[Type here]

University of Nevada, Reno

Counseling Program 2019 Annual Report: Vital Statistics, Student Outcomes, and Program Adjustments

and

Counseling Diversity Student Survey Report and Initial Recommendations

December 15, 2019

CACREP Annual Report Brenda Freeman, Ph.D., CEP Professor and CACREP Liaison

Tricia Woodliff, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Counseling and Educational Psychology Mona Martinez, Clinical Faculty, Counseling and Educational Psychology

Kenneth Ronquillo, Counseling Masters Student

Counseling Diversity Student Survey Report and Initial Recommendations Sibela Osmanovic, Counseling Doctoral Student Lourdes Calzada, Counseling Masters Student

Luis Garcia, Counseling Masters Student

2

Table of Contents

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 3

Vital Statistics ............................................................................................................................ 3

Enrollment, Ethnicity, and Gender ......................................................................................... 3

Program Graduates ................................................................................................................. 5

Pass Rates on Credentialing Exam ......................................................................................... 5

Retention/Completion Rates ................................................................................................... 5

Job Placement Rates ............................................................................................................... 5

Summary of Program Evaluation Results .............................................................................. 6

Program Modifications ............................................................................................................. 8

Other Program Changes......................................................................................................... 10

Summary and Forecast for 2020 ............................................................................................ 11

Counseling Diversity Student Survey Report and Initial Recommendations ........... 12

Introduction Like many academic programs with specialized accreditation, the University of Nevada

Counseling Program engages in ongoing program evaluation involving the collection of

quantitative and qualitative data which is utilized in an iterative process to inform program

improvement. The approach to program evaluation is largely informed by the 2016 standards

from the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP).

This annual report is intended to provide students, administrators, field site supervisors, and other

key stakeholders with information about the vital statistics, program evaluation results, and

program modifications initiated between the summer of 2018 and May, 2019.

The Nevada Counseling Program is administered through the Counseling and Educational

Psychology program unit in the College of Education. The program delivers 4 CACREP-

accredited program areas:

▪ Masters of Science: School Counseling

▪ Masters of Science: Clinical Mental Health Counseling

▪ Masters of Science: Marriage, Couple, and Family Counseling

▪ Ph.D. in Education: Counselor Education and Supervision

This year’s Annual Report is followed by a program evaluation report generated by counseling

students documenting the results of a student-designed diversity survey conducted with

counseling students to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the counseling curriculum in

relation to the infusion of diversity across the curriculum. This report, co-authored by counseling

students Sibela Osmanovic, Lourdes Calzada, and Luis Garcia, describes aggregate student

responses to questions related to the inclusion of diversity, cultural knowledge, multicultural skill

training, and cultural self-awareness activities in the counseling curriculum. In the final section

the authors delineate initial recommendations for increasing the diversity focus.

Vital Statistics Vital Statistics for the University of Nevada, Reno Counseling Program are uploaded annually to

CACREP. The data below reflect the vital statistics reported to CACREP on December 1, 2019.

Enrollment, Ethnicity, and Gender Overall Enrollment. In the 2018-2019 school year, the counseling program had 74 students

enrolled amongst 4 program areas, which encompassed 62 masters students and 12 doctoral

students. The overall enrollment for the counseling program has been strong for the past several

years. In 2019 44 applicants applied to the master’s program with 22 of the applicants

accepted into the program (50% program acceptance rate). Enrollment is carefully monitored

by program faculty to align with the 1:12 faculty/student FTE ratio required by CACREP. Due to

budgetary cuts, the counseling program adjunct (LOA) faculty were reduced in the fall of 2019,

reducing the number of FTE faculty. This budgetary cut will lead to a lower acceptance rate for

applicants in the spring of 2020, necessary to keep the counseling program operating within

CACREP FTE standards. With the small number of core counseling faculty, the limited

availability of graduate assistantships, and the increased expectation under the 2016 CACREP

standards for preparation of doctoral students in five core areas, program faculty established a

4

goal to limit total doctoral program enrollment to between 6 and 10 students. If more resources

become available, faculty anticipate accepting more doctoral students.

Age. The average age of the students

enrolled during the catchment period

(2013-2019) was 29.3 years old (28.9

years old for masters students and

31.7 for doctoral students).

Ethnicity. The ethnic representation

among the students was as follows:

63.5% White; 17.5% Hispanic/Latino;

2.7% Black/African American; 4%

Asian; 0% Native Hawaiian/Pacific

Islander; 4% Native American/Alaska

Native; 2.7% Multiracial; and 5.4%

who did not identify their

race/ethnicity.

As is evident in Table 1, there was a slight decrease in overall ethnic student diversity in the

Counseling Program in 2019. However, the trend over the past 5 years shows a 50% increase in

the number of ethnically diverse students. The 2019 data show that the Counseling Program is

composed of 31.1% ethnically diverse students, compared to the UNR graduate school

diversity rate of 27%.

Gender. Depicted in Table 2, the gender

composition data reveal a slow decline in the

number of male students over the past 5

years. The decline in male counseling students

is reflective of a national trend. Like the

master’s program, the Counselor Education

and Supervision doctoral strand enrollment

is female dominated, with 1 male and 8

females currently enrolled in the doctoral

program. Gender non-conforming data were

not available.

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Male

Female

Table 1: Growth in Student Diversity

Table 2: Gender Composition

Program Graduates In 2019 the University of Nevada Counseling Program graduated 27 masters students and 3

Ph.D. students. The masters graduates were in the following program areas:

▪ School Counseling—9 graduates

▪ Marriage, Couple, and Family Counseling—11 graduates

▪ Clinical Mental Health Counseling—7 graduates

Pass Rates on Credentialing Exam All 27 graduates in 2019 passed the CPCE Comprehensive Examination, a 100% pass rate.

The national examination encompasses the NBCC core areas that serve as a foundation for the

practice of counseling. Data are not available on licensure exam passing rates for Clinical Mental

Health and Marriage, Couple, and Family graduates, because per state licensure laws graduates

do not take the exam until two years post-graduation or 2,000 hours of supervised clinical

practice.

Retention/Completion Rates Across all three master’s program areas, in 2019 the 3-year completion rate was 100%, with

96% of students graduating within the expected time frame. One reason for the high

graduation rate is careful student selection. In addition, the courses are delivered through a cohort

model, which has a positive influence on student retention.

The doctoral student retention rate is difficult to calculate because the university allows doctoral

students a generous time frame for degree completion. Beginning in 2016 the Counselor

Education and Supervision doctoral program established a 3 to 4 year timeline, assuming the

student enters the doctoral program having completed a 3-year master’s degree in a CACREP-

accredited master’s program.

