Crossroads: The Psychology of Immigration in the New Century

Another notable multicultural assessment model is the
Multicultural Assessment-Intervention Process (MAIP; Dana,
2005). Both MAP and MAIP incorporate culturally sensitive
assessment interviews, collecting essential information
on acculturation, language, religious practices, racism and
prejudice, and cultural values as part of the assessment process.
Culturally sensitive assessment is dynamic, not static; is cyclical,
not linear; and seeks to incorporate cultural variables as central
to all phases of the assessment process (Yeh & Kwan, 2010).
Experts in cultural assessment have advocated for a
contextual approach to psychological testing and diagnosis
(Comas-Díaz & Grenier, 1998; Grieger, 2008). A contextual
approach is consistent with the ecological perspective in
that it considers both internal and external factors that
contribute to clients’ presenting problems. For example,
a contextual approach considers the role of the client’s
explanatory models or views of illness and recovery in
the interpretation of test data and in providing feedback
concerning test data to the client in a culturally sensitive
way. The contextual approach further considers the role of
clinician as a part of a larger system of mental health care. As
such, it is important that clinicians examine their own biases
and expectations that may affect the testing process and
routinely consult with colleagues and supervisors who may
be important sources of knowledge concerning the client’s
sociocultural context and provide support throughout the
assessment process.
assessment in Forensic and Legal
settings
While issues relative to the assessment of immigrants are
most frequently addressed in the context of educational
and clinical settings, the significance of culturally and
linguistically valid assessment also has crucial bearing
within forensic and judicial/legal settings, including family
courts, immigration courts, and criminal courts. Using
psychological assessment tools that significantly affect the
lives of immigrants and their families, psychologists may be
called on to make critical decisions regarding deportation or
asylum, preservation or denial of citizenship, unification or
separation of families, and incarceration or freedom.
A significant and growing number of both documented and
undocumented immigrants are facing issues that require
adjudication in legal settings (Ochoa, Pleasants, Penn, &
Stone, 2010). The numbers of noncitizen prisoners in both
Assessment With Immigrant-Origin Adults and Children
federal and state prison systems vary significantly according
to the source of data. According to the U.S. Department
of Justice (2006), 20% of inmates in federal prisons were
noncitizens in 2005; when federal and state prisons were
combined, 6.4% of the nation’s prisoners were noncitizens
at that time. In addition, over the last decade, U.S. policy
has tripled its number of deportations. With respect to the
immigrant population in detention, the Detention Watch
Network and Mills Legal Clinic (2010) 5 projected that by
2010, the U.S. government would hold more than 400,000
persons in immigration custody at an annual cost of more
than $1.77 billion.
In terms of the number of detainees suffering with
mental health problems, U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) reported that in the fiscal year 2008, it
performed 29,423 mental health interventions and managed
a daily population of between 1,350 and 2,160 detainees
with serious mental illnesses (U.S. ICE, 2008a, 2008b). Based
on ICE population data, this represents approximately 4–7%
of detainees. Estimates of this population from other sources
put it closer to 15% (Ochoa et al., 2010).
Unfortunately, until recently, relatively little attention
had been paid to forensic mental health assessments in
immigration cases (Frumkin & Friedland, 1995). The
question of how to fairly assess immigrants with all of the
linguistic and cultural issues discussed earlier is equally
pertinent. The same kinds of challenges apply to legal
contexts as to educational and clinical contexts—for
example, lack of standardized translations, absence of
appropriate normed standards for the specific population,
and psychologists who are not linguistically or culturally
familiar with their clients. Thus, given the cultural and
linguistic biases of the instruments at our disposal, caution
must always be exercised when making assessments that have
critical bearings on individuals’ and families’ lives.
In addition, the forensic and legal fields currently suffer
from an absence of clear, consistent procedures for screening,
diagnosing, and accommodating mental disabilities and
establishing hardship (Cervantes, Mejía, & Guerrero
Mena, 2010), as well as guidelines to establishing mental,
psychological, and cultural competency in immigration
courts (see Legal Action Center, 2010). Such standards and
guidelines should be applicable to all key personnel in the
respective setting (e.g., lawyers, psychologists, and judges). In
cases in which immigrants are incarcerated, detained, and/
5 Stanford Law School’s Immigrant Rights Clinic.
51