See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/313508663

Multicultural Counseling Competencies:

Chapter · January 2017

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2145-7.ch014

CITATIONS READS
8 795

5 authors, including:

Keith B. Wilson Jenelle Pitt

Southern Illinois University Carbondale California State University, Fresno
37 PUBLICATIONS   355 CITATIONS    7 PUBLICATIONS   12 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Malik A. Raheem
California State University, Fresno
5 PUBLICATIONS   8 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Resarch View project

Complexity and Intersectionality of Crisis and Trauma in Counseling Those of African Descent View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Keith B. Wilson on 24 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cultural Awareness and
Competency Development
in Higher Education

Lynda Leavitt
Lindenwood University, USA

Sherrie Wisdom
Lindenwood University, USA

Kelly Leavitt
Missouri Baptist University, USA

A volume in the Advances in Higher Education

and Professional Development (AHEPD) Book
Series
Published in the United States of America by
IGI Global
Information Science Reference (an imprint of IGI Global)
701 E. Chocolate Avenue
Hershey PA, USA 17033
Tel: 717-533-8845
Fax: 717-533-8661
E-mail: cust@igi-global.com
Web site: http://www.igi-global.com

Copyright © 2017 by IGI Global. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or distributed in
any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, without written permission from the publisher.
Product or company names used in this set are for identification purposes only. Inclusion of the names of the products or
companies does not indicate a claim of ownership by IGI Global of the trademark or registered trademark.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
CIP Data Pending
ISBN: 978-1-5225-2145-7
eISBN: 978-1-5225-2146-4

This book is published in the IGI Global book series Advances in Higher Education and Professional Development
(AHEPD) (ISSN: 2327-6983; eISSN: 2327-6991)

British Cataloguing in Publication Data

A Cataloguing in Publication record for this book is available from the British Library.

All work contributed to this book is new, previously-unpublished material. The views expressed in this book are those of the
authors, but not necessarily of the publisher.

For electronic access to this publication, please contact: eresources@igi-global.com.

 237

Chapter 14
Multicultural Counseling
Competencies:
Why Is It Difficult to Apply
What We Know…?

Keith B. Wilson Malik A. Raheem

Southern Illinois University, USA California State University – Fresno, USA

Jenelle S. Pitt Carrie L. Acklin

California State University – Fresno, USA Southern Illinois University, USA

José M. Wilson
North Lawndale Employment Network, USA

ABSTRACT
Given the diversity related curriculum requirements of many accrediting bodies in education and the
human services to improve service delivery for those who are part of underrepresented groups in the
United States, the curriculum requirements efficacy is debatable. Evidence suggest there is a disconnect
between the principles of social justice and multicultural counseling competencies and the lack of ap-
plication of these two principles. This chapter will emphasize these concerns and the reasons why there
is such a gap with the application of these two principles using both empirical and anecdotal evidence
from past research. Because the terms behavior/action and application seems to be used as synonyms,
we will explore the explicit differences in these and other terms. This chapter will also highlight sce-
narios and give examples of what application looks like and end with recommendations to improve the
application of both the multicultural counseling and social justice principles.

INTRODUCTION: BACKGROUND OF THE MCC

Back in the early 1990s, a group of higher educators, psychologists, and other professionals decided
to submit a document to the counseling profession that started what we now know as the Multicultural
Counseling Competencies (MCC). Prior to this time, there was no standard on how people who were

DOI: 10.4018/978-1-5225-2145-7.ch014

Copyright © 2017, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.
 
Multicultural Counseling Competencies

considered part of the majority group (i.e., European American/White) should work with increasingly
diverse populations (e.g., gender, race, ethnicity) in the United States. In particular, Division 45 (race/
ethnicity) of the American Psychological Association noticed that the profession neglected to outline
standards for working with populations considered culturally diverse (Sue, Arredondo, & McDavis, 1992).
In 1992, Sue et al. put forth a seminal piece that outlined three levels of MCC: awareness, knowledge and
skills. The early 1990s witnessed a change in how underrepresented groups could be assisted by MCC.
It was recently reported that there is a gap between the MCC, social justice principles, and the ap-
plication of these principles (Ahmed, Wilson, & Henriksen, 2011; Wilson, 2010; Wilson, Pitt, Acklin,
& Gines, 2016). In 1996, Arrendondo et al. (1996) updated the MCC to include Explanatory State-
ments to clarify and contextualize the MCC. More recently, Ratts, Singh, Nassar‐McMillan, Butler, &
McCullough (2016) expanded on the work of both Sue et al. (1992) and Arrendondo et al. (1996) with
the Multicultural and Social Justice Counseling Competencies (MSJCC). Besides other components
(e.g., social justice), Ratts and colleagues added another level to the MCC, action. While action is not
application, the contributions of Ratts et al. (2016) significantly added to underscoring the importance
of the MCC and social justice in everyday practice. While there is an application gap in the MCC and
social justice principles, the contributions of Ratts et al. (2016) is noteworthy to moving the needle in
how we think about the multicultural counseling and multicultural social justice competencies. Given
the history of MCC, the chapter objectives are:

1. To connect the changing demographics in the United States to the need to apply both the multicul-
tural counseling and social justice competencies.
2. To define and understand the multicultural counseling and social justice competencies.
3. To understand how past and present outcomes in higher education and the human services relate
to phenotype discrimination in the United States.
4. To be able to apply the multicultural counseling and social justice principles in education and the
human services.