Job Placement Rates 100% of the School Counseling graduate in 2019 secured positions as school counselors,

mostly in the Washoe County School District. The placement rates of CMHC graduates was

100%, with students accepting positions at Carson Tahoe Behavioral Health, Quest Counseling,

Aurora Mental Health, and other community agencies. The placement rate of Marriage,

Couple, and Family Counseling was 64%. The four MFC students not placed were waiting for

licensure.

6

Summary of Program Evaluation Results

The table below shows a sample of data points collected for CACREP assessment in 2019.

UNR Program Objective Student Learning

Outcome

Related CACREP Standard

Sample of Key Assessments

Sample Summary Data

PO#1: Dispositions From admission through exit students will demonstrate the attitudes, characteristics, and behaviors defined by the program as characteristic of exemplar counseling professionals.

Section 4.G. The counselor education program faculty systematically assesses each student’s professional dispositions throughout the program. The assessment process includes the following: 1) identification of key professional dispositions, 2) measurement of student professional dispositions over multiple points in time, and 3) review or analysis of data.

PDCA-R Gatekeeping Rubric And PDCA-RI Incident Reports

In 2019 the gatekeeping and remediation process led to 7 students being placed on remediation plans for dispositional issues. No dispositional suspensions or dismissals occurred in 2019.

PDCA-R Site Supervisor Evaluation

In 2019 one field site supervisor gave an unacceptable ratings to one counseling student. The student’s field placement was terminated and the student was required to repeat the hours at a different field site. The student successfully completed the second placement with strong, positive feedback from the clinical supervisor evaluation.

PO#2: Ethical Practice Students will demonstrate the capacity to practice counseling from a strong foundational understanding of ethical and legal issues, intentionally integrating counseling ethical practices into day-to-day professional activities.

F.1.i.ethical standards of professional counseling organizations and credentialing bodies, and applications of ethical and legal considerations in professional counseling.

Ethical Case Study Rubric

100% pass rate

Internship Site Supervisor Evaluation(s)

No ethical incidences were reported by Internship Site Supervisors in 2019.

PO#3: Social and Cultural Diversity In keeping with the ACA multicultural competencies, students will develop self-awareness, knowledge, and skills to prepare them to be contemporary, relevant, and culturally informed practitioners in clinical, marriage and family, and school counseling settings.

c. the impact of heritage, attitudes, beliefs, understandings, and acculturative experiences on an individual’s views of others

d. multicultural counseling competencies

Family of Origin and Cultural Background Paper and Rubric

This assignment, submitted in CEP 650 Counseling Theories includes family interviews, a 3 generation genogram, and the submission of a paper encompassing an analysis of family background and dynamics and cultural background. Data from the 2019 students showed a 100% pass rate, with 68% of the students earning an average rating of 4/5, and 32% earning an average rating of 3/5 (minimum pass).

Identity Development Paper and Rubric

100% pass rate

Internship Case Conceptualization Rubric

100% pass rate

PO#4: Human Growth and Development Students will demonstrate knowledge of lifespan

F.3.a. theories of individual and family development across the lifespan

Developmental Case Conceptualization Assignment and Rubric

100% pass rate

development and the capacity to integrate knowledge of developmental theory into practice.

Internship Site Supervisor Evaluation of student capacity to adjust counseling for aspects of lifespan development

PO#5: Career Development Students will demonstrate competence in understanding the world of work and the relationship between mental health and life roles such as work, school, and home.

F.4.b. approaches for conceptualizing the interrelationships among and between work, mental well-being, relationships, and other life roles and factors.

World of Work Rubric

100% pass rate

Personal Career Portfolio

100% pass rate

PO#6: Counseling and Helping Relationships Students will gain an understanding of the theories and research related to helping relationships, and will develop the skills to apply their knowledge in professional, therapeutic relationships.

F.5.g. essential interviewing, counseling, and case conceptualization skills (and other standards related to effective counseling strategies)

Review of Pre-Practicum Clinical Video Tapes, and the rating of tapes on the clinical rubric.

95% pass rate (one student gate checked for remediation)

Internship Site Supervisor Evaluation of clinical skills

In 2019 one student was remediated for clinical skill issues. The remediation plan included ….

PO#7: Group Counseling and Group Work Students will demonstrate knowledge of group process dynamics, group counseling, and group work, including group theories, stages of group, leadership styles, and therapeutic factors.

F.6.a. Theoretical foundations of group and group work.

Group Knowledge and Leadership Reflection Paper Rubric

100% pass rate

F.6.b. dynamics associated with group process and development

Group Leadership—All students are required to lead or co-lead a group; the group leadership rubric is used to rate their capacity to adjust their group for the dynamics associated with group process.

100% pass rate

PO#8: Assessment and Testing Students will demonstrate a broad understanding of

F.7.c. procedures for assessing risk of aggression or danger to others, self-inflicted harm, or suicide.

Suicide Assessment Video Tape Assignment Rubric

100% pass rate

8

validity and reliability of assessments, the selection and use of assessment tools, client assessment and diagnosis, trauma assessment, and the assessment of self-inflicted harm and danger to others.

Biopsychosocial Rubric

100% pass rate

PO9: Research and Program Evaluation Counseling students will demonstrate the capacity to select, analyze, and apply research to inform practice, including evidence-based practices and theory based interventions appropriate to their designated setting and personal theoretical orientation.

F.8.b. identification of evidence-based counseling practices

Evidence-Based Practice research paper and presentation is an assignment that includes targeted research on specific, program-related practices, an analysis of the practice, and a synthesis of the research support and limitations of the practice.

98% pass rate (one student was required to resubmit the paper)

Counseling Symposium--Comprehensive Poster Sessions presented by all counseling graduates reflecting current research in specific areas of counseling practice.

The poster symposium judges passed 100% of the students on this program requirement.

Sample Doctoral Program Objective: Research and Scholarship Students will demonstrate the capacity to design, implement, and disseminate results of an original research study in counseling, and will gain knowledge in writing for publication and grant writing.

7.Research questions appropriate for professional research and publication 1,2,3. Stat and research methods

Performance on key assignments in research and stat classes.

Data unavailable.

Program Modifications

In this section, seven program modifications based upon program assessment and related data are

described. Some of the program modifications have been implemented, while other modifications

reflect faculty decisions, but the actual changes have yet to be implemented.

