Journal of Social Work Values & Ethics

The first, and weakest, option involves determining that dual relationships can have positive outcomes for clients, and, as a result, that parents should be hired, without hesitation or guidelines, to work in Head Start programs. The application of this option in practice is illustrated by Case One. While appearing to ignore the NASW Code of Ethics (1999) recommendation against dual relationships, this solution, instead, focuses on the clause indicating that dual relationships are acceptable if not exploitive. To ensure that the relationships do not cross the line into exploitation, it would be important to follow the recommendations of Corey, Corey, and Callanan (1998), including informed consent, open discussion, consultation, supervision, documentation, and examination of personal motivation.

This option would maximize a minimal number of values and principles while minimizing many. Hiring parents would honor autonomy, self-determination, and the worth and dignity of the person, while also possibly enhancing the economic well-being of the parent. However, the values of privacy, well-being of children, well-being of parents, human relationships, integrity, service, and equality would be potentially lessened. This option also diminishes both beneficence (providing benefits) and nonmaleficence (avoiding causing harm) as defined by Beauchamp and Childress (1994) since the hiring of parents may not be in the best interest of each individual parent interested in employment.

This alternative is ethically grounded in consequentialist theory, which determine that “actions are right or wrong according to the balance of their good and bad consequences” (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994, p 47). First, classic teleological theory or proportionalism could be applied using the principle of the lesser of two evils. As there are possible negative outcomes to both hiring parents and to not hiring parents, this ethical principle justifies the decision to hire parents on the basis of it being the lesser of the two evils. From this principle, the potential good that can come from hiring parents outweighs the potential bad effect because of the belief, supported by the literature review, that dual relationships can be positive. As such, any possible negative outcomes for the enrolled children or parents are outweighed by the potential good, making it the better of the two options. This theoretical perspective recognizes that the choice to hire or to not hire a parent is not going to consistently result in positive outcomes, but determines that it is better to decide on the option that produces the least harm. Utilitarianism can also be used, which defines that an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number (Beauchamp & Childress, 1984; Reamer, 1990). Hiring parents could be thought to benefit the majority because the employed parent would provide a role model to other parents and may, therefore, positively impact other parents, which would be a significant good for the greatest number.

This option is the weakest alternative as it decreases more values and principles than it enhances. Furthermore, the support provided for this option by the application of consequentialist theory is not of sufficient strength: the risk of harm remains great, outweighing the possible benefits. Therefore, while it is a plausible option, it is not recommended.

Option 2

The second alternative is the determination that dual relationships are negative, and, therefore, programs should not hire parents of enrolled children to work under any circumstances. Though this option would be in compliance with the NASW (1999) recommendation against participating in dual relationships, it would be in direct contradiction to the Head Start Performance Standards Final Rule (1996). To follow this course of action, the social worker would have to inform the agency that it is unethical to hire parents, as per the NASW Code of Ethics (1999), and to then not engage in this practice.

Using this option, the social worker is maximizing more values and principles than are being minimized. However, autonomy and the worth and dignity of the person are lessened by preventing the parent from making a choice on her or his own behalf, and the economic well-being of the parent may also be decreased. Despite these deficits, this option maximizes the well-being of the children, general well-being of the parent, well-being of the social worker, and well-being of the staff. The social worker’s integrity is maintained while providing quality services and acting in a trustworthy manner. Equality is not infringed upon and the quality of the human relationships is maintained. Beneficence and nonmaleficence are also supported as the social worker is endeavoring to act for the benefit of others and to do no harm (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994).

Not hiring the parents of enrolled children is also best justified utilizing consequentialist theory. In particular, a utilitarian theoretical argument can be used in which “the right act … is the one that produces the best overall result, as determined from an impersonal perspective that gives equal weight to the interests of each affected party” (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994, p.47). Therefore, failing to hire parents is acting in a manner that promotes the greatest good for the greatest number. Using this perspective, the social worker would consider everyone involved in the program, including all of the children, parents, and staff, and would act in a manner that benefits the majority. While hiring parents may benefit the few parents who are hired, it clearly has the ability to negatively impact on the majority, as in Case 1. Therefore, utilitarian theory supports the judgment that parents should not be hired.

While this alternative maximizes a number of pertinent values and principles and has a stronger grounding in consequentialist theory, it is not reflective of optimal desirability because it diminishes the values of freedom and dignity and worth of the person. In addition, using this option could jeopardize the continuation of federal funding because it would be a violation of the Head Start Performance Standards Final Rule (1996). Though this option is more acceptable than the first one proposed, it is not the best alternative available.

