, J. (1997). Effective recruitment for parenting programmes within ethnic minority communities. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 14(1), 23-39.
• Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture's consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
• Hsueh-Fen S., Kao, H., Hsu, M., & Clark, L. (2004). Conceptualizing and critiquing culture in health research. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 15(4), 269-277.
• Jones, M., Cason, C., & Bond, M. (2004). Cultural attitudes, knowledge, and skills of a health workforce. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 15(4), 283-290.
• Katz, I. (1996). The sociology of children from minority ethnic communities: Issues and methods. In I. Butler & I. Shaw (Eds.), A case of neglect? Children's experience and the sociology of childhood. London: Averbury.
• Katz, I., La Placa, V., & Hunter, S. (2007). Barriers to inclusion and successful engagement of parents in mainstream services. Water End, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved 17 March 2008, from: http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/ebooks/barriers-inclusion-parents.pdf
• Katz, I., & Pinkerton, J. (2003). Evaluating family support: Thinking internationally, thinking critically. Chichester: John Wiley and Sons Inc.
• Kokanovic, R., Petersen, A., & Klimidis, S. (2006). "Nobody can help me ... I am living through it alone": Experiences of caring for people diagnosed with mental illness in ethno-cultural and linguistic minority communities. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 8(2), 125-135.
• Korbin, J. E. (forthcoming). Child neglect and abuse across and within cultures. In G. Robinson, U. Eickelkamp, J. Goodnough, & I. Katz (Eds.), Contexts of child development: Culture, policy and intervention. Casuarina, NT: Charles Darwin University Press.
• Lloyd, N., O'Brien, M., & Lewis, C. (2003). Fathers in Sure Start London: National evaluation of Sure Start. London: Birkbeck College.
• Lloyd, N., & Rafferty, A. (2006). Black and minority ethnic families and Sure Start: Findings from local evaluation reports. London: NESS.
• Mendoza, R. H. (1989). An empirical scale to measure type and degree of acculturation in Mexican-American adolescents and adults. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 20(4), 372-385.
• Moffat, J., & Tung, J. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of culture brokering training to enhance cultural competence of independent living center staff. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 20(1), 59-69.
• Moran, P., Ghate, D., & van der Merwe, A. (2004). What works in parenting support? A review of the international evidence. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
• Murry, V. M., Kotchick, B. A., Wallace, S., Ketchen, B., Eddings, K., Heller, L., et al. (2004). Race, culture, and ethnicity: Implications for a community intervention. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 13(1), 81-99.
• National Statistics. (2008). The census in England and Wales. Newport: Author. Retreived 17 March 2008, from: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census
• Olavarria, M., Beaulac, J., Bélanger, A., Young, M., & Aubry, T (2005). Organizational cultural competence: Self-assessment tools for community health and social service organizations. Ottawa: Centre for Research in Community Services, University of Ottawa.
• Page, J., Whitting, G., & Mclean, C. (2007). Engaging effectively with black and minority ethnic parents in children's and parental services (Research Report DCSF-RR013). Nottingham: Department for Children, Schools and Families.
• Phinney, J. S., Horenczyk, G., Liebkind, K., & Vedder, P. (2001). Ethnic identity, immigration, and well-being: An interactional perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 493-510.
• Porter, J. R., & Washington, R. E. (1993). Minority identity and self esteem. Annual Review of Sociology, 19, 139-162.
• Purnell, L. (2002). The Purnell Model for Cultural Competence. Journal of Transcultural Nursing, 13(3), 193-196.
• Reich, S., & Reich, J. (2006). Cultural competence in interdisciplinary collaborations: A method for respecting diversity in research partnerships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 38, 1-2.
• Salveron, M., Arney, F., & Scott, D. (2006). Sowing the seeds of innovation: Ideas for child and family services. Family Matters, 73, 38-45.
• Sawrikar, P., & Hunt, C. (2005) The relationship between mental health, cultural identity and cultural values in non-English speaking (NESB) background Australian adolescents. Behaviour Change, 22(2), 97-113.
• Sipe, C. (1999), Mentoring adolescents: What have we learned? In J. B. Grossman (Ed.), Contemporary issues in mentoring. USA: Public/Private Ventures.
• Taylor, R. (2005). Addressing barriers to cultural competence. Journal for Nurses in Staff Development, 21(4), 135-142.
• Triandis, H. C. (1990). Theoretical concepts that are applicable to the analysis of ethnocentricism. In R. W. Brislin (Ed.), Applied cross-cultural psychology. New York: Sage.
• Triandis, H. C. (1998). Introduction to diversity in clinical psychology. In Belar, C. D. (Ed.), Comprehensive clinical psychology: Vol. 10. Sociocultural and individual differences (pp. 1-33). Oxford: Pergamon/Elsevier Science.
• US Census Bureau. (2006). Detailed tables: B02001. Race. Universe: Total population. Data Set: 2006 American Community Survey. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved 17 March 2008, from: http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/DTTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=01000US&-ds_name=ACS_2006_EST_G00_&-_lang=en&-_caller=geoselect&-state=dt&-format=&-mt_name=ACS_2006_EST_G2000_B02001
• Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1999). The measurement of sociocultural adaptation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 23(4), 659-677.
• Ward, C., & Rana-Deuba, A. (1999). Acculturation and adaptation revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 30(4), 422-442.
• Weerasinghe, S., & Williams, L. S. (2003, April). Health and the intersections of diversity: A challenge paper on selected program, policy and research issues. Paper presented at the Intersections of Diversity Seminar, Niagara Falls, Canada.
• Williams, F., & Churchill, H. (2006). Empowering parents in Sure Start Local Programmes. London: DfES.
• Youssef, J., & Deane, F. (2006). Factors influencing mental-health help-seeking in Arabic-speaking communities in Sydney, Australia. Mental Health, Religion and Culture, 9(1), 43-66.
• Zoucha, R. (2002). Understanding the cultural self in promoting culturally competent care in the community home health. Care Management & Practice, 14(6), 452-456.