Changing Demographics in the United States

The demographic landscape of the United States is rapidly shifting making it truly multicultural in
nature. According to the United States Census Bureau (2010a), there are 308.7 million people residing
in the United States of which 50.8% are female and 13% are age 65 years and older. The population is
expected to grow to 458 million by the year 2050 due in large part to migration. In 2010, individuals
identifying as Hispanic or Latino accounted for 16% of the population and still today constitutes one
of the fastest growing groups in the country (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012a). Relative to race, European
Americans or Whites were estimated to be 72% of the population, Blacks or African Americans were
13%, American Indians and Alaska Natives were 0.9%, Asians were 4.8%, Native Hawaiian and Other
Pacific Islanders were 0.2%, and Other Races (otherwise unspecified) were noted at 6%. Projecting into
the year 2060, 1 in 5 individuals will comprise the age group of 65 and older; the Asian and Hispanic/
Latino populations (1 in 3 individuals) are expected to double in size; the Black or African American
population is projected to rise an estimated 15%; Alaska Natives and American Indians are expected to
increase by over half; and Other Pacific Islanders and Native Hawaiians are projected to almost double
in size. Overall, approximately 57% of the total population will be from minority groups (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2012a). The changing demography in the United States suggests that people in post-secondary

238

Multicultural Counseling Competencies

education and the human services will need a broader skill-set to facilitate services for people who are
part of underrepresented groups in education.
In reference to underrepresented groups, people with disabilities are usually omitted from the gen-
eral demographic profiles. The omission of people with disabilities is interesting since individuals with
disabilities are arguably the largest minority group in the world, constituting more than 650 million
people (United Nations, 2006). For example, in the United States, 56.7 million (18.7%) individuals in
2010 self-identified as living with a disability, while 38.3 million (12.6%) self-identified as living with
a severe disability (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b). Approximately 17% of those who were between the
ages of 21-64 identified as having a disability while 50% of those age 65 and older identified as having a
disability (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012b). In 2014, individuals with disabilities who were between the ages
of 18-64 represented nearly 30% of those living below the poverty level while those with no disability
comprised 12% of those living below poverty (U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). The increased number of
people with disabilities adds to the necessity to increase the number of multicultural competent educa-
tors in the United States.
To establish the framework for this chapter, the authors felt that it was important to provide foun-
dational definitions and a succinct explanation of the MCC. Additionally, we added the definition of
social justice because of its addition in the MSJCC. As reported by Wilson (2016), and we agree, both
the MCC and the MSJCC can be applied across many different areas of specializations (e.g., education,
human services). The application will be the same, just a different context. Thus, our examples will not
only relate to education professions, but to human service professions as well. The framework for this
chapter is predicated on a succinct explanation of definitions to better understand both the multicultural
counseling and multicultural social justice principles in context of education and human services.

Foundational Definitions

There are four foundational definitions that are the cornerstone of this chapter: (1) social justice; (2)
phenotype discrimination; (3) behavior/action; and (4) application. It is our hope that operationalizing
these terms will increase the understanding of why we do not apply what we know when examining
outcomes in education and human services. It is our hope that operationalizing these terms will increase
the understanding why we do not apply what we know when examining outcomes in education and the
human services. We will start with defining the most important concept in this chapter, social justice:

Social Justice

This term is included because it is a primary reason why we have the development of the MCC. Social
justice is defined as the idea of endorsing freedom and equality for all people in a given society regard-
less of gender, race, sexual orientation, national origin, disability status etc. (Social Justice, n. d.).

Phenotype Discrimination

Phenotype discrimination is important to define because it helps to explain why we see so many counter-
productive outcomes in education and human services and reasons why these outcomes occur. Phenotype
discrimination transpires when people make judgments based on how you look physically or visibly.
While judgments can be positive or negative, phenotype discrimination usually involves negative judg-

239
 
Multicultural Counseling Competencies

ments about how you look on the outside (e.g., skin color, gender, having an overt disability) (Wilson,
Hinojosa, & Gines, 2010). Although behavior/action is generally viewed as application in much of the
education, counseling, psychology and social justice literature (Wilson, 2016), we have decided to define,
operationalize and give examples to further clarify the meanings of these two terms.

Behavior/Action

Behavior/action and application terms are included because the revision of the MCC by Arrendondo et
al. (1996) use these terms as synonyms, in our opinion, when they have distinct meanings. This observa-
tion is also noted in other versions of the competencies (Sue et al., 1992; Ratts et al., 2916). Behavior
is defined as any physical activity or movement that is observed in a human being or animal (Behavior,
n. d.). We consider behavior synonymous with action, but not with application.

Application

Application is putting behavior to use in a particular context or purpose (Application, n. d.). Addition-
ally, Wilson et al. (2016) reported that behavior/action and application are frequently used as synonyms
in the multicultural counseling literature. To briefly illustrate the concept of application, let’s say that a
trained educator/faculty member born and enculturated in the United States understands (i.e., awareness,
knowledge & skills) that one should think twice before having a firm handshake with someone from Zim-
babwe. Many people from the nation of Zimbabwe may give a limp handshake because customs dictate
that a firm handshake is viewed as aggressive and disrespectful. On meeting the person from Zimbabwe,
the educator/faculty member gives a strong handshake. If the handshake was to another person who was
enculturated in the United States and not Zimbabwe, the handshake would be considered application (i.e.,
people in the United States are enculturated that a firm handshake is appropriate). However, because the
handshake is given to a person with different enculturated experiences and expectations (i.e., Zimbabwe),
it is not considered application of the MCC because the handshake was applied in the wrong context
(i.e., the faculty member’s enculturated expectations). In this example, we consider the firm handshake
to a person from Zimbabwe as behavior/action. As the aforementioned illustration highlights, having
the knowledge and tools will not automatically lead to application. In this illustration, understanding
handshake customs and applying this knowledge with the right person is application. Application of
knowledge is taking what you know and putting it into action in the appropriate context.
To bring this example to education, one might observe during many graduation ceremonies that there
are some people from other parts of the world that will not shake hands because of cultural enculturation
and beliefs about handshakes. These students walk across stage and keep a fair distance not to shake
hands when given their diplomas. It is assumed that insisting on a handshake during the graduation
ceremony might be looked upon as cultural insensitivity, at best, and being rude and disrespectful at
worse. In summary, applying what we know at the appropriate time with the right people is application.
Expanding more on the concept of application, there is also support that the MCC might focus more
on the cognitive domain (has to do with our thinking and ruminating) when compared to behavior/ac-
tion and application of knowledge. Using the Arrendondo et al. (1996) article for data, Wilson et al.
(2016) examined the structure of the MCC (e.g., Explanatory Statements & all other descriptors) to
determine the extent to which application was represented. To do this, they examined the verbs in each

