This article was downloaded by: [University of California, Berkeley]

On: 30 August 2015, At: 10:57

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG

Journal of Social Work Education

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uswe20

CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND THE

CULTURAL COMPETENCE DILEMMA IN
SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
a a
Laura S. Abrams & Jen A. Moio
a
University of California at Los Angeles
Published online: 16 Mar 2013.

To cite this article: Laura S. Abrams & Jen A. Moio (2009) CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND THE
CULTURAL COMPETENCE DILEMMA IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION, Journal of Social Work Education,
45:2, 245-261

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.5175/JSWE.2009.200700109

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
Content) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND THE CULTURAL COMPETENCE
DILEMMA IN SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION

Laura S. Abrams
University of California at Los Angeles

Jen A. Moio
University of California at Los Angeles
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015

Cultural competence is a fundamental tenet of social work education. Although

cultural competence with diverse populations historically referred to individu-
als and groups from non-White racial origins, the term has evolved to encom-
pass differences pertaining to sexuality, religion, ability, and others. Critics
charge that the cultural competence model is largely ineffective and that its ten-
dency to equalize oppressions under a multicultural umbrella unintentional-
ly promotes a color-blind mentality that eclipses the significance of institution-
alized racism. In this article we argue that critical race theory (CRT) can be used
to address some of these noted problems with the cultural competence model.
We define the major tenets of CRT and analyze its benefits and limitations for
social work pedagogy around race, racism, and other oppressions.

CulTuRAl CompeTenCe is a fundamental tenet to encompass group differences pertaining to

of professional social work practice. A cultur-
al competence mandate is contained in both
the Council on Social Work education (CSWe)
educational policy and Accreditation Stand-
ards and the national Association of Social
Work (nASW) Code of ethics, and it is pro-
moted in numerous practice textbooks. His-
torically, cultural competence with diverse
populations referred to individuals and
groups from non-White racial, ethnic, or cul-
tural origins. However, the term has evolved
gender, sexuality, religion, age, ability, lan-
guage, nationality, and others. Knowledge
about the complexity of personal and social
identity formation as well as the intersection-
ality of multiple axes of oppression that
underscore social work problems, practices,
and interventions led to the broadening of cul-
tural competence beyond racial and ethnic
categories (Razack, 1999; Rothman, 2008).
Scholars note several challenges associated
with the dominant cultural competence

Journal of Social Work Education, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Spring/Summer).