1. New Doctoral Counseling Research Course in Community-based Program Evaluation

(CBPR) and Indigenous Research Methodology

The CACREP Visiting Team recommended an increased focus on indigenous research,

feminist research, and community participatory program evaluation. Qualitative responses

from doctoral students confirmed that an increased focus in this research arena would be of

great value. The new research course was delivered as a seminar course in spring semester,

2019.

2. Formal Mid-Semester Data Collection from Site Supervisors

Feedback from clinical site supervisors led to a decision to collect data at mid-semester from

site supervisors. While the program has ongoing contact with site supervisors, specific

evaluation data were not collected at midterm in the past. This adjustment is being

implemented in the 2019-2020 academic year.

3. CMHC and MFC Students to Intern in Downing Clinic and in Community Placements.

Feedback from past graduates led to a decision to allow both MFC and CMHC students to

conduct work inside and external to the Downing Clinic. The goal is to increase clinical depth

by providing all students in these two track areas with the opportunity to intern in more than

one setting

3. Core Faculty as Lead Instructors.

Difficulty collecting assessment data from LOA, GTA and affiliate faculty led to a decision

to have core faculty assigned as Lead Instructors for courses taught by LOA and/or GTA

faculty, with an expectation that LOAs will have a better understanding of the CACREP key

assignments and assessment if they are mentored by a core faculty member.

5. Increased Focus on Writing in All Master’s Program Areas.

A review of the data extracted from key assessment rubrics show that greater attention is

needed to improve the quality of student written work and their attention to APA writing style.

Program faculty agreed to teach and assess writing in a standardized way across courses. This

led to the standardization of all key assessment rubrics involving writing assignments. Other

relevant adjustments related to the quality of student work will be determined in 2020.

6. Increased Infusion of Diversity Material in the Curriculum.

As reflected in the data reported in the attached Diversity Survey report, greater infusion of

diversity across the curriculum is an important goal for the counseling program. The first step

in understanding how to better address diversity was the implementation of the Diversity

Survey. In the spring of 2020 the faculty will discuss the student report and analyze the survey

results. To gain greater depth of understanding student-led focus groups on diversity will be

conducted in the spring of 2020.

7. Increase in Required Credit Hours for School Counseling Program (CACREP requirement).

CACREP Policy H (Meeting New Standards) states: Programs that are currently accredited

under the 2001, 2009, or 2016 Standards must comply with 2016 Standard 1.J by July 1, 2023.

The move to 60 credit hours applies to students entering programs after July 1, 2023. Note:

This policy supersedes and replaces previous Policy I (which established a 2022 deadline only

for rehabilitation counselor preparation programs) and previous Policy H (which established

the 2020 deadline for all other counselor preparation programs).

10

The school counseling program is undergoing a soft roll-out to a 67-credit hour program. The

new courses in the program were determined through faculty, LOA, and School Counseling

Advisory Board input. The Washoe County School District was also invited to offer feedback.

Play Therapy, Grief and Loss, Trauma and Crisis will be required for new school counseling

majors beginning fall semester, 2020. In addition, a new course in Counseling Interventions

for Students with Disabilities, is being designed for the purpose of enhancing student

understanding of special education law and ethics; multidisciplinary teams and role school

counselors play on those teams; and collaboration among professionals and with families. We

believe that these classes will greatly enhance student capacity to address the National School

Counseling Standards for comprehensive school counseling programs.

Other Program Changes Apart from assessment data, three additional program changes were initiated in 2019.

Implementation of these changes is incomplete as of the date of this report.

1. TaskStream (Watermark):

The counseling program is in the first year of transferring all CACREP assessment data to

TaskStream, a Watermark assessment product. The full transition will require five semesters,

the first of which was fall semester, 2019. During fall semester of 2019 the assessments in the

table below were moved to TaskStream, student artifacts were uploaded to TaskStream, and

rubric grading was conducted on TaskStream.

KEY ASSESSMENT/ASSIGNEMENTS COURSE

World of Work CEP 600: Intro to Counseling

Counseling Pre-Practicum Interview Video Reviews CEP 630: Pre-Practicum in Counseling

Family of Origin and Cultural Background Paper CEP 650: Counseling Theories

Evidence Based Practice Paper & Presentation CEP 650: Counseling Theories

Treatment Planning artifact CEP 670: Foundations I

Community Assessment CEP 675: CMH Consulting

Group Knowledge & Group Leadership Reflection CEP 761: Group Counseling

Group Participation Paper CEP 761: Group Counseling

Group Process Observation CEP 761: Group Counseling

Supervisor Feedback/Clinical Skills Rubric CEP 770: SC Internship

Group Leadership Paper CEP 770: SC Internship

Internship Case Conceptualization—School Counseling CEP 770: SC Internship

Supervisor Feedback/Clinical Skills Rubric CEP 770: DC Internship

Internship Case Conceptualization--CMHC CEP 770: DC Internship

Supervisor Feedback/Clinical Skills Rubric CEP 770F: External Site Internship

Internship Case Conceptualization--MFC CEP 770F: External Site Internship

2. Complete Website Review:

Following a suggestion in the CACREP Visiting Team report, a detailed review of the

counseling website was conducted. The CACREP standard requiring accurate representation

in program media was the impetus for the review. Over 60 inaccuracies were found. The

program faculty will work with marketing and other offices to correct the inaccuracies in

2020.

3. Tenure-Track Faculty Position Transformed to a Downing Clinic Clinical Director Position

In 2019 the counseling program made the decision to convert a tenure track position into a

Administrative Faculty position, with the title of Clinical Director/Instructor. The rationale for

the decision was twofold. First, the Downing Clinic needed 12-month supervision. Second, the

40% research load expected for B-Contract employees was determined to be untenable for a

clinician position. The Downing Clinic Director will meet the CACREP requirement for a core

faculty member, but clinic administration instead of 40% research will be expected.

Summary and Forecast for 2020

This report has highlighted program evaluation data collection and action steps toward continuous

quality improvement.

In 2020 we hope to offer contracts to two new counseling faculty members, filling empty faculty

lines for Downing Clinical Director and Assistant Professor, Marriage, Couple and Family

Emphasis. Two other important program goals for 2020 are to achieve a full integration of Task

Stream (Watermark) for CACREP assessment and data collection. In addition, core faculty will

continue working hand-in-hand with students on addressing diversity issues in the program (see

attached report).

Counseling academic programs are a collaborative effort. We owe our deepest appreciation to the

field site supervisors, including the Washoe County School district, many community agencies,

and program alumni. Our site supervisors engage our students in the important work of

translating theory into real-world practice. We are also grateful to the many University of Nevada

administrators who continue to support and resource our program, the Counseling Community

Advisory Board, and (most of all) our students.

