The Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals: Past and Future Essay

Introduction For professional membership organizations, a code of ethics has

many purposes for educators, practitioners and students. Ethical codes define acceptable behavior and responsibilities in practice and education (Burger, 2008). They promote the welfare of clients, providing assurance that established and widely accepted standards will be followed (Corey, Corey & Callanan, 2011; Vesper & Brock, 1991). They also moderate the influence of personal values in professional practice (Spano & Koenig, 2007), thus promoting the stability of professions (Remley & Herlihy, 2010). They represent the consensus of members in a profession (Scalise, 2000) and signify the maturity of a professional organization (Wilcoxon, Remley, Gladding & Huber, 2008). Finally, following a code of ethics protects practitioners in malpractice suits and provides professional organizations self-control instead of potential regulation by government (Corey, Corey & Callanan, 2011; Dolgoff, Loewenberg & Harrington, 2009).

BUY A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

Despite their usefulness, difficulties are inherent in ethical codes. Codes cannot replace decision-making processes to navigate ethical dilemmas (Dolgoff, Loewenberg & Harrington, 2009). They immediately become outdated as new laws, social policy and social problems perpetually arise (Neukrug, 2010). Further, ethical codes do not encompass all of the values of an organization’s members (Spano & Koenig, 2007), nor do they include all possible clinical situations (Remley & Herlihy, 2010). Finally, laws can override an organization’s code of ethics (Burger, 2008).

Although not exhaustive, the above information addresses the impact ethical codes can have on a profession. Therefore, it is important to consider how codes are developed and revised. This article specifically concerns the code of ethics of the National Organization for Human Services.

19 | P a g e

The History of the Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals

For the National Organization for Human Services (NOHS, formerly NOHSE), the history of its code of ethics formally began in 1990 (see “Special Feature,” 1996 for a full account). In 1991, with interest from the Council for Standards in Human Service Education (CSHSE), the NOHS Board commissioned a joint CSHSE and NOHS committee for the development of a code. Code development was also influenced by a university faculty member and seven graduate students who developed a code for the Southern Organization for Human Service Education (SOHSE). To guide them, codes of ethics from related helping professions and literature on ethical guidelines were reviewed. In 1992, SOHSE submitted this code to NOHSE and CSHSE. The document was reviewed and revised by the NOHSE committee and subsequently distributed to the NOHSE membership for feedback. Students and faculty from multiple levels of degree-granting programs in human services worked their way through 27 revisions. In 1993, the NOHSE and CSHSE boards of directors accepted a draft, and a committee of the board made further revisions. Finally, in 1994, the boards of both NOHSE and CSHSE vetted the code, and in 1995, subsequently sought approval of the membership by mail ballot. The result of these efforts was the establishment of the Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals (see “Special Feature,” 1996 and pp. 81 – 89 of this journal). The Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals: Past and Future Essay

Current Status of NOHS Code and the New CCE Code At this writing, the Ethical Standards for Human Service

Professionals are 15 years old. In that time, changes in the profession and in society have impacted the practice of human service professionals. For instance, increased sensitivity to cross-cultural differences, advances in technology, new laws that protect client rights, and modified views of practitioner-client relationships compel us to re-examine this original code (Neukrug, 2010). A re-examination also permits a fresh look at related practices, such as how grievances are handled and methods of enforcement.

In its current form, the NOHS code of ethics addresses the human service professional’s responsibility to clients, community and society, colleagues, the profession, employers, and self. In addition, it addresses a set of standards for human service educators. Codes of similar professions have additional areas that could be considered in a revision of the NOHS code such as ethics for research, financial arrangements with clients, cultural competence, use of technology, end- of-life decisions, breaking of confidentiality with individuals who have high risk communicable diseases, and administrative ethics (American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, 2001; American

20 | P a g e

Counseling Association, 2005; American Psychological Association, 2003; National Association of Social Workers, 2008).

As it looks toward revising the code of ethics, NOHS must now take into consideration the Human Services-Board Certified Practitioner Code of Ethics (HS-BCP) recently developed by the Center for Credentialing and Education (CCE) and instituted when the certification for human services became official in 2008. Those holding the HSB-CP certification and having membership in NOHS now have two codes of ethics to follow.

As CCE prepared to offer the certification, it was necessary to have a way to monitor the functioning of certificants and to adjudicate infractions (S. Kerewsky, personal communication, May 17, 2010). Concerned about the enforcement power of a code and aware that some who would become certified were not members of NOHS, CCE decided to develop its own code. Forming a committee that included NOHS and CSHSE members, CCE developed a code that could withstand legal challenges and was focused on behavioral expectations. This focus contrasts with the current NOHS code, which includes aspirational statements as well as statements that are a matter of opinion and are open to interpretation (S. Kerewsky, personal communication, May 17, 2010). Such codes are less clear about what behaviors are expected, thereby making it more difficult to determine whether a member adheres to certain standards, and, thus, more difficult to enforce (S. Hinkle, personal communication, May 19, 2010). Given there is merit in both the CCE code and the NOHS code, a revision process should include contemplation of what it means to follow two codes of ethics and should resolve any conflicts between them.