Copyright 2009, Council on Social Work Education, Inc. All rights reserved. 245
 246 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
model, including the eclipsing of race as a cen-
tral mechanism of oppression, student resist-
ance, and the unintentional reinforcement of a
color-blind lens (Razack & Jeffery, 2002;
Schiele, 2007; Yee, 2005).
In this article we argue that critical race
theory (CRT) can be used to address some of
these noted problems associated with the cul-
tural competence model. We provide an in-
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
depth discussion of challenges associated
with cultural competence education, with an
emphasis on educating social workers to
respond effectively to institutional racism. We
also introduce the basic tenets of CRT and
apply these central concepts to the challenges
involved in delivering effective diversity edu-
cation in social work. In addition, we pose the
benefits and limitations of infusing CRT into
the graduate social work curriculum.
Cultural Competence:
History and Overview
The origins and development of the cultural
competence (often called cultural sensitivi-
ty or multicultural) model and its role in
social work ideology, practice, and pedagogy
are documented in published articles and
texts (e.g., potocky, 1997; Rothman, 2008;
Schiele, 2007; Spencer, lewis, & Gutirrez,
2000). We provide here a brief summary
before presenting empirical and philosophical
critiques.
Although aspects of traditional social
work discourses have long espoused a mis-
sion to examine and remedy issues of oppres-
sion, including racism, the evolving emphasis
on diversity and cultural competence has its
roots in the civil rights movement of the 1960s
and 1970s. Social workers of color, along with
White advocates, challenged some of the long-
standing eurocentric biases in social work
teaching and practice, including a predomi-
nantly deficit-oriented view of individuals
and communities of color. This activist pres-
sure led to increased attention to race and
racism in social work history, gave a voice to
the lived experiences of faculty and social
workers of color, and eventually led to
CSWes adoption of standards that mandate
content on race, racism, and people of color
(Spencer et al., 2000).
Working to meet the CSWe mandate, the
1970s and early 1980s ushered in key educa-
tional texts. pivotal publications on race and
ethnicity included Barbara Solomons (1976)
Black Empowerment: Social Work in Oppressed
Communities, Wynetta Devore and elfriede
Schlesingers (1981) Ethnic-Sensitive Social
Work Practice, and Doman lums (1986) Social
Work Practice and People of Color: A Process-
Stage Approach. With variation, these texts
generally rethink social works eurocentric
purview; challenge social workers to become
aware of their personal value orientations and
worldviews; expose how racism creates struc-
tural disadvantages that impact individual
and community well-being; and offer sugges-
tions for working with increased competence
with racial, ethnic, and cultural minorities in
the united States. Race, ethnicity, and, to some
extent, culture more broadly constituted the
primary focus of this earlier literature.
Since the mid-1980s the tone and charac-
ter of ethnic-sensitive practice has expand-
ed beyond race and ethnicity to promote
awareness of multiple forms of oppression
such as sexism, heterosexism, ageism, and
ableism. This trend responds to the postmod-
 CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE
ern emphasis on the intersectionality of multi-
ple categories of identity (Williams, 2006), and
awareness of the existence of multiple forms
of oppression that affect individual and com-
munity functioning (Schiele, 2007). CSWes
(2001) revised standards for cultural compe-
tence reflect these discursive developments by
identifying 14 axes of difference as potential
sources of oppression and diversity. In keep-
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
ing with these trends, contemporary cultural
competence texts now include chapters on
women; disabilities; and gay, lesbian, bisexu-
al, and transgender/transsexual issues (e.g.,
Appleby, Colon, & Hamilton, 2001; Rothman,
2008), and earlier works are now expanded or
modified to reflect this broadened view (e.g.,
Devore & Schlesinger, 1999; lum, 2003).
Although the cultural competence model
has diverse epistemological interpretations
and curricular applications (Williams, 2006),
two major ideological underpinnings can be
discerned: self-awareness and skills develop-
ment. The cultural sensitivity framework as it
is used in social work and related fields (such
as education and counseling) understands
that all people, including people of color, pos-
sess values, beliefs, and assumptions that they
bring into the helping relationship. Social
work students are encouraged to undertake a
process of becoming aware of the origins and
development of their personal values and
worldviews with regard to differences so that
their deeply rooted and perhaps unconscious
beliefs can be recognized and subsequently
set aside, or bracketed, in the helping
exchange . Yan and Wong (2005) critique this
bracketing process as unrealistic and argue
instead that the social work exchange is mutu-
ally influential and intersubjective, rather
247
then morally neutral. nevertheless, cultural
competence frames self-awareness as a life-
long endeavor, because issues of difference
and value orientation are context specific and
constantly in flux. In addition to this process-
oriented work, cultural competence focuses
on a skills-based component that includes
building knowledge about specific ethnic or
cultural groups and developing practice tech-
niques that accompany this knowledge (Roth-
man, 2008). This population-specific piece
entails a set of practice skills that build on a
standard helping relationship yet are modi-
fied according to the needs, styles, world-
views, and customs of the focal group.
Critiques of Cultural Competence
Scholars adopting a critical lens toward the cul-
tural competence model often contend that the
frameworks focus on individual attitudes
leaves social workers unequipped to deal with
institutional racism and oppression on all of
the levels where it permeatesindividually,
structurally, and globally (pollack, 2004;
Razack, 1999; Razack & Jeffery, 2002; Yee,
2005). In historically tracing social works var-
ious movements surrounding diversity,
potocky (1997) notes that the cultural sensi-
tivity model targets change at the level of
social workers personal beliefs and agency
practices, whereas the antioppression model
works toward change across individual,
agency, and systems levels. Hence, an overar-
ching critique of the cultural competence
framework is that it does not reach far enough
in addressing systemic and institutionalized
oppressions. Additional critiques of cultural
competence emerge from philosophical
angles as well as limited empirical evidence.
 248 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
In the following sections we organize these
critiques thematically, paying specific atten-
tion to the preparation of students to grapple
with enduring and systemic race-based
oppression.
Pedagogical Pitfalls
Challenges raised regarding the delivery of
effective cultural competence education
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
include student readiness, teacher prepara-
tion, and possible resistance from both
groups. lee and Greene (2003) and Razack
(1999) argue that the teaching of diversity con-
tent in social work education is often hindered
by a lack of student readiness to deal with dif-
ficult or contentious discussions about race or
other oppressions in the classroom setting.
Related to this lack of readiness, a common
reaction to discussing racism, structural dis-
advantages, or oppression is resistance to the
material, particularly when the conversation
turns to issues of privilege, and White privi-
lege in particular (Abrams & Gibson, 2007).
Resistance in this context means that students
tend to deny their own role in occupying priv-
ileged or more powerful social identity posi-
tions, and it may even take the form of out-
ward anger, resentment, or an overwhelming
sense of guilt (Julia, 2000). Although resist-
ance to locating the self in the privilege-
oppression spectrum can occur for any indi-
vidual, most empirical research has specifical-