240

Multicultural Counseling Competencies

statement and categorized them as (1) cognitive, (2) behavior/action, or (3) application. After defin-
ing what was meant by cognitive (ways of thinking), behavioral (physical movement) and application
(using awareness, knowledge & skills in context), it was found that the majority of the MCC existed
in the cognitive and behavior domains. Of the approximately 223 verbs used in the MCC article, 91%
were either cognitive or behavior with 9% focused on application. Thus, we conclude as did Wilson et
a. (2016), that many of the curriculum and staff development trainings that take place in education and
human services will focus mostly on the cognitive domain (e.g., ways of thinking) and not application.
Further, we adduce that this particular focus allows many facilitators (e.g., educators, human service
providers) to keep attendees comfortable in maintaining less application in their actual practice of the
MCC and social justice principles. In short, there is recent evidence (e.g., Wilson et al., 2016) that the
MCC tend to focus more on the cognitive domain opposed to behavior/action and application. Thus,
less application of the MCC might be expected in real world events given that many educators may rely
more on the cognitive domain opposed to the application domain. This might explain comments like
the following coming from underrepresented groups: “I am tired of hearing people talk about what they
want to do. We need more action.”
It is clear that many trainings are geared to stimulate the cognitive domain and not the application of
knowledge. Recently, a presenter reported that “we are all challenged to ask ourselves the question: are
we truly giving it our best. . . our all?” He goes on by saying that “Knowing and believing is not enough
to transform our world. We have to resolve the issues that prevent us from knowing and believing to ap-
plication.” The cognitive approach is a pedagogy strategy that most of us have employed or experienced
when teaching or receiving diversity related content (Wilson, 2016). There is support that educators
are suggesting movement from the cognitive domain to application when addressing the MCC (Wilson,
2016; Wilson et al., 2016). What follows next is a brief overview of the MCC.

Overview of the MCC

As the United States demography becomes older and increase in the number of people who are from
underrepresented groups, including people with disabilities, it is important for educators and human
service providers to be attentive in ways to effectively serve diverse populations. Applying the levels of
the MCC is a strategy to this end.

Awareness

As delineated by Sue et al. (1992), awareness is being mindful of one’s own (and others) beliefs, values
and privileges. Awareness is critical because in order to modify behaviors and attitudes, there must be
awareness that one’s own dispositions may have negative consequences on those who may be considered
part of underrepresented groups. Additionally, this particular category of the MCC might be challenging
because many of the values that were taught from a young age are considered to be truth and, therefore,
right. Of course, this particular view might be problematic when one considers the increased diversity
coming into higher education and human services. Wilson, Gines, and Caldwell (2015) noted that it is
essential to understand how our values facilitate or not facilitate services to all. Having the awareness
of oneself and others is important to facilitate positive outcomes for people who are part of underrep-
resented groups.

241
 
Multicultural Counseling Competencies

Knowledge

It is important to look at context when acquiring this second level of the MCC (Sue et al., 1992). We
believe that this category may be the easiest to acquire because it tends to rely on information readily
available via books, people, and the internet. In many cases, knowledge is pursued for the purpose of
understanding and to apply what was gained. While there are several ways to gain knowledge, it is vital
to identify which method works for you and pursue this path to provide better services for the people
you are serving.

Skills

The last level of the MCC is skills. Sue et al. (1992) reported that skills are the tools one will employ
to facilitate services for underrepresented groups. While the acquisition of awareness, knowledge, and
skills will not automatically lead to the application of knowledge of either the MCC or social justice
principles (Wilson et al., 2015; Wilson et al., 2016), past and contemporary outcomes suggest a need
for more competent professionals employed in both the education and human service sectors to address
the change in the demography of the United States.

The Need for Application: Outcomes Past and Present

Though there has been increased attention within the MCC and social justice discourse relative to
enhancing quality of life for all, but particularly for individuals from diverse backgrounds, there are
concerns with the application of the competencies and concept of social justice. More than 30 years ago,
individuals from culturally diverse backgrounds were experiencing early terminations in clinical settings,
inaccurate diagnoses, higher levels of special education placements, elevated rates of school suspension
and expulsion, and differential treatment when accessing services (Mills v. Board of Education of District
of Columbia, 1972; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002; Sue, 1988; Sue & Sue, 1977). Moreover,
studies suggested that not only were the interactions of service providers and resultant outcomes largely
influenced by bias and culture associated with gender, socioeconomic status (SES), and race (Hall &
Malony, 1983; Sue & Sue, 1977), but oftentimes, overall factors associated with “successful” service
provision privileged client profiles that were upper-class and white-male in nature. More recently in
education, Alvidrez and Weinstein (1999) observed the relationship between intelligence (IQ), SES, and
teacher/student interactions. They noted that positive teacher perceptions were credited to students pos-
sessing higher SES and IQ with race further influencing views of students’ ability levels. The reaction
to teachers to students by race is an example of phenotype discrimination. There is growing evidence
that education and the human services are in need of more competent professionals to facilitate services
for people who are part of underrepresented groups in education.
Calls to action to enhance the multicultural training of professionals across teacher education, psychol-
ogy, and counseling programs were issued 30 years ago (Daniel & Weikel, 1983; Green 1981), and today,
those calls still ring true (Shallcross, 2013). Despite the increased emphasis on the implementation of
multicultural competence and social justice across many disciplines, underrepresented group outcomes
are largely the same, and in some cases worse, especially in these areas:

242

Multicultural Counseling Competencies

• Health (e.g., related impact of racism on overall health) (Williams & Mohammed, 2013; Williams,
Priest, & Anderson, 2016);
• Employment (e.g., minority groups more likely to encounter barriers to accessing labor market)
(Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Hipes, Lucas, Phelan, & White, 2016);
• Education (particularly starting at the pre-school level for example Black boys comprise 19% of
preschool enrollment, but 47% of those receiving at least one suspension) (U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Civil Rights, 2016); and
• Lifestyle (e.g., In Tennessee, 25% of people within the LGBT community are from communities
of color) (Williams Institute, 2016).