Case 2

The following practice case example provides an illustration of the use of Option 3 to resolve the conflict of dual relationships in Head Start. This case demonstrates how a social worker administering a Head Start program can meet the federal requirement to give parents preference for positions without jeopardizing her ethical base for practice and with minimizing the risk of negatively affecting the professional helping relationship.

The social worker administrator of an Early Head Start program had open positions which had been advertised. She was contacted by a social worker from a local, unaffiliated Head Start program as to the education and employment requirements for the position. A parent from the Head Start program, Tabatha, was then referred by the Head Start program social worker to the Early Head Start program administrator for consideration. Tabatha was a current Head Start parent, but she did not have children enrolled in the Early Head Start program that was hiring. As per the compromise solution guidelines, Tabatha was hired after a consultation process and approval by the Policy Council. The program administrator met with Tabatha regularly to support her role as a Head Start parent while also helping her to develop her professional skills. She was encouraged to remain actively involved in the child development program that her daughter attended. She was supported in dealing with issues of role conflict that arose, such as what to do when her daughter was ill and had to remain home when Tabatha was due to report to work at the Early Head Start program. Tabatha was not in a collegial relationship with her case manager, which protected that relationship, while also protecting Tabatha’s relationships with her co-workers, parents enrolled in her daughter’s program, and parents enrolled in the Early Head Start program.

Option 3

The third alternative, illustrated in Case 2, reflects a mediating course of action, recognizing that dual relationships can be harmful, while also acknowledging that hiring parents in some circumstances can be beneficial. It uses the literature to craft a viable alternative that hinges on the understanding that each situation is different and must be treated as unique. In this option, parents may be hired to work in Head Start programs, but guidelines and policies would be established to ensure that the ensuing dual relationships are neither exploitive nor harmful. Specific policies to guide practice would be established and maintained that would support the ethical conduct of the social worker rather than a blanket policy supporting or banning dual relationships. For example, one guideline could be that parents would not be employed to work in the same setting as their child. Another guideline could be that the program would hire parents from a local, nonaffiliated Head Start and that the program would refer parents interested in employment opportunities to this separate Head Start. As such, parents could still receive priority for employment without establishing dual relationships as illustrated above. As the Head Start Performance Standards Final Rule (1996) indicates that priority is to be given to former parents as well as to currently enrolled parents, staff recruitment efforts would first be aimed at former parents.

This solution maximizes all of the values and principles by virtue of the decision making process involved. Parents retain their autonomy and worth and dignity by being free to apply for the available positions as per their choice and the quality of the services is maintained by the right of the program to not hire the parent if it is not determined to be a good fit. In Case 2, Tabatha had the choice to apply or to not apply for the position, maintaining her autonomy and dignity, and the social worker administrator had the ability to determine that Tabatha would be a good fit with the program, maintaining the quality of services. Individualized decisions in hiring also serve to protect privacy, as parents who do not seem able to navigate the confidentiality issues raised by dual relationships would not be hired. As the parent would not be working in the same setting as her/his child, issues of equality are addressed, the well-being of the enrolled children is ensured, and role conflict issues are diminished. In Case 2, Tabatha did not experience the same level of personal distress over the care of her child that Yolanda did in Case 1, and, therefore, she was freer to meet the needs of the children in her care. The well-being of the parents is also supported by recognizing that employment in the program may be beneficial for some parents but not for others. Individual decisions would permit the social worker to utilize practice wisdom rather than blindly following a maxim to either hire all parents or to not hire any parents. With this alternative, human relationships would be enhanced by the value placed on the individual. In fact, Tabatha’s experience of relationships and social support was expanded by working for the Early Head Start program as she was able to maintain her friendships with parents in the Head Start program while forming new friendship and collegial relationships with her co-workers at the Early Head Start program. The overall integrity, well-being, and trustworthiness of the social worker is maintained because it is acceptable for the social worker to utilize free choice in deciding to begin or to not begin a dual relationship (Tomm, 1993).

Unlike the first two options which were best supported by consequentialist theories, this option is best grounded in deontological theory. While consequentialist theories focus on the consequences of an action, deontological theory determines that actions are right based upon principle (Reamer, 1990). Act deontological theory, particularly, supports this option by allowing for rules to be generated over time and to be based on specific situations (Frankena, 1973). With each parent applicant, such as Tabatha, new wisdom is gained as to how best to resolve this dilemma and new guidelines evolve that would continue to guide the social worker in the future. From the act deontological perspective, general rules do not take precedence over particular judgments (Frankena, 1973). Therefore, the social worker could utilize the developing base of knowledge to make decisions about hiring parents without having to follow a guideline that always prohibits hiring parents or that always compels hiring parents. From the act deontological perspective, the situation is clearly taken into consideration, and the principle that best applies to that situation is utilized (Beauchamp & Childress, 1994; Frankena, 1973). However, while taking the situation into consideration is paramount, it would also be important to build a body of policies and guidelines for the social worker to follow in the future as the major limitation of this option is that the potential for inequality exists. If parents are not treated equally, the definition of standards over time could prove to be unethical.