ly examined White privilege. Garcia and Van
Soests (1997) study of 43 mSW students
enrolled in a mandatory cultural diversity
class lends some support to these philosophi-
cal charges. They found that 71% of White stu-
dents reported that their own privilege acted
as a barrier to learning about or accepting the
existence of oppression. In addition, le-Doux
and montalvos (1999) national survey of 75
deans and directors of accredited graduate
social work programs and 45 social work fac-
ulty teaching diversity content (and including
a review of 32 course syllabi) found that
instructors experienced defensiveness, anger,
and denial as common reactions to the presen-
tation of diversity material. The issue is not
that these reactions arise, because the litera-
ture on teaching about White privilege sug-
gests that these responses are part of a norma-
tive process (Abrams & Gibson, 2007). Rather,
it is that the cultural competence model may
not move students from these more primary
defensive responses to a more refined critique
of privilege and then to collective social action
(Helms, 1995).
other scholars argue that the delivery of
cultural competence or diversity education in
social work can be hindered by instructors
lack of preparation and training in this area
(petrovich & lowe, 2005; Razack, 1999). le-
Doux and montalvos (1999) study found a
heavy reliance among instructors on tradi-
tional methods to deliver diversity education.
They suggest that these traditional didactic
methods are not appropriate for this course
content, which requires skills in facilitating
difficult discussions and contending with
group dynamics. moreover, based on their
personal or professional backgrounds, educa-
tors may not be ready to deal with the type of
intense personal or interpersonal reactions
that can arise when engaging in discussions
about racism or other oppressions. Garcia and
Van Soests (2000) empirical study of 304
graduate- and undergraduate-level social
work faculty found that faculty of color and
 CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE
junior faculty were more likely to respond
with sensitivity to critical events (such as
conflicts or arguments about diversity issues)
than were White or more senior faculty. They
argue that faculty must develop comfort
with discussing issues related to diversity in
order to demonstrate how to place perspec-
tive on heated and strained interaction (2000,
p. 35). Hence, they concur with le-Doux and
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
montalvo (1999) that training teachers how to
facilitate meaningful dialogues about race and
racism is needed to effectively implement a
diversity curriculum.
Learning Outcomes
A longstanding, overarching critique of the
cultural competence framework is that it lacks
the specificity needed to attain any concrete
learning or practice objectives (Furness, 2005;
Horner & Borrero, 1981; Julia, 2000; Williams,
2006). There are few empirical outcome stud-
ies, however, to support this claim, and those
that do exist are typically pilot or exploratory
(Garcia & Van Soest, 1997; petrovich & lowe,
2005). Yet the findings derived from these
exploratory studies cast some doubt that
learning outcomes are actually attained. For
example, Bronstein, Berman-Rossi, and Win-
fields (2002) study of 57 students in direct
practice courses found that students were not
learning as much content on oppression as
faculty stated they were teaching. moreover,
in a recent focus group study of alumni and
current students of an mSW program, both
students and alumni expressed the need for a
greater level of transferability of cultural com-
petence principles to field and agency settings
(petrovich & lowe, 2005). In a more removed
outcome measure, Green, Kiernan-Stern, and
249
Baskinds (2005) survey of 257 White nASW
members found that social workers cognitive
attitudes about race were more positive than
their affective attitudes, and that their beliefs
about the existence of racism did not differ
widely from those of the wider American
public. These empirical studies suggest that
the transfer of cultural competence learning to
practice situations may be an area of concern;
however, it is difficult to generalize from these
studies given their sample sizes and design
limitations.
Diffusion of Racism and Color
Blindness
As highlighted earlier, the cultural compe-
tence model has increasingly expanded its
focus to include many categories of social dif-
ference. Schiele (2007) argues that although
this broadening was a foreseeable response to
emerging knowledge about the complexity of
multiple identities and increasingly vocal
activism about multiple forms of oppression,
this diffusion of information produces an
equality of oppressions paradigm that
tends to downplay racisms persistent legacy
and leaves social workers unprepared to deal
with the realities of racism, both systemically
and interpersonally. Razack and Jeffery (2002)
likewise contend that the fundamental prob-
lem of approaching racism in the cultural sen-
sitivity framework is the leveling of oppres-
sions, which instructors and students might
find more comfortable (and fair) because it
avoids a hierarchy of oppressions, but it
leaves unquestioned the racialized values and
beliefs that drive our fundamental social insti-
tutions. le-Doux and montalvos (1999)
national survey empirically supports these
 250 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
arguments about the diffusion of race in the
cultural competence model. For example, the
course syllabi they reviewed include a very
diluted curricula that spans many groups
with a little something for everyone (p. 49).
Further, by leveling race under the aus-
pices of a multicultural umbrella, critics
charge that social works cultural competence
curriculum may unintentionally reinforce a
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
color-blind paradigm that teaches students to
ignore racial differences (Schiele, 2007; Yee,
2005). Color blindness is associated with the
liberal 1970s ideal of learning not to see race
or color in an attempt to eliminate personal
prejudices and to promote a level playing
field. According to Carniol (2005), color
blindness precludes analysis of contradictions
among claims of neutrality, fairness, and
equality, and the below-surface reality of dis-
crimination in everyday practice and policy.
empirical support for these arguments about
the color-blind results of social work educa-
tion is limited. However, Van Soests (1996)
quasi-experimental study of 222 mSW stu-
dents, most of whom were White, found that
exposure to a cultural diversity class actually
increased respondents belief in a just
world, meaning a fundamentally fair and
equal society, despite the intent of the class to
expose students to the realities of structural
disadvantages such as racism and sexism.
Similarly, Julias (2000) study of 75 students at
a midwestern university found a great deal of
complacency among students about the exis-
tence of racism in American society. Although
more rigorous research is needed, these data
lend some empirical support to the argument
that the cultural competence models focus on
individual attitudes and its diffuse survey of
cultural and social groups may not effectively
prepare students to grapple with the realities
of racism.
CRT: An Overview
CRT emerged in the wake of the civil rights
movement as a component of legal scholar-
ship, meaning the study and analysis of the
law. Although CRT has grown in its applica-
tion in many disciplines, CRT scholarship as a
whole challenges liberalist claims of objectivi-
ty, neutrality, and color blindness of the law
and argues that these principles actually nor-
malize and perpetuate racism by ignoring the
structural inequalities that permeate social
institutions. CRT draws from diverse disci-
plines such as sociology, history, feminist and
postcolonial studies, economics, political sci-
ence, and ethnic and cultural studies. Its gen-
eral mission seeks to analyze, deconstruct,
and transform for the better the relationship
among race, racism, and power (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2001).
CRT unequivocally states that analysis of
the law cannot be neutral and objective and
stresses that recognition of and voices from
standpoint and race consciousness are essen-
tial to radical racial reform. Because race is the