While negative outcomes for people who are part of underrepresented groups have been reported for
decades, many believe that these damaging consequences have remained unchanged in health, employ-
ment, education and lifestyle.

Intersectionality of Inequities/Discrepancies

The counterproductive outcomes discussed in the previous section highlight how the lack of MCC and
social justice application contributes to the marginalization of underrepresented groups. Up until this point,
we have discussed underrepresented groups as an aggregate, but what happens when specific variables
of discrimination are examined and considered simultaneously and connected to each other? What can
be seen in this section is that not only is there a hierarchy of variables of discrimination, but the impact
these variables have on people become increasingly complex when more than one variable is present in
a given person. We would like to highlight the intersectionality of some variables of discrimination to
raise awareness of this complexity when working with individuals from underrepresented groups. The
intersectionality and saliency of demographic variables of personhood is important to understand when
facilitating services for all people, not only individuals who may be part of underrepresented groups.
Because of this complexity, it might be more difficult to apply the MCC. We will start with gender and
race-two of the most researched variables of discrimination that tends to elicit phenotype discrimination
outcomes.

Gender and Race

When issues of sexism are discussed, intersectionality is rarely included (Ladson-Billings, 2005). As a
whole, women are at a disadvantage compared to their male counterparts and these disadvantages are even
more pervasive for women of color. For example, when it comes to earnings, women make seventy-one
cents to every dollar that men make whereas women of color only make sixty-five cents (U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, 2015). In professional settings, women of color are viewed as less professional and not as
qualified as their European American counterparts in the United States. According to Snyder, de Brey,
and Dillo (2016), only 15% of the entire faculty population are faculty of color, with less than half being
female. In particular, Snyder et al. (2016) reported that only 3% of the faculty population are African
American females. These statistics highlight how the lack of social justice and application of MCC
impact women and become further compounded when considering the intersection of gender and race.

243
 
Multicultural Counseling Competencies

Disability and Race

Without question, people with disabilities are one of the largest underrepresented group in the United
States. However, in terms of social justice advocacy, people with disabilities tend to not have as much
political power as other variables of discrimination (e.g., gender) (Vera & Kenny, 2013). Further, ac-
cording to McGinley and Trolley (2016), when social justice advocacy is discussed, abilities are usually
the least mentioned and advocated for. Just as the intersectionality of gender and race contributes to the
further marginalization of females of color, the same can be said for people of color with disabilities.
For example, compared to their European American counterparts, people of color with disabilities are
more likely to:

1. Get denied vocational rehabilitation services (Atkins & Wright, 1980; Wilson, 2002); and
2. Earn less money (Wilson, 1999).

Compared to their European American student counterparts, students of color with disabilities are
likely to:

1. Be targeted for higher rates of suspension, expulsion and arrests (Mallett, 2015); and
2. Be targeted for higher rates of suspension, expulsion and arrests even if they do not have a disability.

Despite the social justice principles of the Americans with Disabilities Act (1990), negative outcomes
related to race and disability has been observed for well over 50 years. Being aware of how variables of
discrimination intersect can perhaps enhance the chances of application of knowledge and facilitating
services for people who are part of underrepresented groups in education and human services. However,
once we as professionals’ advocate and apply the MCC, who do we tend to advocate for?

An Experiment

Salient Identities and Advocacy

As recently reported by Wilson (2016), Dr. Keith B. Wilson has been in education for over 30 years and
had been conducting what he calls the Salient Identities and Advocacy experiment for nearly 20 years.
He noted that no single person has denied that he or she has at least one salient identity. This experiment
has been conducted in both higher education and human service environments across the United States.
He has seen many people who are part of underrepresented groups (e.g., gender, sexual orientation) not
advocate for one another, depending on the variable of discrimination that is salient to them at the time.
In most cases, whether a person has one variable or three different variables of discrimination/salient
identities, there is one identity that is more significant than the others based on their race and the good
and bad experiences encountered with that particular identity. When asked, what identity is more impor-
tant than the others you possess, the hierarchy of identities is obvious on an individual basis. Given this
reality and observation, he also noticed that people generally advocated for others that possessed their
own salient identity. Dr. Wilson noted that people who are part of underrepresented groups need more
high risk advocacy. To distinguish between low-risk advocacy and high-risk advocacy (i.e., advocating
for those who do not share the same demographic variables or have similar salient identities), he has

244

Multicultural Counseling Competencies

taken groups through the Salient Identities and Advocacy experiment for confirmation of his observa-
tions to encourage more people to go outside their confront zone in order to apply both the multicultural
and social justice principles. The following is a condensed version of the experiment. As you read the
following questions in his experiment, please answer in your head:
Questions:

Question 1: Select a group that you might belong to that is part of your primary identity: (most people
select variables like gender, race, sexual orientation).
Question 2: Select a second group (secondary identity) that you do not belong to but you advocate for
because you have a personal experience with that particular group. For example, although you may
not be a person with a disability, you tend to advocate for people with disabilities because you have
a brother or sister with a disability.
Question 3 : Have you ever advocated (i.e., going against the grain in a major way) for any persons
outside of these two groups (questions 1 & 2) that were not a part of your job responsibilities,
family or friendship circles?

The response has been NO (98%) most of the time to question number 3. While it is outside of this
chapter to elaborate on all of the reasons why most people answer no to question 3, many expressed
fear of rejection and isolation from members in their primary group (i.e., enculturation) for advocating
for those who are part of underrepresented groups. People generally tend to advocate for like salient
identities. The point of this exercise is to show how we all might understand the principles of MCC and
MSJCCs. However, it may be very difficult to apply these principles because of how we have been en-
culturated (Wilson, 2016). Even though we may have the awareness, knowledge and skills of the MCC,
our fear of rejection is one reason why many people do not advocate for others outside of their primary
or salient identity group.
It is clear that enculturation makes it difficult for many to apply the multicultural and social justice
competencies. Enculturation is a powerful concept that may keep educators and human service profes-
sionals from applying the knowledge they possess. Given that enculturation is an explicit reason why
many do not advocate for others outside of their own salient identity, it may be helpful for readers to
understand more fully the concept of enculturation in the context of advocacy and the multicultural and
social justice principles.