12

Attachment:

Counseling Diversity Student Survey Report and Initial Recommendations

[Type here]

Counseling Diversity Student Survey Report and Initial Recommendations

On behalf of the Counseling and Educational Psychology Program

University of Nevada, Reno

December 16, 2019

Submitted by: Sibela Osmanovic, Counseling Doctoral Student Lourdes Calzada, Counseling Masters Student

Luis Garcia, Counseling Masters Student

2

Social and Cultural Diversity- A Study of UNR master’s Counseling Students

Multicultural Competency

The purpose of this report is to describe the results of a multicultural counseling

survey conducted with counseling students at the University of Nevada, Reno during the

spring of 2019. The goal of the survey was to initiate a process of understanding the

experiences of diverse students in the counseling program and the extent to which

diversity is included in the counseling curriculum.

This report is divided into four parts. The first part focuses on the structure, data

collection process, and purpose of the survey. The second part focuses on the findings of

the survey structured by knowledge, awareness, and skills. The third part focuses on

students’ ratings of the inclusion of multicultural materials within each course that is

offered in the UNR master’s Counseling program. Finally, in the last section of the report

we provide some recommendations that will guide the program as we move forward.

Introduction

The United States population is becoming increasingly more multiethnic,

multilingual and multicultural (Holcomb-McCoy & Myers, 1999). This change in the

demographics of the U.S. population has impacted the course content that is being taught

in counseling programs. Specifically, counseling programs have had to shift their focus

toward including more multicultural content within the curriculum, because the exposure

of counselor trainees to more culturally diverse clientele has significantly increased (Hill,

2011). Furthermore, multicultural counseling has emerged as counseling’s fourth force.

This emergence has issued a challenge for counseling programs to integrate multicultural

competence within their curriculum (Hill, 2011).

Furthermore, the ACA Code of Ethics emphasizes the importance of multicultural

competence. According to the ACA Code of ethics, counselors should have the ability to

effectively respond to cultural dilemmas and develop an understanding of how culture

impacts the counseling relationship (ACA, 2014). Additionally, CACREP highlights the

importance of the incorporation of multicultural competence within counseling programs.

Section II of the 2016 CACREP Standards is divided into foundation, and counseling

curriculum supervisors (CACREP, 2016). For the purposes of this section of the report,

we will be focusing on Social and Cultural Diversity. The Social and Cultural Diversity

aligns with the emphasis of this survey. According to the standards of the Council for

Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP), counseling

programs should focus on theories and models of multicultural counseling, cultural

identity development, and social justice and advocacy (CACREP, 2016). In summary, the

importance of multicultural competence is supported by the accrediting body of the field

as well as professional organizations such as ACA.

Even though the field has shown a willingness to integrate multicultural content

within the counseling curriculum, there have been and continue to be challenges along

the road (Hill, 2011). One of the challenges associated with integrating multicultural

content is the lack of experience and/or training of counselor educators in the content area

(Hill, 2011) Another challenge is that programs take the shortcut approach to integrating

multicultural competence within their program by adding only one course in the program

that focuses on multiculturalism (Hill, 2011). Finally, many programs have given more

attention to knowledge, without focusing enough on self-awareness and skills (Hill,

2011).

4

The University of Nevada, Reno counseling program can relate to the challenges

of implementation of multicultural content that were mentioned above. Specifically, the

challenges of covering multicultural content in only one course is one of the factors that

facilitated the creation of the current survey. One of the concerns within the program is

that multicultural content is not being covered effectively across the curriculum. This

issue is tackled by one of the sections of the survey which targets the integration of

multicultural content within most of the courses that are covered in the master’s

counseling program at UNR. Additionally, another factor that facilitated the creation of

the survey was the cultural climate at UNR. UNR conducted a campus climate survey

which was administered in February-March 2019. According to President Mark Johnson,

the purpose of the survey was “to understand ourselves better”. Some of the key findings

indicated that women, trans-spectrum respondents Black/African American respondents,

Queer-spectrum and Bisexual respondents, Multiple Disabilities respondents, Low-

Income Student respondents and First-Generation Student respondents reported being

“significantly less comfortable than men respondents.” Informal information from one of

the multicultural student groups on campus supports the importance of the campus

climate survey and suggests that hate crimes receive less punishment than plagiarism at

UNR.

Given the results of the campus climate survey, the current campus climate, and

the challenges associated with the implantation of multicultural content across a

counseling program curriculum, we wanted to conduct a survey that would capture the

voices of UNR master’s counseling students in relation to diversity and multicultural

content as well as give us more insight into what we could do better as a program in

terms of integrating multicultural content and promoting diversity. The purpose of the

survey was to assess UNR counseling master students’ multicultural competence, as well

as the counseling program’s ability to effectively teach multicultural concepts. The entire

survey was structured according to the Tripartite Model of Multicultural Counseling. This

model has been the most widely used tool in the assessment of multicultural counseling

competencies (Sue, Bernier, Durran, Feinberg, Pedersen, Smith, & Vasquez-Nuttal,

1982).

THE SURVEY

The purpose of the survey was to assess UNR counseling master students’

multicultural competence, as well as the counseling program’s ability to effectively teach

multicultural concepts. The survey consisted of a quantitative portion and a qualitative

portion. The quantitative portion consisted of 71 items which were divided organized by

the following four sections- knowledge, awareness, skills, and multicultural material

integration in courses. The qualitative portion consisted of five items focusing on

students’ experiences in the program.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Once the survey was constructed, the first author developed a data collection

strategy. The aim was to collect data from all enrolled master’s students in the UNR

counseling program. The surveys were distributed to the instructors of several master’s

classes. The instructors distributed the surveys to their master’s classes, and the surveys

were completed during class time. Afterwards, each instructor collected the completed

surveys from each of their classes and delivered the surveys to the lead author. The

6

quantitative data was analyzed in SPSS. The qualitative data was manually transcribed,

coded, and analyzed.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Diversity on the survey was defined by participants in response to the following

item: Do you consider yourself to be a member of a culturally diverse group (examples:

disability, ethnicity,

refugee or immigrant,

religion, sexual

orientation, etc.)? If

students responded “yes”

to this item, they were

coded as diverse. To

protect the identities of

students follow-up data

on the type of diversity was intentionally not collected.

The data that is presented here is one small snapshot in time. The following

figures are provided with the purpose of understanding descriptively the composition of

the master’s program as it relates to year, track, and diversity. The total number of

participants was 57 (N=57).