scaffolding that structures American society,
there can be no perch outside the social
dynamics of racial power from which to mere-
ly observe and analyze (Crenshaw, Gotanda,
peller, & Thomas, 1995, p. xiii). CRT refutes
two principal liberalist claims with regard to
the law: (1) that it is color-blind and (2) that
color blindness is superior to race conscious-
ness. For example, Gotanda (2000) argues that
the concept of color blindness is itself con-
tradictory, because to exclude race from a
 CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE
decision-making process, the existence of race
must first be acknowledged. He concludes
that color blindnessthat is, the choice to
exclude raceis actually racially premised
rather than neutral.
Although CRT theorists and practitioners
have diverse approaches and emphases, their
scholarship and advocacy share common
ground in the following six basic tenets:
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
1. Endemic racism. Rather than accepting
racism as abnormal or individualistic,
CRT asserts that racism is an ordinary,
everyday occurrence for people of color. It
is deeply embedded in the social fabric of
American society, permeating our social
structures and practices. Because racism
is ordinary and embedded, its structural
functions and effect on our ways of think-
ing are often invisible, particularly to peo-
ple holding racial privilege. In turn, this
invisibility maintains racism.
2. Race as a social construction. CRT maintains
that race is a contrived system of catego-
rizing people according to observable
physical attributes that have no corre-
spondence to genetic or biological reality.
Although CRT regards race as a social
construction, it fully acknowledges the
force of its meaning and implications.
3. Differential racialization. Dominant social
discourses and people in power can racial-
ize groups of people in different ways at
different times, depending on historic,
social, or economic need. For example, var-
ious Asian American groups were viewed
as benign, if not favorable, when a large,
inexpensive labor force was needed. over
time, when the financial independence and
251
success of Asian American groups ap-
peared threatening to the national econo-
my, these groups were demonized in pop-
ular discourse and excluded from citizen-
ship by law. Today, after a third reversal in
racialization, Asian Americans are consid-
ered a model minority.
4. Interest convergence/materialist determinism.
Racism brings material and psychic
advantage to the majority race, and pro-
gressive change regarding race occurs
only when the interests of the powerful
(i.e., the White majority) happen to con-
verge with those of the racially oppressed
(Bell, 1995).
5. Voices of color. The dominant groups
accounting of history routinely excludes
racial and other minority perspectives to
justify and legitimize its power. This
silencing of alternative experiences serves
to minimize and obscure the interplay of
power and oppression across time and
place. CRT advocates a rewriting of his-
tory to include the lived reality of op-
pressed groups from their perspectives
and in their own words. Bringing these
narratives into account challenges liberal-
ist claims of neutrality, color blindness,
and universal truths (Delgado, 1989).
6. Antiessentialism/intersectionality. CRT
acknowledges the intersectionality of var-
ious oppressions and suggests that a pri-
mary focus on race can eclipse other
forms of exclusion. For example, the mar-
ginalized race, sexuality, and class of a
poor, gay, African American person pres-
ents a far more complex social location
than any single aspect of his identity
alone. In fact, CRT theorists contend that
 252 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
analysis without a multidimensional
framework can replicate the very patterns
of social exclusion it seeks to combat and
can lead to the essentializing of oppres-
sions (Hutchinson, 2000). The essentializ-
ing of oppression is a political choice and
problematic from a strategic perspective.
Although it may be clear that all margin-
alized people share the experience of
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
oppression, it is less clear whether reform
efforts should target oppression from a
particularized (antiessential) or a commu-
nal (essentialized) perspective. Coalitions
have greater power to effect social
change; however, addressing broad con-
cerns over individual experiences can
force people into choosing a singular
identity, leaving other aspects of their
oppression unaddressed (Delgado &
Stefancic, 2001). Ambivalence surround-
ing this dilemma drives much internal
debate in CRT scholarship.
CRT Applications
Drawing on the six core principles described
in the previous section, the academy has
formed specific subdivisions of CRT, such as
latino Critical Race Studies (perea, 2000;
Soloranzo & Yosso, 2001), Asian American
Critical Race Studies (e.g., Gotanda, 1995;
matsuda, 1995), Queer Crit (Arriola, 2000;
Valdes, 2000), and Fem Crit (Carbado, 2000;
Hernndez-Truyol, 1997). CRT has also been
applied to professional disciplines such as
policy studies (limbert & Bullock, 2005) and
education (Dixson & Rousseau, 2006). In the
field of education, CRT has been of particular
value in exploring the challenges of integrat-
ing cultural competency into professional
teachertraining programs. CRT highlights
the ways in which teachers are ill prepared for
the realities of their increasingly diverse stu-
dent learners. Critiques include the explicit
avoidance of race (lopez, 2003), the ad hoc
nature of multicultural modules (Zeichner,
1992, as cited in ladson-Billings, 1999), and
the lack of integration of diversity issues into
all classroom and field experiences (ladson-
Billings, 1999). Infusing CRT into teacher
training curricula has had some success in
challenging the eurocentric difference as
deficit or minority education frameworks.
However, the lack of standardized requisites
for cultural competency, the numerous course
requirements to be met within rigid time
frames, and the persistence of a race neutral
ideology all hamper broader application of
CRT in teacher training (ladson-Billings,
1999; lopez, 2003). Although CRT has been
incorporated into the scholarship and practice
of multicultural teacher training, existing lit-
erature contains very limited applications of
CRT to social work theory or pedagogy.
CRT and Social Work Pedagogy
Social work has its own traditions of critical
scholarship that challenge some of the histori-
cal practices of the profession and the larger
society that serve to perpetuate institutional-
ized oppression, including racism. Radical,
critical, structural, Afrocentric, and feminist
social work frameworks have widened the
social work knowledge base by introducing
and centralizing particular issues and offering
a more politically radical (left-leaning) social
work agenda (evans, 2000; Gil, 1998; piven &
Cloward, 1993). Although varying in empha-
sis and focus, these various forms of social
 CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE
work scholarship offer some basis for critical
engagement with questions of power and
exclusion; as such, they comprise components
of antioppression practice. Antioppression is a
term loosely applied to models that identify
exclusion and oppression from within and
outside of the profession.
Social work scholarship contains some
integrated antioppression features (i.e., struc-
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
tural analysis of oppression; how it is created,
sustained, and justified), offering methods
and classroom technology to challenge or add
to the cultural competence paradigm (po-
tocky, 1997). Yet, although the various antiop-
pressive frameworks have advanced thinking
and curriculum in many ways, critics within
the discipline still maintain that they have not
sufficiently addressed race, racialization, and
racism as centralizing forces of oppression
(Razack & Jeffery, 2002; Yee, 2005). For exam-
ple, Yee (2005) suggests that although
antiracism and antioppression are similar,
only antiracism positions race as a central
mechanism of oppression. Furthermore,
antiracism explicitly defines White as a racial
category, as the normative identity, and as the
group holding the greatest ideological power.
From Yees perspective, an antiracist peda-
gogy would incorporate identifying exclu-