Enculturation

As indicated in the aforementioned Salient Identities and Advocacy experiment, many people tend to
advocate for those who appear part of their salient identities (i.e., personal group[s]). Thus, the term
enculturation appears to be a primary motive for not advocating outside of salient identities. Encultura-
tion (2016) is defined as a process by which a person learns the norms of their group’s culture over time
by experience, observation and or instruction. In other words, enculturation is a process by which we
are trained to operate or survive in our own group. While going against one’s primary group can have
devastating consequences (e.g., group isolation, vocational sabotage), it is this display of advocacy that
we have to aspire to achieve in order to apply the principles of MCC and MSJCC. In communicating
with many groups who face consistent phenotype discrimination (i.e., discrimination based on how
one looks or is viewed) in the United States, social justice is an empty concept that people use, yet not

245
 
Multicultural Counseling Competencies

apply on a consistent basis. Enculturation is one reason why many do not advocate for others who may
not be in their primary group or have a similar salient identity. While it may be difficult to advocate for
others not in your group, service learning is perhaps a way to facilitate services for people who are part
of underrepresented groups in higher education and the human services. Like most skills, application
has to be practiced, refined, and enhanced by the education or human services professional. This is a
lifelong commitment. Now, let’s look at a tool that can enhance the application of the competencies in
education and the human services.

Service Learning: Facilitating MCC and MSJCC

Service learning, rooted in learning by doing, is defined as “structured learning experiences that facilitate
the acquisition of awareness, knowledge, and skills while promoting a commitment to personal, civic,
and professional responsibility” (Burnett, Long, & Horne, 2005, p. 158). As an example of effective
pedagogy, the focus is on praxis as students and professionals are exposed to contexts where they (1)
apply what is being learned, (2) experience real-time evaluations, and (3) are supported in processing
the “baggage” that arises due to stepping out of their comfort zone. Using ongoing critical reflection,
reciprocal relationships, self-examination, and shifts in power (Burnett, Hamel, & Long, 2004), service
learning is an effective method for praxis for both MCC and MSJCC. While service learning is rooted
in structured learning and will not guarantee skills in context (i.e., application), the facilitation the MCC
may be simplified.
Service learning might not be in the tool box for many educators and human service professionals
who could benefit from this kind of pedagogy. As a residual, students and professionals can also benefit.
To support this assertion, Tomlinson-Clarke (2000) reported that teaching individuals to become cultur-
ally competent professionals and social justice advocates is heavily influenced by the types of methods
that are implemented during training. Furthermore, Kim and Lyons (2003) reported that a longstand-
ing criticism of contemporary teaching techniques is that they lack a strong emphasis in experiential
components. Training future educators and human service professionals in a comfortable environment
and asking them to consider various courses of action they might employ upon encountering culturally
diverse clients does very little in truly preparing individuals to navigate unconscious biases and applying
the MCC. Because increased levels of interaction and contact with individuals from culturally diverse
backgrounds in various settings over a sustained amount of time with meaningful intensity (e.g., facilitat-
ing classes inside of a prison, working with individuals seeking asylum in the United States, etc.) have
been suggested to enhance MSJCC (Abreu, Gim-Chung, & Atkinson, 2000; Hunt, 2007; Pompa, 2002;
Schulz, 2007), service learning might be able to facilitate and support application of the competencies.
Service learning tends to create an environment of sustained contact and powerful interaction that can
increase the likelihood of enhancing competency. Moving from the theoretical to practical, what would
application of MCC and MSJCC look like in real-world situations?

Application in Action

Applying multicultural counseling and social justice competencies is key to manifesting positive qual-
ity of life outcomes particularly for underrepresented groups in education and the human services. It
is important to reiterate that while someone can acquire awareness, knowledge, and skills as displayed

246

Multicultural Counseling Competencies

through action, application of knowledge requires implementing behavior for a specific purpose within
a particular context (Application, n. d.). Consider the following three real-world examples:

1. Since it was the student’s first day as an intern, she/he had to shadow [Jane Doe Counselor]. As
soon as the client left the office, [Jane Doe Counselor] shut the door and said, ‘This is like when
Black people use the race card. I don’t like it when people with disabilities use the disability card
to get services. You know what I mean?’ The student just shrugged his/her shoulders. (Wilson et
al., 2016, p. 17)
2. Male client diagnosed with substance abuse and who is also an ex-gang member comes in for
services. After being made eligible for services, it is discovered that the client has relapsed and
is in jeopardy of losing his kids. The social worker refers the client to a substance abuse program
on the Westside to which the client asks, “Do you have any other programs?” The social worker
responds with, “This is the program that will best meet your needs and it is closest to where you
live. The bus tickets that the agency is providing you with will last longer.” The client says, “I am
not trying to be disrespectful and I really want to be successful, but can you refer me somewhere
else?” The social worker becomes irritated and says, “If you were really interested in getting your
kids back and being clean, you would attend this program.” (Pitt, McLaurin, Shannon, & Conroe,
2012)
3. The client comes in for services. Student counselor asks, “How are things going today?” The client
responds with, “It’s hard to find a job out here with this felony. My wife is on the verge of leaving
me and I got a baby on the way.” The student counselor says, “I can imagine you feel devastated.”
The client raises his voice and says, “You patronizing me? I just said I’ve been trying to find a job
and no one will hire me. My wife is talking about leaving me and I got a baby on the way.” (Pitt et
al., 2012)