Resource sheet

People from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds originate from countries in which English is not the main language, and comprise 21% of Australia's population (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007). The main CALD groups in Australia are Italians, Chinese, Vietnamese, Indians, Filipinos, Greeks, Germans, Malaysians, Dutch, Lebanese and people from Hong Kong. Most of these groups live in urban areas of Australia.

In Australia, services funded by the Family Relationship Services Program (FRSP) span a diverse and extensive range that aim to support and nurture family relationships. Little is known about the extent to which CALD families access family relationship services compared to mainstream families, or whether the kind of service they receive meets their needs effectively. Thus, it is important to investigate barriers that CALD families in Australia perceive or experience in the full uptake and use of these services.

Barriers to inclusion and engagement of CALD families in the family relationship service sector should not be seen exclusively in terms of the characteristics of CALD families, nor as the characteristics of services and providers, but rather as the quality of interaction and "fit" between the needs and expectations of CALD families and the provision of services (Katz, La Placa, & Hunter, 2007). Although inter-related, the mostly international literature points to three types of barriers that ethnic minority families might perceive or experience:

• cultural barriers:
  • language barriers: English proficiency, professional jargon and misinterpretation of body language;
  • cultural norms that prohibit seeking extra-familial support, especially for women and children;
  • traditional gender roles that prevent men from engaging with services or discussing family difficulties; and
  • fear of authorities, such as child protection, police, courts, taxation, immigration and housing departments.
• structural barriers:
  • practical barriers accessing services; and
  • lack of knowledge or understanding of services that are available.
• service-related barriers:
  • model of service is culturally inappropriate;
  • service not perceived as relevant due to lack of cultural diversity in the workforce and marketing of services;
  • service choice perceived as limited due to lack of cultural diversity in the workforce; and
  • reluctance to engage with services because of concern they will not be understood, or that they will be stereotyped or judged.