sionary practices, locating the source of these
practices within structures, identifying the
racist nature of the structures, and exploring
how they are maintained and reproduced
through the social construction of race and
privilege.
Canadian scholars Razack and Jeffery
(2002) argue that CRT and social work are
highly compatible, and furthermore, that
diversity or cultural competence training
253
without a rigorous race analysis provides stu-
dents with less than adequate perspective and
tools to locate and act on exclusionary and
oppressive social practices. They also offer the
only published and explicit application of
CRT to social work pedagogy to date.
Drawing on CRT, they design and pro-
pose eight basic tenets for integrating critical
race discourse into diversity education in
social work. The organizing feature of their 8-
point model is race, and its prime directive is
an interrogation and deconstruction of racism
and all associated contingencies. The first six
tenets are (1) whiteness as normative and non-
racial; (2) the silence of marginalized narra-
tives; (3) liberal principles of neutrality, fair-
ness, and meritocracy; (4) color blindness; (5)
the inextricability of race, power, and privi-
lege; and (6) the legitimizing of race scholar-
ship within the social work field. This tenet
speaks to what Delgado (1995) calls the stud-
ied indifference to minority writing on issues
of race (p. 51), which Razack and Jeffery sug-
gest marginalizes antioppression and anti-
racist scholarship and pedagogy as areas of
questionable value. The seventh tenet, legit-
imizing the voice of minority scholarship on
race and oppression, invites alternative per-
spectives that are needed to counter a cur-
riculum that only engages the dominant
group (Razack & Jeffery 2002, p. 267). The
final tenet of their model speaks to the need
for social work to acknowledge and under-
stand the implication of race on a global scale.
What they call globalized understandings of
race broaden the structural critique to
encompass racism within and across societies
outside the united States. economic and polit-
ical restructuring of countries persistently
 254 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
trigger massive flows of displaced persons
across borders. A disproportionate number of
these immigrants, refugees, asylum seekers,
and migrant workers are people of color
(martin, 2001). many are poor and most are
denied access to resources necessary to fulfill
their daily needs. Whether social workers are
based nationally or internationally, Razack
and Jeffery (2002) argue that effective practice
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
includes a critical understanding of how
racism has impacted the lives of displaced
individuals at the personal, institutional, and
global levels.
CRT and the Cultural
Competence Dilemma
Razack and Jefferys CRT model of social
work diversity education differs from the cul-
tural competence paradigm in its explicit and
aggressive critique of the larger structures and
ideologies around race that often remain
unexamined and intact. In the following sec-
tions we propose how CRT concepts and ped-
agogy can be used to address some of the
empirical and philosophical challenges associ-
ated with the cultural competence curriculum
framework.
Contending With Resistance
As noted in existing research, student resist-
ance may be a normative part of the cross-
cultural learning process. It is our contention
that this resistance becomes problematic when
it results in a closed posture to the material or
a denial of existing problems concerning race,
and that CRT offers innovative ways to handle
this phenomenon. First, in its focus on sys-
temic and historical forces, CRT can alleviate
personal resistance stemming from self-blame
and guilt. For example, when students tend to
deny they are racist, CRT provides the per-
spective that passive racism, or participa-
tion in a racist system, is different from acting
consciously with racist intent. In this sense,
students can understand their own role in
institutional systems of racism without feeling
personally responsible for historical legacies
of violence, genocide, and oppression.
Second, by providing concrete direction about
social agency toward dismantling racism,
CRT can help to alleviate the guilt, fear, and
sense of paralysis that often follow the realiza-
tion of participating in a racist society.
Although CRT cannot prepare students in
advance to contend with difficult subject mat-
ter or intense classroom discussions, we argue
that CRT offers concrete ways to understand
and contend with resistance, denial, and guilt
as barriers to student learning about racism
and the significance of racial differences.
Reframing Outcomes
one of the primary noted problems with cul-
tural competence pedagogy is the absence of
clear outcome goals and essentially nonexist-
ent measurement tools. moreover, the few
studies that do exist generally show that
courses are falling short of reaching their
intentions. CRT scholars post an alternative
view of learning outcomes, suggesting that
the social work toolkit mentality be sup-
planted by critical thinking skills in regard to
teaching about racism and related oppres-
sions (Jeffery, 2005; Razack, 1999). Jeffery
(2005) suggests that the critical race project is
incongruent with the social work competen-
cies mentality that drives the traditional ped-
agogy. She argues that if social work wants to
 CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE
move toward an antiracist stance, then the
profession likewise needs to rethink or reex-
amine its stated goals regarding cultural com-
petence. Thus, rather than addressing the stat-
ed problem around clarity and measurement,
CRT reformulates the problem by asking
social workers to clarify what the results of
antiracist education might look like. We argue
that quantifiable skill outcomes suggest a set
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
of fixed techniques that can be performed out-
side real-life context with predictable out-
comes. Yet racial awareness is a formative
process that involves cognitive, affective, and
action-oriented changes that may not result
simply from exposure to one or two courses.
Although not denying the need for better
empirical measures of cultural competence
teaching outcomes, we suggest that these
goals and measurement tools be carefully
reconsidered in relation to the multiple
dimensions and processes involved in
antiracist pedagogy.
Overcoming Equalization of
Oppressions and Color Blindness
philosophically, the cultural competence para-
digm has sustained allegations of diffusing a
focus on race and thereby minimizing the sig-
nificance of racism in social welfare and in the
larger society. Integrating CRT into courses on
diverse populations obviates the tendency in
these courses to conflate culture and ethnicity
with race, or to equalize sources of oppression
under one multicultural umbrella (park,
2005). This occurs because CRT begins with
the premise that our society is far from race
neutral in our laws and basic social structures,
and in turn these larger social entities influ-
ence our everyday individual thoughts,
255
actions, and interactions. This macro-to-micro
view fits well with social works systems per-
spective and draws the focus away from cul-
tural neutrality and toward race conscious-
ness. From that purview, students can then
move on to understand other forms of oppres-
sion beyond racism. Yet race remains central
and does not get lost in a level playing field.
CRT also explicitly challenges color blindness
and accounts for its origins, meanings, and
implications. Thus, teaching CRT or infusing
CRT into diversity curriculum does not run
the risk of unintentionally producing social
work students who are trained not to see
color or who are inclined to deny racisms per-
sistent legacy.
Moving to Action and
Antioppression Practice
Increasingly, students in the social work field
are pressured to use clinical interventions
conforming to principles of evidence-based
practice or managed care guidelines, which
translates into directing energy toward indi-
vidual rather than systems change. These
pressures exist in tension with social work
concepts of social justice and action-oriented
models and highlight the challenge of bridg-
ing social work theory and practice. Antiracist