In all three scenarios, opportunities for application of knowledge were missed by either the profes-
sionals in training or future educators or human service providers, thus, underscoring the importance
of extending beyond awareness, knowledge and skills. Behaviors for a particular purpose or within a
specific context are required in each situation. After processing the first scenario, the student involved
indicated that remaining silent was not the desired course of action as he/she had been taught the impor-
tance of advocacy, but was new to the agency and did not want to be viewed differently by the supervisor.
Because the student did not say anything, this was a lost opportunity to possibly validate the client’s
perception of bias due to disability status. While there are several courses of action that could have been
taken to demonstrate application of knowledge and advocacy, the student could have indicated that he/
she viewed things differently while verbally acknowledging the unique challenges that the experience
of living with a disability or being from a particular racial/ethnic background brings. While the client
was not in the office, this comment by the student would be validating the clients’ experiences to Jane
Doe Counselor. Here we feel it is important to note that “speaking up” and/or asking questions is not
equivalent to being unprofessional, argumentative, or disrespectful. It is also clear that the student felt
like disagreeing with Jane Doe Counselor could result in negative vocational consequences. While this
example is not related to the classroom, there has been interactions that are paralleled when professors
may communicate insensitivity and the students who are aware of the insensitivity, say nothing. As in
the aforementioned illustration with the student intern and Jane Doe Counselor, similar behaviors exist
on the part of professionals in primary and secondary education, for example. While the environment

247
 
Multicultural Counseling Competencies

may be different, the intervention (s) will be similar, regardless of the environment that counterproduc-
tive behavior occurs.
In the second scenario, a higher education counselor who was serving in a supervisory capacity at the
meeting assisted the social worker in understanding the client’s request. As the substance abuse program
was located on the Westside of town, the client not only made his interest in his success known, but
was also offering insight regarding an attempt to thwart any potential conflict with rival gang members.
A follow-up meeting was held with the client to locate other programs that would support his success.
Application of knowledge for scenario two would have led the social worker to initially have a conversa-
tion with the client regarding resources in another area of town due to understanding that many gangs,
despite one’s desire to leave, is a lifetime commitment. Application of knowledge would have also been
exhibited by the social worker tuning into his/her insistence to have the client attend a program on the
Westside and subsequent judgment when the client simply asked the question about other resources.
While it did not happen in this scenario, validating the client’s feelings would have been a good rapport
builder as well. Finally, a conversation about perceptions (i.e., diversity issues) might have facilitated a
better outcome for the client.
In the final scenario, a student counselor was attempting to relay to the client that he was being listened
to by exhibiting basic counseling skills (in this case, paraphrasing), but the client’s response was one
that could be summed up as “you’re not hearing or feeling me.” Application of knowledge in scenario
three would have lead the student trainee to demonstrate a fuller understanding of the intersection of the
client’s current experience and offer the kind of support that he was seeking. For example, the student
counselor could have responded the following way to apply MCC or MSJCC.

You have a lot on your plate right now. It is hard to find a job when you have a felony on your record
and you’re trying to provide for your family. You have some very real and immediate responsibilities
that you’re trying to handle. I’m not sure if you need to vent or if you want my support in figuring out
what’s next or both. Where do you want to begin?

This would be validating the clients’ perceptions and feelings. Providing support in helping the client
figure out the best course of action (e.g., self-empowerment), is different than the counselor establishing
and dictating the course of action. With the missed opportunity for application of knowledge across all
three scenarios, it is important to go outside of our comfort zones to facilitate services for the people
that we serve. Lastly, individuals can be encouraged to speak up once they feel more comfortable in their
role as students, professionals, administrators. The following section on Solutions and Recommendations
may facilitate this kind of advocacy.

SOLUTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The following recommendations are provided to facilitate positive outcomes for people who are part of
underrepresented groups in education and the human services. Though not a comprehensive list, it is
hoped that application of the multicultural and social justice competencies will be increased by following
these recommendations. Last but not least, the foundation of our recommendations will be to validate
the populations that you serve:

248

Multicultural Counseling Competencies

• Application of MCC and MSJCC requires professionals to undertake a process of working through
the self-baggage that each person carries as a way of achieving behavioral shifts (Pack-Brown &
Williams, 2003). This groundwork, which is frequently under-addressed or overlooked, must be
an intentional and ongoing element of training programs at the pre-service level and professional
development workshops/seminars/conferences.
• Acknowledgement and willingness to process behavioral outcomes (e.g., avoiding, tolerating,
withdrawing, etc.) in a supportive space is vital (Wilson et al., 2016). Working through cross-
cultural discomfort based on factors related to gender, ability status, age, class, sexual orientation,
religion/spirituality, educational attainment, language, national origin, race/ethnicity or any inter-
section of identity or lived experience (e.g., ex-offender status, homelessness, etc.) is a natural
part of the “stuff” that surfaces when professionals are actively immersed in diversity-related
work.
• Specific training surrounding multicultural and social justice terminology, context, and its related
impact is significant. An example of this is supporting individuals to understand the meaning of
unconscious biases, coalition building, privilege, allies, etc. and when they have been on the re-
ceiving end of points of impact. This, in addition to understanding when they have intentionally
or unintentionally facilitated certain negative behaviors, can better equip professionals to engage
in healthy conversations with their co-workers and consumers and ultimately apply appropriate
behaviors in specific contexts as situations arise (e.g., addressing school behaviors, diagnosing
clients, counseling individuals and families, etc.).
• Restorative Justice Practices (RJPs), which focus on building and maintaining healthy relation-
ships, encouraging accountability, and addressing stakeholder needs, at a minimum, hold promise
for helping professionals (Kline, 2016). These evolutionary practices are being implemented in
schools across the nation to reduce disparities and the school-to-prison pipeline and it is recom-
mended that more schools follow suit. Although the foundation of RJPs is in the educational sys-
tem, these principles are widely adaptable to clinical and employment settings.
• Supervision is often perceived as a tool for supporting trainees and newer professionals. However,
establishing supervision for the continuum of service providers, including seasoned profession-
als, may be particularly helpful when working with specific groups who experience lower rates of
service utilization, higher levels of suspension/expulsion, etc.
• Using terms that address the application of the MCC and MSJCC is needed. The increased need
to focus more on application of knowledge is apparent looking at past and recent outcomes. This
shift in not only thinking, but delivering the application pedagogy will hopefully shed more light
on accountability, yielding to more productive outcomes for people who are part of underrepre-
sented groups in the United States.