Diverse54%

Non-Diverse

42%

Not sure4%

Student Participant Demographics by Diversity

Diverse

Non-Diverse

Not sure

The adjacent figure shows student

participation by year in the program.

FINDINGS (Knowledge Section)

This section assessed for the

knowledge component of multicultural

competency. The overall means and

standard deviations were near normal

as expected. The knowledge section

consisted of 13 statements. The results

of the 13 statements are reported in Table 4. It’s important to note that the scale was

changed from 1 to 5 to 1 to 4, because we did not want the data from the students who

had not been taught the skills to affect our results. The participants were asked to rate

each question using the following scale:

▪ 1= My knowledge on this content is minimal.

▪ 2= My knowledge on this content is adequate.

▪ 3= My knowledge on this content is more than adequate.

▪ 4= My knowledge on this content is excellent.

39%

28%

30%

3%

Student Participant Demographics by Year

First year

Second Year

Third year

Other

8

Table 4: Student Participant Knowledge Section Mean and Standard Deviation Compared by Year

Table 5: Student Participant Knowledge Section Mean and Standard Deviation Compared by Track

Demographics-

Track

Mean and Standard Deviation

Questions Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13

MFC Mean 1.64 2.54 3.00 2.46 3.14 2.18 1.77 2.35 2.86 1.52 2.09 3.25 2.86

MFC SD .924 .881 .877 .922 .756 .905 .927 1.018 .848 .602 1.221 .701 .848

School Mean 1.50 2.29 3.07 2.75 3.00 2.46 1.50 2.36 2.86 1.38 1.83 3.07 3.14

School SD .577 .825 .829 1.055 1.000 1.050 .756 1.286 .770 .518 1.169 .829 .864

CMHC Mean 1.63 2.36 3.31 2.43 3.29 2.17 1.57 2.55 3.21 1.50 2.20 3.14 3.29

CMHC SD .518 1.008 .947 1.158 .914 1.115 1.134 1.036 .893 .972 1.095 .949 .611

Total Mean 1.61 2.43 3.09 2.52 3.15 2.25 1.64 2.40 2.95 1.49 2.05 3.18 3.04

Total SD .722 .892 .875 1.005 .848 .979 .911 1.067 .840 .683 1.133 .789 .808

Demographics-

Year

Mean and Standard Deviation

Questions Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13

First Year Mean 1.44 2.45 3.14 2.48 3.24 2.24 1.44 2.28 3.00 1.50 1.33 3.14 3.05

First Year SD .527 .912 .889 1.167 .889 .995 .726 1.127 .873 .894 .816 .889 .889

Second Year

Mean

1.60 2.25 3.13 2.37 3.19 2.13 1.37 2.36 2.94 1.29 1.71 3.13 3.06

Second Year SD .548 .856 .640 1.025 .655 1.060 .744 1.082 .929 .488 1.113 .719 .772

Third Year Mean 1.70 2.59 3.13 2.76 3.12 2.38 2.00 2.63 2.94 1.60 2.60 3.29 3.00

Third Year SD .949 .870 1.025 .752 .857 .957 1.044 1.025 .748 .507 1.075 .686 .791

Total Mean 1.58 2.42 3.09 2.53 3.14 2.22 1.66 2.41 2.95 1.49 2.00 3.18 3.02

Total SD .717 .885 .867 .997 .841 .984 .897 1.059 .833 .683 1.128 .782 .813

Table 6: Student Participant Knowledge Section Mean and Standard Deviation Compared by Diversity

Demographics-

Diversity

Mean and Standard Deviation

Questions Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Q6 Q7 Q8 Q9 Q10 Q11 Q12 Q13

Diverse Mean 1.83 2.42 3.07 2.37 3.13 2.10 1.33 2.29 2.87 1.30 1.86 3.13 3.00

Diverse SD .835 .807 .884 .928 .776 .923 .724 1.049 .846 .470 .949 .848 .816

Not Diverse

Mean

1.33 2.38 3.04 2.70 3.13 2.27 1.75 2.47 2.96 1.65 2.00 3.21 3.00

Not Diverse SD .492 .970 .859 1.063 .947 1.032 .754 1.073 .806 .862 1.414 .721 .834

Not sure Mean 3.00 4.00 3.00 3.50 3.50 3.50 3.50 4.00 2.00 3.00 3.50 3.50

Not sure SD 1.414 .000 1.414 .707 .707 .707 .707 .000 .000 1.414 .707 .707

Total Mean 1.58 2.42 3.09 2.53 3.14 2.22 1.66 2.41 2.95 1.49 2.00 3.18 3.02

Total SD .717 .885 .867 .997 .841 .984 .897 1.059 .833 .683 1.128 .782 .813

Figure 4. Comparison of Knowledge Means by Year in the Program-This figure demonstrates UNR master’s students’ scores on the

knowledge section of the survey as compared by their current year in the program.

1.44

1.6

1.7

3.14 3.13 3.13

2.48

2.37

2.76

3.243.19

3.12

2.24

2.13

2.38

1.441.37

2

2.282.36

2.63

32.94 2.94

1.5

1.29

1.6

1.33

1.71

2.6

3.14 3.13

3.29

3.05 3.063

1.25

1.5

1.75

2

2.25

2.5

2.75

3

3.25

3.5

First Year Mean Second Year Mean Third Year Mean

Comparison of Knoweldge Means by Year in the Program

Q1Q2Q3Q4Q5Q6Q7Q8Q9Q10Q11Q12Q13

10

Findings (Awareness Section)

Glockshuber (2011) and Minami (2008) conceptualized awareness as an essential

part of multicultural competence. That being said, the importance of awareness should

not be minimized, because of its integral role in the development of multicultural

competency (Tomlinson-Clarke, 2013). The results of this section of the survey focused

on awareness, which consisted of 12 statements. The results of the 12 statements are

reported in Table 5. The overall means and standard deviations were near normal as

expected. The participants were asked to rate each statement according to the following

scale:

▪ 1= Strongly Disagree

▪ 2= Agree

▪ 3= Undecided

▪ 4= Agree

▪ 5= Strongly Agree

Table 7: Student Participant Awareness Section Means Compared by Year

Demographics-Year Mean and Standard Deviation

Questions Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25

First Year Mean 3.05 2.91 4.09 4.32 4.23 4.55 4.77 4.82 4.73 4.73 4.77 4.27

First Year SD 1.290 1.065 .526 .568 .752 .510 .429 .395 .456 .456 .429 .827

Second Year Mean 3.69 3.56 4.38 4.31 4.31 4.19 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53 4.53 3.47