and antioppression workers in the policy and
management arenas are similarly constrained
by frameworks informed by liberal color-
blind principles. CRT helps students move
beyond mere description and understanding
of systematic racism and answers the call for
concrete action guidelines in everyday prac-
tice in any arena (Callender et al., 2007).
These guidelines operate for the worker
at both the personal and institutional levels.
 256 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
At the institutional level, rather than accept-
ing the task of encouraging or passively sup-
porting client adjustment to systems of
oppression, CRT skills foster worker opposi-
tion to institutional oppression through, for
example, identifying and analyzing the prob-
lem from the clients perspective, providing
emotional and/or political support, challeng-
ing the individualism underlying much policy
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
and practice, reframing problems through
critical consciousness, and critiquing institu-
tional structures of oppression within agen-
cies or policies and advocating for change
(Carniol, 2005). At the personal level, CRT
demands an ongoing critical reflection, as well
as vigilance for unearned privileges that flow
to the self at the expense of others. It demands
critical attention to defensive denial and
worker responsiveness to resist or disrupt the
links between unearned privilege and its
harmful consequences (Carniol, 2005; Yee,
2005).
Challenges to Implementation
Although we believe that an integration of
CRT across various facets of the social work
curriculum has the potential to move social
work students toward critical thinking,
informed practice, and action around racism,
privilege, and oppression, we also recognize
its limitations. The major limitation is making
space or time in an already crowded curricu-
lum to include CRT readings and applica-
tions. Ideally, CRT readings would be used
throughout various courses, rather than segre-
gated into one specific class (such as a diver-
sity or race course). Yet the tendency for
faculty to be overwhelmed by expanding their
already packed 2-year mSW curriculum will
pose some practical barriers to implementa-
tion. even if faculty create space to include
CRT content, issues of faculty preparation and
teaching methods remain. We acknowledge
that most faculty are not familiar with the lex-
icon of CRT or its applications to social work,
and that teaching and applying this material
requires a specific set of knowledge and skills.
We view this absence of faculty preparation as
probably the greatest barrier to including CRT
in courses throughout the social work curricu-
lum, as well as in specific courses promoting
an appreciation for diversity and cultural
competence skills.
moreover, student fieldwork is a critical
component of the mSW student learning
experience. If awareness of and critical per-
spectives on racism are not applied to the
fieldwork experience, students may lose sight
of CRTs ties to social work problems, theo-
ries, and interventions. Furthermore, the
increased demand for evidence-based practice
and the growing influence of managed care
models in agency environments can thwart
student efforts toward advocacy and empow-
erment of clients. The opportunity to apply
CRT skills in the field can facilitate social jus-
tice actions within such constraints at both
individual and systems levels. We recognize
this as a great challenge, because students
who are taught from a CRT perspective may
not find a place to voice their perspectives in
their fieldwork. This limitation speaks to the
ongoing need for social work faculty and field
instructors to communicate about students
current curriculum so that their field experi-
ences can complement their classroom work
and the bridge between theory and practice
can be fortified.
 CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE
Finally, as Schiele (2007) states, there were
logical and historically persuasive reasons for
diversity education to expand its focus to
include social and cultural groups other than
racial or ethnic categories. Clearly marginal-
ization and oppression are complex social
processes that are found along many axes of
social difference, not just race. CRT addresses
the central problem of eclipsing race under
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
the multicultural umbrella and at the same
time fully acknowledges the potential risks
and implications of focusing on one form of
oppression at the expense of others. By advo-
cating a multidimensional analytic frame-
work, CRT emphasizes the need to explore
how the intersectionality of oppressed status-
es manifests across individuals, communities,
and social settings. However, CRT does not
necessarily provide a clear road map for
teaching about all forms of oppression simul-
taneously. educators with an interest in inte-
grating CRT at this level will have to use their
ingenuity to help students make sense of the
connections between racism and other
oppressions, as well as the impact of multiple
and sometimes indiscernible oppressions on
clients lives.
Conclusion
nearly 50 years past the civil rights move-
ment, evidence suggests that racism continues
to fracture American society. Statistics on
well-being and life expectancy from 1970 to
2003 reflect substantial and enduring differ-
ences across racial and ethnic groups, with
people of color carrying a disproportionate
burden of mental and physical disease and
preventable death (Centers for Disease
Control and prevention, 2004). In 2006, among
257
the 47 million uninsured people in the united
States, only 10.8% were White (Denavas-Walt,
proctor, & Smith, 2007). Income and poverty
rates for the same year ranked Whites as sec-
ond highest in median income and lowest in
poverty, African Americans as lowest in medi-
an income and highest in poverty, and people
of Hispanic origin as second lowest in both
income and poverty. Asians ranked second
lowest in poverty and earned the highest
income of all groups (Denavas-Walt et al.,
2007). A 2006 survey of 25 cities conducted by
the u.S. Conference of mayors found that eth-
nic minorities comprised 61% of the homeless
population; of that number, a striking 42%
were African American (national Coalition
for the Homeless, 2008). Finally, various dis-
similarity indices used to calculate the extent
of ethnic/racial segregation in 2000 (using
Whites as the reference group) confirm long-
standing patterns of segregation. African
Americans were the most segregated group,
followed by people of Hispanic origin, Asian
pacific Islanders, American Indians, and
native Alaskans, respectively (u.S. Census
Bureau, 2002).
Although it may be comforting for many
to think that we can afford to be race neutral
in our analysis of social welfare institutions,
policies, and practices, the existence of these
disparities indicates that a color-blind mental-
ity will not solve some of our most enduring
and systemic social divisions and inequities.
Social work is ultimately concerned with max-
imizing the potential of all humans to lead
healthy, productive, and fulfilling lives. With
this charge, we must continually push our-
selves, our training materials, and our teach-
ing practices to address the systemic barriers
 258 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
that impede the realization of these goals for all
people, both locally and globally. CRTs philo-
sophical and analytical strategies can advance
our efforts in antiracist pedagogy; through new
insights and techniques we can better under-
stand and concretely address the noted prob-
lems of our standard teaching tools.
now the challenge of integrating new
ideas begins.
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
References
Abrams, l.S., & Gibson, p. (2007). Reframing
multicultural education: Teaching white
privilege in the social work curriculum.
Journal of Social Work Education, 43(1),
147160.
Appleby, G. A., Colon, e., & Hamilton, J.
(2001). Diversity, oppression, and social func-
tioning: A person-in-environment assessment
and intervention. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Arriola, e. R. (2000). Gendered inequality. In
R. Delgado & J. Stefancic (eds.), Critical
race theory: The cutting edge (2nd ed.,
322324). philadelphia: Temple univer-
sity press.
Bell, D. (1995). Brown v. Board of Education and