Issues and concerns that service providers and practitioners might perceive or experience that compromise service accessibility and delivery for CALD families include:

• lack of awareness or confidence to address the needs of CALD families;
• practice that is not culturally competent;
• lack of adequate resources;
• institutional racism; and
• lack of awareness and partnering with CALD-focused organisations in the local community.

The extent to which these barriers compromise service accessibility and delivery vary according to cultural characteristics of the CALD group. Service providers and practitioners need to consider:

• the family's language and religion; and
• the extent to which the family's cultural group is generally individualistic or collectivistic.

These barriers, issues and concerns are further explored in AFRC Issues No. 3.

Generally, the more CALD groups deviate culturally and linguistically from the mainstream community in Australia, the less likely services will reach or effectively meet their needs. Service providers and practitioners who consider the cultural characteristics of a CALD group and the similarities and differences between themselves and the CALD family are more likely to be culturally aware, sensitive and competent. Cultural awareness refers to knowing the cultural norms, values, beliefs and practices that are common to a CALD group. Cultural sensitivity refers to sensitivity to and familiarity with variation within a CALD group. Cultural competency occurs when service providers are aware of how their cultural norms differ from their clients' cultural norms.

Recommendations for enhancing service accessibility and delivery for CALD groups pertain to three factors: (a) practitioner-, (b) service- and (c) policy-level strategies. In order of priority, the following practice and policy recommendations can be implemented to enhance the CALD capacity of a family relationship service outlet:

1. Improve the overall quality of the service. High-quality, well-resourced services with dedicated, well-trained and well-supported staff are the basic ingredients for accessible services. Practices that encourage diversity, client participation and good worker-client relationships will benefit all clients, not only CALD families.
2. Implement equal employment opportunity and multicultural policies to increase recruitment of CALD staff, preferably to reflect the local ethnic mix in the community.
3. Collect data on factors that measure or assess culture, such as country of birth, year of arrival in Australia, main language(s) spoken at home, and self-rated cultural identity. This will allow the service outlet to monitor the size of (in)equity of access to and use of services, especially across different types of services.
4. Market and promote services to increase awareness of them, and their perceived relevance, to CALD families. This can occur through newsletters, local businesses, religious and community groups, and should be translated or indicate that translated versions are available. The cultural diversity of the staff profile and pictures of ethnic minority families should be included.
5. Service providers and practitioners in the outlet should receive training in cultural competency to become aware of:
   • cultural norms, values, beliefs and practices typical of a CALD group;
   • the need to pay attention to individual variation within a cultural group; and
   • differences in cultural norms between themselves and their client family to avoid judging behaviours as deviations from their own cultural norms.
6. Consider practical issues, such as the physical locality of the service, the layout of the rooms, opening times, staff profile and links between different services.
7. Partner with other CALD-focused centres or organisations in the local community to receive:
   • support through networks;
   • advice and consultation on appropriate service delivery;
   • clear referral pathways for CALD families;
   • language services;
   • cultural awareness training; and
   • provision of more holistic support for CALD families by building the CALD capacity of the service outlet.

In summary, enhancing service accessibility and delivery to CALD families in Australia requires the implementation of practitioner-, service- and policy-level strategies to provide holistic support. The practice and policy recommendations outlined in this Resource Sheet, and expanded upon in AFRC Issues No. 3, can assist service providers and practitioners to improve their service delivery to CALD families, develop their own expertise regarding CALD families, and develop their professional practice by partnering and sharing expertise with services that already have a CALD focus.

References

• Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2007). Year book of Australia (Cat. No. 1301.0). Canberra: Author
• Katz, I., La Placa, V., & Hunter, S. (2007). Barriers to inclusion and successful engagement of parents in mainstream services. Water End, York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Retrieved 17 March 2008, from http://www.jrf.org.uk/bookshop/ebooks/barriers-inclusion-parents.pdf