Second Year SD .872 .892 .719 .704 .704 .834 .640 .640 .516 .640 .640 .990

Third Year Mean 3.59 3.88 4.59 4.25 4.47 4.59 4.71 4.71 4.47 4.41 4.76 3.47

Third Year SD .939 .781 .507 .775 .514 .507 .470 .470 .624 .795 .437 1.281

Other Mean 4.00 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.50 4.00 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 4.50 3.50

Other SD .000 .707 .000 .000 .707 .000 .707 .707 .707 .707 .707 .707

Total Mean 3.42 3.40 4.32 4.29 4.33 4.44 4.68 4.70 4.59 4.57 4.70 3.79

Total SD 1.085 .997 .602 .653 .664 .627 .508 .502 .532 .628 .502 1.074

Table 8: Student Participant Awareness Section Means Compared by Track

Demographics-

Track

Mean and Standard Deviation

Questions Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25

MFC Mean 3.36 3.46 4.21 4.26 4.36 4.39 4.57 4.64 4.54 4.46 4.68 3.64

MFC SD 1.026 .793 .630 .764 .621 .629 .573 .559 .576 .744 .548 1.193

School Mean 3.64 3.14 4.29 4.29 4.29 4.43 4.79 4.79 4.57 4.71 4.64 3.93

School SD 1.008 1.231 .611 .611 .611 .756 .426 .426 .514 .469 .497 .730

CMHC Mean 3.36 3.57 4.57 4.36 4.36 4.57 4.85 4.77 4.77 4.69 4.85 4.00

CMHC SD 1.336 1.158 .514 .497 .842 .514 .376 .439 .439 .480 .376 1.155

Total Mean 3.43 3.41 4.32 4.29 4.34 4.45 4.69 4.71 4.60 4.58 4.71 3.80

Total SD 1.093 1.005 .606 .658 .668 .630 .505 .497 .531 .629 .497 1.078

Table 9: Student Participant Awareness Section Means Compared by Diversity

Demographics-

Diversity

Mean and Standard Deviation

Questions Q14 Q15 Q16 Q17 Q18 Q19 Q20 Q21 Q22 Q23 Q24 Q25

Diverse Mean 3.61 3.48 4.39 4.32 4.35 4.52 4.73 4.73 4.63 4.70 4.70 3.80

Diverse SD 1.11

6

1.029 .558 .541 .551 .626 .450 .450 .490 .466 .466 1.031

Not diverse Mean 3.13 3.21 4.17 4.22 4.25 4.29 4.58 4.63 4.50 4.38 4.67 3.79

Not diverse SD 1.03

5

.932 .637 .795 .794 .624 .584 .576 .590 .770 .565 1.179

Not Sure Mean 4.00 4.50 5.00 4.50 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 3.50

Total Mean 3.42 3.40 4.32 4.29 4.33 4.44 4.68 4.70 4.59 4.57 4.70 3.79

Total SD 1.08

5

.997 .602 .653 .664 .627 .508 .502 .532 .628 .502 1.074

12

Findings (Skills Section)

The ability to deliver successful counseling interventions is enhanced when

counselors are consistently working to increase their cultural competence (Tomlinson-

Clarke, 2013). Furthermore, the capability to construct adequate and relevant

interventions are contingent on the ability to obtain and implement cultural awareness

and cultural knowledge (Sue & Sue, 2013). This section of the results of the survey

focused on skills. The skills section consisted of five questions. The results of the five

questions are reported in Table 6. The overall means and standard deviations were near

normal as expected. It’s important to note that the scale was changed from 1 to 5 to 1 to

4, because we did not want the data from the students who had not been taught the skills

to affect our results. The participants were asked to rate each statement according to the

following scale:

▪ 1=Poor

▪ 2= Adequate

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Student Participant Awareness Means as Compared by Diversity

Diverse Mean Not diverse Mean

Figure 5. Comparison of Awareness Means by Diversity This figure demonstrates UNR master’s

students’ scores on the Awareness section of the survey as compared by Diversity.

▪ 3= Good

▪ 4= Excellent

Table 10: Student Participant Skills Section Means Compared by Year

Table 11: Student Participant Skills Section Means Compared by Track

Demographics-Track Mean and Standard Deviation

Questions Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30

MFC Mean 1.17 1.04 1.22 1.57 3.13

MFC SD .778 .878 .902 .728 .694

School Mean 1.50 1.33 1.17 1.50 2.83

School SD .905 1.073 .835 .674 .835

CMHC Mean 1.38 1.00 1.15 1.69 2.92

CMHC SD .870 .707 .801 .855 1.115

Total Mean 1.31 1.08 1.18 1.57 3.00

Total SD .822 .886 .834 .736 .842

Demographics- Year Mean and Standard Deviation

Questions Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30

First Year Mean 1.35 1.06 1.24 1.47 2.76

First Year SD .931 .899 .970 .800 1.033

Second Year Mean 1.36 1.21 1.14 1.57 3.00

Second Year SD .745 .893 .770 .646 .679

Third Year Mean 1.29 1.06 1.24 1.76 3.24

Third Year SD .772 .899 .752 .664 .752

Total Mean 1.31 1.08 1.18 1.57 3.00

Total SD .822 .886 .834 .736 .842

14

Table 12: Student Participant Skills Section Means Compared by Diversity

Demographics-Diversity Mean and Standard Deviation

Questions Q26 Q27 Q28 Q29 Q30

Diverse Mean 1.38 1.23 1.19 1.62 3.12

Diverse SD .804 .951 .849 .697 .711

Not diverse Mean 1.10 .81 1.14 1.43 2.76

Not diverse SD .786 .750 .854 .746 .944

Not Sure Mean 2.50 2.00 1.50 2.50 4.00

Not sure SD .707 .000 .707 .707 .00

Total Mean 1.31 1.08 1.18 1.57 3.00

Total SD .822 .866 .834 .736 .842

Findings (Infusion of multicultural materials in UNR master’s counseling courses)

The current section was designed to measure to what extent culture (broad

definition) was integrated into the UNR master’s counseling curriculum. According to the

CACREP, 2016 Standards, social and diversity standards should be covered in the

counseling program. Programs are required to document where each of the lettered

standards are covered in the curriculum (CACREP, 2016). The following are some

examples of the lettered standards: 2.b. theories and models of multicultural counseling,

cultural identity development, and social justice and advocacy, and 2.d. the impact of

heritage, attitudes, beliefs, understandings, and acculturative experiences on an

individual’s views of others (CACREP, 2016). This section covered 37 courses. The

participants were asked to rate each course according to the following scale:

▪ 1= Very little or no integration

▪ 2= Below average integration

▪ 3= Average integration

▪ 4= Above Average integration

▪ 5= Extensive integration

The table below represents level of integration organized by minimal integration,

medium integration, and high integration. Minimal integration was defined by a mean of

less than 3.0. Medium integration was defined by a mean range of 3.0 to 3.5. High

integration was defined by a mean of greater than 3.5. Minimal integration is designated

by the highlighted means using the aqua blue color.