the interest-convergence dilemma. In K.
Crenshaw, n. Gotanda, G. peller, & K.
Thomas (eds.), Critical race theory: The key
writings that formed the movement (pp.
2029). new York: new press.
Bronstein, l. R., Berman-Rossi, T., & Winfield,
B. (2002). Beyond cultural specificity:
Teaching the impact of oppression on all
clients lives. Journal of Progressive Human
Services, 13(2), 4359.
Callender, S., Garcia, J., oh, l., Sangalang, C.,
Solis, R., & Vasquez, n. (2007). Critical race
theory and social welfare. unpublished
report, university of California, los
Angeles.
Carbado, D. (2000). men, feminism, and male
heterosexual privilege. In R. Delgado & J.
Stefancic (eds.), Critical race theory: The
cutting edge (2nd ed., pp. 525531).
philadelphia: Temple university press.
Carniol, B. (2005). Analysis of social location
and change: practice implications. In S.
Hick, J. Fook, & R. pozzuto (eds.), Social
work: A critical turn (pp. 153165). Toronto,
ontario, Canada: Thompson educational
publishing.
Centers for Disease Control and prevention.
(2004). life expectancy at birth, by year
united States, 19702003. MMWR. Re-
trieved September 21, 2007, from http:
//www.cdc.gov/mmWR/preview/mm
wrhtml/mm5414a6.htm
Council on Social Work education. (2001).
Educational and policy accreditation stan-
dards. Alexandria, VA: Author.
Crenshaw, K., Gotanda, n., peller, G., &
Thomas, K. (eds.). (1995). Introduction. In
Critical race theory: The key writings that
formed the movement (pp. xiixxxii). new
York: The new press.
Delgado, R. (1989). Storytelling for opposi-
tionists and others: A plea for narrative.
Michigan Law Review, 87, 24112441.
Delgado, R., & Stefancic, J. (2001). Critical race
theory: An introduction. new York: new
York university press.
Denavas-Walt, C., proctor, B. D., & Smith, J.,
u.S. Census Bureau. (2007). Current popu-
lation reports, P60233. Income, poverty, and
health insurance coverage in the United
States: 2006. Washington, DC: u.S. Gov-
ernment printing office.
 CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE
Devore, W., & Schlesinger, e. G. (1981). Ethnic-
sensitive social work practice (1st ed.). St.
louis, mo: C.V. mosby.
Devore, W., & Schlesinger, e. G. (1999). Ethnic-
sensitive social work practice (5th ed.).
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Dixson, A. D., & Rousseau, C. K. (2006).
Critical race theory and education: All Gods
children got a song. new York: Routledge.
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
evans, m. J. (2000). Stealing away: Black
women, outlaw culture, and the rhetoric
of rights. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic
(eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge
(2nd ed., pp. 500513). philadelphia: Tem-
ple university press.
Furness, S. (2005). Shifting sands: Developing
cultural competence. Practice, 17, 247256.
Garcia, B., & Van Soest, D. (1997). Changing
perceptions of diversity and oppression:
mSW students discuss the effects of a re-
quired course. Journal of Social Work Educ-
ation, 33(1), 119130.
Garcia, B., & Van Soest, D. (2000). Facilitating
learning on diversity: Challenges to the
professor. Journal of Ethnic and Cultural
Diversity in Social Work, 9, 2139.
Gil, D. (1998). Confronting injustice and oppres-
sion: Concept and strategies for social workers.
new York: Columbia university press.
Gotanda, n. (1995). Critical legal studies, criti-
cal race theory, and Asian American stud-
ies. Amerasia Journal, 21(1/2), 127136.
Gotanda, n. (2000). A critique of our Con-
stitution Is Color-Blind. In R. Delgado & J.
Stefancic (eds.), Critical race theory: The cut-
ting edge (2nd ed., pp. 3538). philadelphia:
Temple university press.
Green, R. G., Kiernan-Stern, m., & Baskind, F.
R. (2005). White social workers attitudes
259
about people of color. Journal of Ethnic &
Cultural Diversity in Social Work, 14(12),
4768.
Helms, J. e. (1995). An update of Helmss
White and people of color racial identity
models. In J. G. ponterotto, J. m. Casas, l.
p. Suzuki, & C. m. Alexander (eds.),
Handbook of multicultural counseling (pp.
181197). Thousand oaks, CA: Sage.
Hernndez-Truyol, B. e. (1997). Sex, culture,
and rights: A re-conceptualization of vio-
lence for the 21st century. Albany Law
Review, 60, 607634.
Horner, W., & Borrero, m. (1981). A planning
matrix for Standard 124(A). Journal of
Education for Social Work, 17(1), 3643.
Hutchinson, D. l. (2000). out yet unseen: A
racial critique of gay and lesbian legal the-
ory and political discourse. In R. Delgado
& J. Stefancic (eds.), Critical race theory: The
cutting edge (2nd ed., pp. 325333). phil-
adelphia: Temple university press.
Jeffery, D. (2005). What good is anti-racist
social work if you cant master it? ex-
ploring a paradox in anti-racist social
work education. Race, Ethnicity, and Edu-
cation, 8, 409425.
Julia, m. (2000). Student perceptions of cul-
ture: An integral part of social work prac-
tice. International Journal of Intercultural
Relations, 24, 279289.
ladson-Billings, G. J. (1999). preparing teach-
ers for diverse student populations: A
critical race theory perspective. Review of
Research in Education, 24, 211247.
le-Doux, C., & montalvo, F. F. (1999). mul-
ticultural content in social work graduate
programs: A national survey. Journal of
Multicultural Social Work, 7, 3755.
 260 JOURNAL OF SOCIAL WORK EDUCATION
lee, m. Y., & Greene, G. J. (2003). A teaching
framework for transformative multicul-
tural social work education. Journal of
Ethnic & Cultural Diversity in Social Work,
12(3), 128.
limbert, W. m., & Bullock, H. e. (2005).
playing the fool: uS welfare policy
from a critical race perspective. Feminism
& Psychology, 15, 253274.
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
lopez, G. (2003). The (racially neutral) politics
of education: A critical race theory per-
spective. Educational Administration Quar-
terly, 39, 6894.
lum, D. (1986). Social work practice and people of
color: A process-stage approach. monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
lum, D. (2003). Culturally competent practice: A
framework for growth and action. pacific
Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
martin, S. F. (2001). Global migration trends and
asylum (no. 41). Washington, DC: unHCR.
matsuda, m. (1995). looking to the bottom:
Critical legal studies and reparations. In
K. Crenshaw, n. Gotanda, G. peller, & K.
Thomas (ed.), Critical race theory: The key
writings that formed the movement (pp.
6379). new York: The new press.
national Coalition for the Homeless. (2008).
Who is homeless? nCH Fact Sheet #3.
Retrieved march 16, 2009, from http:
//www.nationalhomeless.org/publica
tions/facts/who.html
park, Y. (2005). Culture as deficit: A critical
discourse analysis of the concept of cul-
ture in contemporary social work dis-
course. Journal of Sociology and Social
Welfare, 32, 1133.
perea, J. (2000). The black/white binary para-
digm of race. In R. Delgado & J. Stefancic
(eds.), Critical race theory: The cutting edge
(2nd ed., pp. 344353). philadelphia:
Temple university press.
petrovich, A., & lowe, m. (2005). Developing
cultural competence: Student and alumni
perspectives. Journal of Teaching in Social
Work, 25, 157176.
piven, F. F., & Cloward, R. A. (1993). Reg-
ulating the poor: The functions of public wel-
fare (2nd ed.). new York: Broadway
Books.
pollack, S. (2004). Anti-oppressive social work
practice with women in prison: Dis-
cursive reconstructions and alternative
practices. British Journal of Social Work, 34,
693707.
potocky, m. (1997). multicultural social work
in the united States. International Social
Work, 40, 315326.
Razack, n. (1999). Anti-discriminatory prac-
tice: pedagogical struggles and chal-
lenges. British Journal of Social Work, 29,
231250.
Razack, n., & Jeffery, D. (2002). Critical race
discourse and tenets for social work. Ca-
nadian Social Work Review, 19(2), 257271.
Rothman, J. C. (2008). Cultural competence in
process and practice: Building bridges.
Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Schiele, J. H. (2007). Implications of the
equality-of-oppressions paradigm for
curriculum content on people of color.
Journal of Social Work Education, 43,
83100.
Solomon, B. (1976). Black empowerment: Social
work in oppressed communities. new York:
Columbia university.
Soloranzo, D. G., & Yosso, T. J. (2001). Critical
race and latCrit theory and method:
 CRITICAL RACE THEORY AND CULTURAL COMPETENCE 261