Clinical pragmatism also provides support for this solution by its focus on the individual and on the process used for decision-making (Tong, 1997). In this option, the attention is clearly on the individual and on deciding what is best for that particular individual rather than on what is best for parents as a group, as demonstrated by Case 2 The guidelines encourage a reflection process in making the decision rather than a reliance on following the Head Start Performance Standard Final Rule (1996) or the NASW Code of Ethics (1999) without contemplation or deliberation. This type of reflection is in sync with Mattison’s (2000) assertion that ethical decision-making involve continuous reflection and self-awareness. Clinical pragmatism also revolves around the use of consensus (Fins, Bacchetta, & Miller, 1997). In this option, consensus could be incorporated into the hiring decision process by involving the staff member who is providing case management services or the program manager, ensuring that the social worker receives guidance in coming to a determination, rather than making a unilateral decision. This step of consulting with colleagues is in keeping with Congress’s (2000) process model for the resolution of ethical dilemmas. In Case 2, the social worker administrator of the program consulted with Tabatha’s case manager after obtaining Tabatha’s consent and with members of the Early Head Start program management and staff. The Policy Council was also actively involved in making the decision regarding hiring Tabatha.

Overall, this option presents as the strongest of the three possible alternatives to resolving this dilemma in the practice situation. It is supported by ethical theory, it maximizes values and principles, and it adheres to the author’s hierarchy of values. Based on these factors, the author would choose to follow this compromise solution and would support the hiring of parents to work in programs in some circumstances provided that guidelines were developed and were utilized to ensure that the risk of harm was significantly minimized.

Conclusion

As more social workers are hired by Head Start and by other programs that hire clients or community members as staff, the issue of dual relationships will become increasingly pertinent. Through the use of an ethical model for decision-making, it is possible to determine that the compromise solution is the best option for the social worker in this situation to use in resolving this ethical dilemma. With this resolution, the social worker maintains the ability to act in compliance with federal regulations, and, thereby ensures that the program funding is not placed in jeopardy. While this solution does potentially result in the establishment of some dual relationships with parents of enrolled children, the practice of coming to individualized decisions ensures that the possibility of harm or exploitation is significantly diminished. Social workers employed by programs using this solution would need to remain vigilant as to the potential for problems when dual relationships are established and to the potential for issues of inequality if parents are not treated equally as guidelines develop over time. Overall, this decision, which is securely grounded in the ethical and practice knowledge bases, represents the best alternative for ethical practice.

References

Administration for Children and Families. (2004, April). Head Start program fact sheet: Fiscal year 2003. Washington, DC: Head Start Bureau. Retrieved from the World Wide Web on June 1, 2004 from http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/hsb/research/2004.htm.

Bader, E. (1994). Dual relationships: Legal and ethical trends. Transactional Analysis,24 (1), 64-66.

Bass, D. (1996). Family support across programs and populations. In G.H.S. Singer, L.E. Powers, & A.L. Olson (Eds.), Redefining family support: Innovations in public-private partnerships (pp.39-55). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co.

Beauchamp, T.L., & Childress, J.F. (1994). Principles of biomedical ethics (4^th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bograd, M. (1993). The duel over dual relationships. The California Therapist, 5(1), 7-16.

Borys, D.S. (1994). Maintaining therapeutic boundaries: The motive is therapeutic effectiveness, not defensive practice. Ethics & Behavior, 4(3), 267-273.

Borys, D.S., & Pope, K.S. (1989). Dual relationships between therapist and client: A national study of psychologists, psychiatrists, and social workers. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 20(5) 283-293.

Brown, L.S. (1994). Concrete boundaries and the problem of literal mindedness: A response to Lazarus. Ethics & Behavior, 4(3), 275-281.

Congress, E.P. (1996). Dual relationships in academia: Dilemmas for social work educators. Journal of Social Work Education, 32(3), 329-338.

Congress, E.P. (2000). What social workers should know about ethics: Understanding and resolving practice dilemmas. Advances in Social Work, 1(1), 1-25.

Corey, G., & Corey, M.S., & Callanan, P. (1998). Issues and ethics in the helping professions. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

DuMez, E., & Reamer, F.G. (2003). Discussing the NASW Code of Ethics. Families in Society, 84, 449-450.

Erara, I.P. (1991). Role conflict among public welfare supervisors. Administration in Social Work, 15(4), 35-51.