Table 13: Student Participant Mean Ratings of Multicultural Content by Course

Level of Integration and Means

Mean (High

Integration)

High Integration Course Mean

(Medium

Integration)

Medium Integration

Course

Mean

(Minimal

Integration)

Minimal integration

Course

4.67 Societal Issues and Special

Topics in Clinical Mental

Health

3.50 Special Topics 2.87 Career Development

and Information

Technology

4.10 Crisis and Trauma 3.47 Couples Counseling 2.66 Overview of Addiction

Prevention,

Treatment & Recovery

3.86 Internship-Community Agency 3.36 Theory and Practice

of Marriage

Counseling

2.50 Seminar

3.79 Child and Fam Guidance 3.33 Sexual Issues in

Counseling

2.10 Introduction to

Educational Research

3.75 Multicultural Counseling 3.28 Foundations of

Family Counseling II

1.74 Educational

Measurements &

Statistics

3.67 Counseling Theory and

Process

3.25 Foundations of

Family Counseling I

3.60 Internship-Private Agencies 3.25 Internship-Sec

School

3.59 Assessment and Diagnosis, I 3.21 Pre-Practicum

3.56 Internship Family Counsel 3.19 Law & Ethics in

Counseling

3.55 Grief and Loss 3.17 Internship-Elem

School

3.13 Advanced Human

Growth and

Development

3.08 Advanced Family

Counseling

3.03 Group Counseling

3.00 Counseling and

Consulting in Clinical

Mental Health

16

Discussion

This survey aimed to assess the multicultural competencies of master’s students in

the University of Nevada, Reno counseling program. Additionally, we wanted to examine

the effectiveness of the counseling program’s ability to teach multicultural competency.

The idea for this survey came about as a result of the recent climate and racial incidents

that were occurring on the UNR campus. The University of Nevada, Reno conducted a

climate survey which aimed to understand the climate of the college more effectively.

The overall findings of the campus climate survey indicated that some of the diverse

respondents such as women, trans-spectrum respondents Black/African American

respondents, Queer-spectrum and Bisexual respondents, Multiple Disabilities

respondents, Low-Income Student respondents and First-Generation respondents reported

feeling “significantly less comfortable than men respondents.” Coupled with the

requirements of our accrediting body, our ACA Code of Ethics, and the campus climate

at the University of Nevada, Reno, we wanted to conduct a survey that would capture the

voices of UNR master’s counseling students in relation to diversity and multicultural

content as well as give us more insight into what we could do better as a program in

terms of integrating multicultural content and promoting diversity. The entire survey was

constructed with the purpose of capturing the content of the Tripartite Model of

Multicultural Counseling. This model has been the most widely used tool in the

assessment of multicultural counseling competencies (Sue, Bernier, Durran, Feinberg,

Pedersen, Smith, & Vasquez-Nuttal, 1982).

One of the first parts of the survey that we focused on were demographics, which

were analyzed by year in the program, track, and diversity. We wanted to know who the

students in our program were. This data is reflected in Figures 1-3. We were particularly

focused on diversity, and how many students identified as diverse, not diverse, or unsure

if they were diverse. This data is represented in Table 3. The data shows that 54.4% of

the respondents identify as diverse, 42.2 % identified as non-diverse, and 3.5 % reported

that they were unsure about their diversity. This is an important finding, because the

percentage of diverse students was higher than we expected. Usually, people tend to

identify diversity as solely relating to ethnicity and/or race. In order to expand the

students’ definition of diversity, we included other examples of diversity such as religion,

and sexual orientation, in the question. This may have contributed to the higher than

expected percentage of 54.4 students indicating diversity.

The next section focused on assessing the knowledge component of multicultural

competency. This section consisted of 13 questions. The means were compared by year

in the program, track, and diversity. The results of the mean by year comparison indicate

that the overall means across the thirteen questions were low. The highest reported mean

was a 3.29 which was the mean of Q12, and third year students. Q12 was the following

statement: “I understand what the acronym L.G.B.T.Q.I.A.+ represents and stands for”.

The lowest reported mean was a 1.37 which was the mean of Q7, and second year

students. Q7 was the following statement: I understand the repercussions of the law

IDEA of 2004. This result may indicate that there is not enough focus on disability

studies across our master’s counseling program. We predicted that there would be a

positive correlation between year in the program, and mean on the knowledge questions,

because the longer a student has spent in the program, and the more classes they have

taken, it is expected that their overall knowledge of the content covered in the program

18

would increase. This was not the case. These results are reflected in Table 4, and Figure

4. Another finding that should be noted pertains to Q3 which states: “I understand that

Multiculturalism is one of the main forces in counseling. The comparison of means by

track indicated that across tracks, students understood this concept adequately.

Furthermore, the total mean for Q1 across year, track, and diversity ranged from 1.58 to

1.61. This indicates that knowledge of the concept of the Tripartite model of Counseling

was closest to minimal for all respondents in the survey. This finding is interesting,

because this is the concept that out entire model is based around, and it is one of the most

basic concepts that is covered in multicultural counseling courses. The results of the

mean by diversity comparison indicated a very low mean on Q10. Q10 states: “I

understand the major tenants of Hinduism”. The mean for diverse students was 1.30, and

the mean for non-diverse students was a 1.65. This may be indicative of low coverage of

religious material in the counseling program.

The subsequent section focused on awareness. The awareness section consisted of

12 statements. The results of the 12 statements are reported in Tables 7-9. The means

were compared by year in the program, track, and diversity. The results of the mean by

year comparison indicated that the total means ranged from 3.05 to 4.70. The lowest

mean in this section was 3.05 for Q14 among first-year students. Q14 states the

following: “Since joining the program, I have engaged in many immersion experiences”.