The Revision Process Code revision can be thought of as having two main foci, content

changes and the revision process. Content changes often include statements of vision, principles, and rules of conduct (von Baeyer, 1998). Vision statements suggest ideals to pursue and are stated in abstract terms, such as: “social justice concerns of clients should be pursued by human service professionals.” Principles are less abstract than visions and use broad, profession-relevant statements such as: “human service professionals are accountable to their clients.” Rules of conduct are concrete and measurable, such as “sexual relationships with clients are prohibited.” The rules of conduct should not betray the organization’s vision or principles (Kipnis & Feeney, 1999). The second focus, the process of determining the content, is concerned with the steps that are taken to include stakeholders. Such inclusion makes member adherence to a code more likely (Kipnis & Feeney, 1999). For instance, in a revision process of the NOHS code, it would be important to reach out to NOHS members, members with dual

21 | P a g e

membership in NOHS and other professional organizations, those in the social service trenches, educators, students, and the public. All offer a unique perspective and therefore increase member buy-in to the final code (Kipnis & Feeney, 1999; Pope, 1996).

Although best practice guidelines have not been established for developing or revising codes of ethics, certain steps have been delineated by related helping professionals toward the development and/or revision of ethical codes (Blair, 2004; Glosoff & Kocet, 2006; Kipnis & Feeney, 1999; Pope, 1996; Special Feature, 1996). For example, committees have examined published research on ethical concerns, reviewed credentialing requirements and legal concerns, and conducted research grounded in members’ real-world ethical dilemmas. Committees have also sought feedback from stakeholders by posting drafts of ethical codes on organization websites, consulted with experts within and outside the profession, developed a database of members’ perceived problems in their daily work, offered workshops nationally, held nationwide discussions of case studies, and provided open forums at national conferences (Glosoff & Kocet, 2006; Kipnis & Feeney, 1999; Pope, 1996; Special Feature, 1996). For any revision of the NOHS code, the variety of sources and methods will increase the validity of the eventual code.

Conclusion This article examined the purpose of ethical codes, the development of the NOHS Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals, the current status of the NOHS code and the new CCE code, and the revision process of a code. The revision process of an ethical code is a multi-layered effort which takes several years. Any effective outcome is dependent on an inclusive procedure with contributions from diverse groups of people. As we begin this process, a task force is being created, and members of NOHS, as well as other interested stakeholders, are encouraged to contact the NOHS administrative office regarding involvement in this effort.

References American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy (2001).

AAMFT Code of Ethics. Retrieved from www.aamft.org/resources/lrm_plan/ethics/ethicscode2001.asp

American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, VA: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2003). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

22 | P a g e

Blair, N. (2004). Law, ethics and the human service worker. In H.S. Harris, D.C. Maloney & F.M. Rother (Eds.), Human services: Contemporary issues and trends (3rd ed, Chapter 23.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.

Burger, W.R. (2008). Human services in contemporary America. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Corey, G., Corey, M.S. & Callanan, P. (2011). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Dolgoff, R., Leowenberg, F.M., & Harrington, D. (2009). Ethical decisions for social work practice (8th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks/Cole.

Kipnis, K. & Feeney, S. (1999). Developing a code for early childhood education. Perspectives on the Professions, 19, 7-9.

National Association of Social Workers (2008). Code of ethics. Retrieved from http://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/code.asp

Neukrug, E. (2010). NOHS ethical code: A time for revision? The Link, 30(2), 7-9.

Pope, K.S. (1992). Ethical dilemmas encountered by members of the American Psychological Association: A national survey. American Psychologist, 47, 397-411.

Remley, T. P., & Herlihy, B. (2010). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in counseling (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Scalise, J.J. (2000). The ethical practice of marriage and family therapy. In A.M. Horne (Ed.), Family counseling and therapy (3rd ed., pp. 565-596). Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock.

Spano, R., & Koenig, T. (2007). What is sacred when personal and professional values collide? Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 4(3). Retrieved from http://www.socialworker.com/jswe

Special feature: Ethical Standards for human service professionals (1996). Human Service Education, 16, 11-17.

Vesper & Brock (1991). Ethics, legalities, and professional practices issues in marriage and family therapy. Allyn and Bacon: Needham Heights, MA. Von Baeyer, C. (1998, August). Our code of ethics: A shared vision,

high principles and some good housekeeping. Au Courant, 7(3). Wilocoxon, S.A., Remley, T.P., Gladding, S.T., & Huber, C.H. (2007).

Ethical, legal, and professional issues in the practice of marriage and family therapy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.

Copyright of Journal of Human Services is the property of National Organization of Human Services and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

The Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals: Past and Future Essay