Cultural and Language Matching in Practice

A large number of the referral forms in the sector include a language field, and most searches end there. To get a Vietnamese-speaking worker for a Vietnamese-speaking participant, box ticked, arrangement made. Then months later, the coordinator receives feedback from family members that the supports never really took place: the family member referred to the worker as "them", or "he", or "she", or that meals were not always successful, or that the family member's mother stopped asking for help. Language matched. Nothing else did.

When cultural matching is undertaken effectively, it is one of the most powerful tools a coordinator can have to ensure supports are effective, especially for people from culturally and linguistically diverse communities, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Done as a check box, it gives rise to a common language and a common misunderstanding. The difference is, of course, the questions posed BEFORE the search.

What matching actually covers

Language, precisely. Not only what language (spoken or signed), but what language at home, and how fluent in which contexts. Someone can be comfortable in English for business, but take on his native language for emotional or complicated matters, precisely where excellent support work resides. Except where they are connecting with clinical appointments, day-to-day support does not go through an interpreter, and worker language capability is more important than it is in just about any place else in the system.

Cultural practice in the home. How to eat, when to eat, what to say during mealtimes, gender roles in personal hygiene, the way elders are spoken to, who is welcomed first, what a guest can and can't do, what a guest never does. When doing support work within the home, the worker works within the rules, whether or not they have been explained. Asking the participant and family what matters to them is a way to say "what matters" in a briefing.

Community context. In the smaller communities, everyone knows everyone, and that goes the other way around too. Some would like a particular worker from their own community, while others would like to have a particular person from outside of their community. Both preferences are valid, both are common, and the only way to determine the correct one is to ask instead of assume.

First Nations cultural safety for participants. Identity matching is not just for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, it is also for their safety, that is, the worker and the arrangement are safe for them and their families. Some participants will seek to have an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander worker, others will be looking at other factors. It is the responsibility of the coordinator to ask and listen, to involve the family and community voices where the participant wishes, and never assume that cultural safety is achieved through good intentions.

Running the match

With the participant, make the cultural brief before searching: language of the home, practices that matter, the community preference and the absolute requirements (gender of worker for personal care). Search on the criteria that can be filtered (such as language), and then use the profiles and meet-and-greet to search the parts that cannot. Cultural fit is best seen in the meet-and-greet: its location should be where the participant feels comfortable, it should be attended by the family members who he or she is comfortable with, and the reading of the interaction should be considered data of the highest quality. After a meeting, a family's hesitation is not a polite manner to be handled. It's a message from the match.

If this ideal match does not exist in their pool of available support, tell the truth and plan accordingly: request someone who has experience of supporting persons from the participant's community, include a family-led cultural briefing, and set a clear review point early in the arrangement. A match that doesn't fit perfectly and is done in a humble manner frequently beats a perfect one that is done in a pompous way.

How this plays out in practice

For example, consider a participant who came from an Iraqi background, who is funded for personal care and community access. The language field indicates Arabic. The questions that arise behind it bring up the true brief: the need to have a female worker for personal care, the need of the family to observe their Assyrian Christian faith in the worker's presence, and the need of the mother (who provides the most informal support) to have the opportunity to communicate directly with the worker who would otherwise not understand her. A search with filters based on Arabic-speaking female workers, and a meet and greet at home with the mother as the focal point, results in an arrangement that will finally free her, for the first time she can pass on care to someone who can communicate with her.

The coordinator's line

Document the cultural brief in the same manner as the clinical picture, and share it with the next person at handover with the participant's consent. Culture is not a "preference" added to the supports. It is the condition that allows support, for many participants, to be accepted at all.

Next steps

Select the top three most culturally specific caseload arrangements, and determine if there is a written cultural brief for each. Write it down this month, where currently it can be found only in the family's patience.