FUTURE IMPLICATIONS

Given that the MCC have been around for over 20 years, one might expect more productive outcomes in
education and the human services. Future editions of the MCC and MSJCC might include more infor-
mation on application of knowledge and less on cognitive approaches. Perhaps readers might be more
inclined to seek out ways to apply both the MCC and MSJCC using this approach. Second, being able to
clarify the meaning of what is meant by behavior and action will give needed direction to future versions

249
 
Multicultural Counseling Competencies

of the MCC and MSJCC and move the needle from less cognitive to more application of knowledge
statements. Third, looking at new ways we teach diversity related classes and applying the concept of
service learning might be helpful in facilitating application of the competencies. While there are many
reasons why we do not apply the competencies, the lack of application continues to exclude many who
are part of underrepresented groups feeling isolated and not a part of a great system of services, educa-
tion and human services.

CONCLUSION

The increasing diversity of women, people with disabilities and other underrepresented groups is apparent
in the United States. The intersectionality of variables of discrimination makes advocacy complex since
many advocate for people who may have the same saliency variable. Thus, the application of MCC and
MSJCC are needed to produce more favorable outcomes in education and the human services. Further,
the MCC and MSJCC are in place to facilitate guidance for professionals working with diverse popula-
tions, regardless of the profession. While these concepts are important, evidence suggests that many fall
short of applying principles related to both MCC and MSJCC. Based on recent research looking at the
MCC, it is reported that many of the in-service and teaching programs with required curriculum (i.e.,
diversity/cross cultural classes) might focus mostly on the cognitive domain (e.g., ways of thinking) and
the not application domain. Thus, the authors believe that focusing on the cognitive to the exclusion of
application will result in continued counterproductive outcomes of many underrepresented in the United
States. As educators and human service professionals, it is important to decrease, not eliminate, the focus
on the cognitive approaches and increase attention to application in order to increase accountability and
the learning experiences for those who are in our classes and in professional development workshops.
Knowledge, skills and awareness is only a beginning to achieve social justice for people who are part of
underrepresented groups. Consistent advocacy is also needed. However, while there are many reasons
why people do not advocate for those who are outside of their group, one main factor is the encultura-
tion process that we all go through as part of how to survive in our own groups. Enculturation has been
found to be a reason why people tend not to advocate for others not in their group. For this reason, it is
important to increase accountability so that advocating outside of our own salient identity will become
a thing of the past leading to enhanced outcomes for people we serve. While it is debatable that we can
advocate for all variables of discrimination, the authors believe that the goal should be advocate when
advocacy is needed

REFERENCES

Abreu, J. M., Gim-Chung, R. H., & Atkinson, D. R. (2000). Multicultural counseling training: Past, pres-
ent, and future directions. The Counseling Psychologist, 28(5), 641–656. doi:10.1177/0011000000285003
Ahmed, S., Wilson, K. B., Henriksen, R. C., & Jones, J. W. (2011). What does it mean to be a culturally-
competent counselor? Journal for Social Action in Counseling Psychology, 3(1), 17–28.
Alvidrez, J., & Weinstein, R. S. (1999). Early teacher perceptions and later student academic achieve-
ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 731–746. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.731

250

Multicultural Counseling Competencies

Application. (n.d.). Dictionary.com unabridged. Retrieved August 29, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/application
Arrendondo, P., Toporek, R., Brown, S. P., Jones, J., Locke, D. C., Sanchez, J., & Stadler, H. (1996).
Operationalization of the multicultural counseling competencies. Journal of Multicultural Counseling
and Development, 24(1), 42–78. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.1996.tb00288.x
Atkins, B. J., & Wright, G. N. (1980). Three views: Vocational rehabilitation of Blacks: The statement.
Journal of Rehabilitation, 46(2), 40, 42–46. PMID:7392022
Behavior. (n.d.). Dictionary.com unabridged. Retrieved August 29, 2016 from Dictionary.com website
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/behavior?s=t
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal?
A field experiment on labor market discrimination. The American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013.
doi:10.1257/0002828042002561
Burnett, J. A., Hamel, D. A., & Long, L. L. (2004). Service-learning in graduate counselor education:
Developing multicultural counseling competency. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development,
32(3), 180–191. doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.2004.tb00370.x
Burnett, J. A., Long, L. L., & Horne, H. (2005). Service learning for counselors: Integrating education,
training and the community. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, Education and Development, 44(2),
158–166. doi:10.1002/j.2164-490X.2005.tb00028.x
Daniel, R. W., & Weikel, W. J. (1983). Trends in counseling: A delphi study. The Personnel and Guid-
ance Journal, 61(6), 327–331. doi:10.1111/j.2164-4918.1983.tb00035.x
Enculturation. (n. d.). Dictionary.com unabridged. Retrieved August 29, 2016 from Dictionary.com
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/enculturation
Green, L. (1981). Training psychologists to work with minority clients: A prototypic model with Black
clients. Professional Psychology, 12(6), 732–739. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.12.6.732
Hall, G. N., & Malony, H. N. (1983). Cultural control in psychotherapy with minority clients. Psycho-
therapy (Chicago, Ill.), 20(2), 131–142. doi:10.1037/h0088484
Hipes, C., Lucas, J., Phelan, J., & White, R. (2016). The stigma of mental illness in the labor market.
Social Science Research, 56, 16–25. doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2015.12.001 PMID:26857169
Hunt, R. (2007). Service-learning. An eye-opening experience that provokes emotion and challenges
stereotypes. The Journal of Nursing Education, 46(6), 277–281. PMID:17580740
Kim, B. S., & Lyons, H. Z. (2003). Experiential activities and multicultural counseling competence train-
ing. Journal of Counseling and Development, 81(4), 400–408. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2003.tb00266.x
Kline, D. (2016). Can restorative practices help to reduce disparities in school discipline data? A review
of the literature. Multicultural Perspectives, 18(2), 97–102. doi:10.1080/15210960.2016.1159099
Ladson-Billings, G. (2005). Beyond the big house: African American educators on teacher education.
New York, NY: Teacher College Press.