Fins, J.J., Bacchetta, M.D., & Miller, F.G. (1997). Clinical pragmatism: A method of moral problem solving. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 7(2), 129-143.

Frankel, A.J. (1997). Head Start and social work. Families in Society, 78, 172-183.

Frankena, W. (1973). Ethics (2^nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Freedburg, S. (1989). Self-determination: Historical perspectives and effects on current practice. Social Work, 34(1), 33-38.

Freud, S., & Krug, S. (2002). Beyond the Code of Ethics, part II: Dual relationships revisited. Families in Society, 83, 483-492.

Gabbard, G.O. (1994). Teetering on the precipice: A commentary on Lazarus’s ‘how certain boundaries and ethics diminish therapeutic effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 4(3), 283-286.

Gould, B. (2002). Promoting mental health. Head Start Bulletin, 73.

Gripton, J., & Valentich, M. (2003). Making decisions about non-sexual boundary behavior. Canadian Social Work Journal, 5(1), 108-125.

Hancock, M.R. (1997). Principles of social work practice: A generic practice approach. New York: The Haworth Press.

Head Start Program Performance Standards Final Rule, 45 C.F.R. § 1304 (1996).

Herlihy, B., & Corey, G. (1992). Dual relationships in counseling. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.

Hofferth, S.L. (1992). The demand for and supply of child care in the 1990s. In A. Booth (Ed.), Child care in the 1990s: Trends and consequences (pp.3-25). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.

Jones, W.T. (1984). Public roles, private roles, and differential moral assessments of role performance. Ethics, 94(4), 603-620.

Joseph, M.V. (1985). Ethical decision-making in clinical practice: a model for ethical problem solving. In C.B. Germaine, Advances in clinical social work. Silver Spring: National Association of Social Workers.

Kagle, J.D. & Giebelhausen, P.N. (1994). Dual relationships and professional boundaries. Social Work, 39(2), 213-220.

Kuntz, K.R. (1998). A lost legacy: Head start’s origins in community action. In J. Ellsworth & L. Ames (Eds.), Critical perspectives on project head start: Revisioning the hope and challenge (pp.1-48). Alabany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Kutchins, H. (1991). The fiduciary relationship: The legal basis for social workers’ responsibilities to clients. Social Work, 36(2), 106-113.

Lazarus, A.A. (1994). How certain boundaries and ethics diminish therapeutic effectiveness. Ethics & Behavior, 4(3), 255-261.

Manning, S.S. (1997). The social worker as moral citizen: Ethics in action. Social Work, 42, 223-230.

Mattison, D., Jayaratne, S., & Croxton, T. (2002). Client or former client? Implications of ex-client definition on social work practice. Social Work, 47, 55-64.

Mattison, M. (2000). Ethical decision making: The person in the process. Social Work, 45, 201-212.

National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics of the national association of social workers. Washington, DC: NASW.

Pope, K.S., & Vasquez, M.J. (1991). Ethics in psychotherapy and counseling: A practical guide for psychologists. San Francisco: Josey-Bass Publishers.

Ramsdell, P.S. & Ramsdell, E.R. (1993). Dual relationships: Client perceptions of the effect of client-counselor relationship on the therapeutic process. Clinical Social Work Journal, 21(2), 195-212.

Reamer, F.G. (1990). Ethical dilemmas in social service (2^nd ed). NY: Columbia University Press.

Reamer, F.G. (1995). Social work values & ethics. New York: Columbia University Press.

Reamer, F.G. (1998). Ethical standards in social work: A critical review of the NASW code of ethics. Washington, DC: NASW Press.

Reamer, F.G. (2000). The social work ethics audit: A risk-management strategy. Social Work, 45(4), 355-366.

Reamer, F.G. (2003). Boundary issues in social work: Managing dual relationships. Social Work, 48, 121-132.

Rothman, J.C. (1998). From the front lines: Student cases in social work ethics. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Schank, J.A., & Skovholt, T.M. (1997). Dual relationship dilemmas of rural and small-community psychologists. Professional Psychology, 28(1), 44-49.

Tomm, K. (1993). The ethics of dual relationships. The California Therapist, 5(1), 7-19.

Tong, R. (1997). The promises and perils of pragmatism: Commentary on Fins, Bacchetta, and Miller. Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, 7(2), 147-152.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (1994). The statement of the advisory committee on services for families with infants and toddlers. (DHHS Publication No. 1994 – 615-032/03062). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Vodde, R., & Giddings, M.M. (1997). The propriety of affiliation with clients beyond the professional role: Nonsexual dual relationships. Arete, 22(1), 58-70.

Zigler, E. (1997). Social work and Head Start: A question of quality. Families in Society, 78, 177.