Counter-storytelling. Qualitative Studies in Van Soest, D. (1996). Impact of social work

Education, 14(4), 471495.
Spencer, m., lewis, e., & Gutirrez, l. (2000).
multicultural perspectives on direct prac-
tice in social work. In p. Allen-meares &
C. Garvin (eds.), The handbook of social
work direct practice (pp. 131149). Thou-
sand oaks, CA: Sage.
u.S. Census Bureau. (2002). Racial and ethnic
Downloaded by [University of California, Berkeley] at 10:57 30 August 2015
education on student attitudes and be-
havior concerning oppression. Journal of
Social Work Education, 32, 191202.
Williams, C. C. (2006). The epistemology of
cultural competence. Families in Society:
The Journal of Contemporary Social Services,
87, 209220.
Yan, m. C., & Wong, Y.-l. R. (2005). Rethinking

residential segregation in the United States: self-awareness in cultural competence:

19802000. Retrieved September 23, 2007,
from http://www.census.gov/hhes/www
/housing/housing_patterns/pdftoc.html
Valdes, F. (2000). Sex and race in queer legal
culture: Ruminations on identities and
interconnectivities. In R. Delgado & J.
Stefancic (eds.), Critical race theory: The
cutting edge (2nd ed., pp. 334341). phil-
adelphia: Temple university press.
Toward a dialogic self in cross-cultural
social work. Families in Society: The Journal
of Contemporary Social Services, 86, 181188.
Yee, J. Y. (2005). Critical anti-racism praxis:
The concept of Whiteness implicated. In
S. Hick, J. Fook, & R. pozzuto (eds.), Social
work: A critical turn (pp. 87103). Toronto,
ontario, Canada: Thompson educational
publishing.

Accepted: 07/08

Laura S. Abrams is associate professor and Jen Moio is lecturer at the University of California at
Los Angeles.

A portion of this article was presented at the Council on Social Work Educations Annual Program
Meeting in San Francisco, October 2730, 2007. The authors wish to thank Joy Crumpton, Gerry Lavia,
and Sofya Bagdasaryan for their collaborative work in developing a Critical Race Theory curriculum.

Address correspondence to Laura S. Abrams, University of California at Los Angeles, Department of

Social Welfare, 3250 Public Affairs Building, PO Box 951656, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1656; e-mail:
abrams@spa.ucla.edu.