251
 
Multicultural Counseling Competencies

Mallett, C. A. (2015). The school-to-prison pipeline: A comprehensive assessment. New York, NY:
Springer.
McGinley, V. A., & Trolley, B. A. (2016). Working with students with disabilities: Preparing school
counselors. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mills v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 348 F. Supp. 866 (D.D.C. 1972).
Pack-Brown, S., & Williams, C. (2003). Ethics in a multicultural context. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Pitt, J. S., McLaurin, L., Shannon, C. D., & Conroe, G. (2012, July). Exposing the “real” of cultural
competence: A reality check before it’s too late. Paper at the 19th Annual National Association of Mul-
ticultural Rehabilitation Concerns (NAMRC) Conference, Little Rock, AR.
Pompa, L. (2002). Service-learning as crucible: Reflections on immersion, context, power, and trans-
formation. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 9(1), 67–76.
Ratts, M., Singh, A., Nassar‐McMillan, S., Butler, S. K., & McCullough, J. (2016). Multicultural and
social justice counseling competencies: Guidelines for the counseling profession. Journal of Multicultural
Counseling and Development, 44(1), 28–48. doi:10.1002/jmcd.12035
Schulz, D. (2007). Stimulating social justice theory for service-learning practice. In Race, poverty, and
social justice: Multidisciplinary perspectives through service learning (pp. 23-35). Sterling, VA: Stylus.
Shallcross, L. (2013). Multicultural competence: A continual pursuit. Counseling Today, 56(3), 30–43.
Skiba, R., Michael, R., Nardo, A., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sources of ra-
cial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. The Urban Review, 34(4), 317–342.
doi:10.1023/A:1021320817372
Snyder, T. D., de Brey, C., & Dillow, S. A. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics 2014 (NCES 2016-006).
National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Retrieved June 29, 2016 from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2016/2016006.pdf
Social Justice. (n.d.). Dictionary.com unabridged. Retrieved August 29, 2016 from Dictionary.com
website http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=social%20justice
Sue, D. W., Arredondo, P., & McDavis, R. (1992). Multicultural counseling competencies and stan-
dards: A call to the profession. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 20(2), 64–88.
doi:10.1002/j.2161-1912.1992.tb00563.x
Sue, D. W., & Sue, D. (1977). Barriers to effective cross-cultural counseling. Journal of Counseling
Psychology, 24(5), 420–429. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.24.5.420
Sue, S. (1988). Psychotherapeutic services for ethnic minorities: Two decades of research findings. The
American Psychologist, 43(4), 301–308. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.43.4.301 PMID:3289427
Tomlinson-Clark, S. (2000). Assessing outcomes in a multicultural training course: A qualitative study.
Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 13(2), 221–231. doi:10.1080/713658487

252

Multicultural Counseling Competencies

U. S. Census Bureau. (2012a). U.S. Census Bureau projections show a slower growing, older, more
diverse nation a half century from now. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/
archives/population/cb12-243.html
United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. Retrieved from http://
www.un.org/disabilities/convention/facts.shtml
U.S. Census Bureau. (2012b). Americans with disabilities: 2010. Retrieved from http://www.census.
gov/people/disability/
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights. (2016). 2013-2013 Civil rights data collection:
A first look. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ocr/docs/2013-14-first-look.pdf
U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor. (2015, April 23). Employment news release: Federal, state,
and regional employment. Retrieved from http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.toc.htm
Vera, E. M., & Kenny, M. E. (2013). Social justice and culturally relevant prevention. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Williams, D., & Mohammed, S. (2013). Racism and health ii. The American Behavioral Scientist, 57(8),
1200–1226. doi:10.1177/0002764213487341 PMID:24347667
Williams, D., Priest, N., & Anderson, N. (2016). Understanding associations among race, socioeconomic
status, and health: Patterns and prospects. Health Psychology, 35(4), 407–411. doi:10.1037/hea0000242
PMID:27018733
Williams Institute. (2016). LGBT people in Tennessee. Retrieved from http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.
edu/wp-content/uploads/Tennessee-fact-sheet.pdf
Wilson, J. M. (2016, March). Understanding poverty, privileged and barriers that prevents counselors
and practitioners from moving from knowledge to action. Paper Presented at the LISC AmeriCorps
National Conference, Newport, RI.
Wilson, K. B. (1999). Differences in hourly wages and hours worked between successfully rehabilitated
African Americans and European Americans: The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counseling, 30, 10–15.
Wilson, K. B. (2002). The exploration of vocational rehabilitation acceptance and ethnicity: A national
investigation. Rehabilitation Counseling Bulletin, 45, 168–176. doi:10.1177/003435520204500306
Wilson, K. B. (2010, March). What does it mean to be a culturally-competent counselor? Paper pre-
sented at the meeting of the American Counseling Association, Multicultural Social Justice Leadership
Academy, Pittsburgh, PA.
Wilson, K. B. (2016, April). What definition of social justice are you using? Keynote address presented
at the 2016 Southwest Regional Training Conference, Hot Springs, AR.
Wilson, K. B., Gines, J. E., & Caldwell, T. (2015). Counselor advocacy for access: Addressing the chal-
lenges of people with disabilities. Manuscript Submitted for Publication.

253
 
Multicultural Counseling Competencies

Wilson, K. B., Hinojosa, T. J., & Gines, J. G. (2010). Phenotype discrimination: Outcomes based on
race, disability status and gender in the united states. In J. A. Jaworski (Ed.), Advances In Sociology
Research (pp. 175–191). Nova Science.
Wilson, K. B, Pitt, J. S., Ackin, C. L., & Gines, J. E. (2016). Falling short: Why understanding multi-
cultural competencies alone is not enough! Manuscript submitted for publication.

KEY TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Application: In the appropriate context, the implementation of awareness, knowledge, and skills to
help people who are part of underrepresented groups.
Behavior/Action: Any physical activity or movement.
Phenotype Discrimination: Discrimination that is based on how you visibly look.
Social Justice: The belief that all people in a given society should be treated fairly and with justice.
Underrepresented Groups: Groups that have been discriminated against based on their how they
look physically based on color, gender and disability status.

254

View publication stats