The first-year student respondents on average reported being undecided in relation to the

aforementioned statement. The results of the mean by track comparison indicated that

the total means ranged from 3.41 to 4.71. The lowest mean of 3.41 was associated with

Q15 which stated the following: “Using a model of ethnic identity development, I know

what stage I am currently at”. The highest mean of 4.71 was associated with Q21 which

stated the following: “I am aware of the importance of reflecting on the attitudes, beliefs,

prejudices, and biases I hold about privileged and marginalized clients. The overall

results of the awareness section demonstrate that students rated themselves highly on

awareness. Their ratings ranged from undecidedness to strong agreement. This may

indicate that awareness is being covered enough and covered adequately in the UNR

master’s program. Furthermore, even though students are ratings themselves highly on

awareness overall, it should be noted that when compared by diversity, diverse students

rated themselves higher on awareness than non-diverse students. These results are

reported in Table 9 and Figure 5.

The third section focused on skills. The skills section consisted of 5 items. The

results of the 5 statements are reported in Tables 10-12. The means were compared by

year in the program, track, and diversity. The results of the mean by year comparison

indicated that the total means ranged from 1.06 to 3.00. The lowest mean in this section

was 1.06 for Q27 among first year students. Q27 states the following: “How would you

rate your ability in identifying the biases present in psychological tests in terms of their

use with persons from different cultural/racial/ethnic backgrounds”? The highest mean in

this section was 3.24 for Q30 among third year students. Q30 stated the following: “How

would you rate your skills in terms of being able to consult with another mental health

professional concerning the needs of a client from a different cultural background”? The

results of the means compared by track and diversity showed similar results as the year

comparison. For the track comparison, the means ranged from 1.04 to 3.13. Once again,

the highest mean was for Q30 among MFC students. For the diversity comparison, the

20

means ranged from .81 to 4.00. Again, the highest mean was for Q30. According to the

data, students were the most confident in terms of identifying biases present in

psychological tests in terms of their use with persons from different cultural/racial/ethnic

backgrounds. Overall, the results indicated that student participants rated themselves low

on the skills questions aside from question 30 which is stated above. The implications of

these results are that skill development should be emphasized more throughout the

program.

The fourth section focused on cultural integration within the master’s counseling

program courses. The current section was designed to measure to what extent culture

(broad definition) was integrated into the UNR master’s counseling curriculum. The

section covered 37 courses. Table 13 represents level of integration organized by minimal

integration, medium integration, and high integration. Minimal integration was defined

by a mean of less than 3.0 Medium integration was defined by a mean range of 3.0 to 3.5.

High integration was defined by a mean of greater than 3.5. High integration is

designated by the highlighted means using the red color. Medium integration is

designated by the highlighted means using the yellow color. Minimal integration is

designated by the highlighted means using the aqua blue color. The means for the level of

integration of multicultural content ranged from a mean of 1.74 to a mean of 4.67. The

two classes that indicated the lowest level of integration were Educational Measurements

& Statistics and Introduction to Educational Research. The class that indicated the

highest level of integration was Societal Issues and Special Topics in Clinical Mental

Health. This course is a specialty clinical mental health counseling course. Interestingly

enough, all but two courses under the high integration category were either specialty

school, clinical mental health, and marriage and family therapy counseling programs. The

two courses in the high integration section that were not specialty courses were

Multicultural Counseling and Counseling Theory and Process. These results were not

surprising, because the multicultural counseling course focuses primarily on culture, and

counseling theories addresses culture in relation to every theory that is covered. The

results of these analyses may demonstrate the need for the program to focus on

integrating more multicultural content in research courses.

Next Steps and Tentative Recommendations

The next step in the process is to conduct student focus groups. The authors of

this report will conduct student focus groups in the spring of 2020. The purpose of the

groups is to gain a deeper level of understanding of the experience of students in the

program with diversity and with multicultural content in the curriculum. The focus group

data will be used in conjunction with survey data to help form recommendations. The

recommendations will be made by the student authors to the counseling program faculty

in the spring of 2020. Tentative recommendations for the counseling program are as

follows:

1. Integrate more material about disabilities when talking about diversity across

the program.

2. Focus on improving skill acquisition among master’s students.

3. Fully cover the concept of the Tripartite model of counseling.

4. Increase coverage of religions when talking about diversity across the

program.

5. Offer more opportunities for immersion experiences.

22

6. Make sure to cover the Ethnic Model of identity development and ensure that

students are able to apply it to themselves throughout the program. (emphasize

with students who don’t identify as diverse)

7. Increase the integration of the influence of culture on psychometric tests.

8. Touch on collaborative practice and consultation with other professionals

(skills)

9. Culture (broad definition should be integrated across the program-not just the

multicultural course. We should focus on scaffolding the material throughout

students’ tenure in the program.

10. Integration of multicultural content should especially be increased in the

research courses, the career course, and addiction course.

11. Give greater attention by emphasizing content that applies to vulnerable

populations throughout the program (LGBTQIA, Native American, Asian,

Pacific Islander, Latin X, undocumented, Refugee).

12. In working to develop skills, awareness, competency, help students engage

with the work of understanding their own levels of privilege (aside from just

racial/ethnic) as a way of understanding the role of intersectionality and its

role in identity.

13. Develop greater application for skill development within students to better

understand how microaggressions can negatively impact the client-counselor

relationship.

14. The program will work towards outreach with community partners that can

offer unique workshops around the theme of multiculturalism.

15. The program will work on incorporating more opportunities for skills

development when students are working with populations whose primary

language is not English.

16. Emphasize in the program greater awareness, knowledge, and skill in the

counselor (where the counselor is part of the majority or minority group)

when working with clients who are in the majority or minority.

17. Help students engage with advisors to set goals related to how the program

can best support them in their multicultural competency development.

24

References

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs.

(2015). 2016 CACREP standards. Retrieved from: http://www.cacrep.org/wp-

content/uploads/2012/10/2016-CACREP-Standards.pdf

Hill, N. R. (2003). Promoting and celebrating multicultural competence in counselor

trainees. Counselor Education and Supervision, 43(1), 39-51.

Holcomb‐McCoy, C. C., & Myers, J. E. (1999). Multicultural competence and counselor

training: A national survey. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(3), 294-

302

Minami, M. (2008). Role of attitude in multicultural counseling competency. World

Cultural Psychiatry Research Review, 4, 39-46.

Sue, D. W., Bernier, J. E., Durran, A., Feinberg, L., Pedersen, P., & Smith, E. (86).

Vasquez-‐Nuttal, E.(1982). Position paper: Cross-‐cultural counseling

competencies. The Counseling Psychologist, 10, 45452.

Sue, D. W. & Sue, D. (2013). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and

practice ( 6th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Tomlinson-Clarke, S. (2013). Multicultural counseling competencies: Extending

multicultural training paradigms toward globalization. VISTAS 2013.