Ethics Alive! The 2017 NASW Code of Ethics: What's New?

×

Expand

Code of Ethics Sign

by Allan Barsky, J.D., MSW, Ph.D.

   On August 4, 2017, the Delegate Assembly of the National Association of Social Workers approved a number of significant amendments to the NASW Code of Ethics. These changes to the Code, the first since 2008, will go into effect January 1, 2018. It is expected that the new Code will be online (www.socialworkers.org) by late October, and print copies can be pre-ordered from NASW Press, to be available November 1.

    The changes to the Code include some of the most significant changes since the 1996 version of the Code was approved. Professional social workers need to keep up to date on the changes to the Code, not only to avoid malpractice, but also to promote the highest standards of ethics in their everyday practice.

    Below is a summary of the recent amendments based on a report that I wrote as Chair of the NASW Code Review Task Force. I would like to thank the other members of the Task Force for their dedication and valuable contributions to the NASW Code of Ethics revisions: Frederic Reamer, Kim Strom-Gottfried, David Barry, Luis Machuca, Bo Walker, Dawn Hobdy, and Andrea Murray (non-voting member).

    The following sections begin with a change in language (regarding disability) that was made throughout the Code. The rest of the sections follow the order of new provisions as they are presented in the updated Code (available at https://www.socialworkers.org/pubs/code/default.asp).

“Disability” to “Ability”

    In the 2008 edition of the Code, several standards included the term “disability” among a list of diversity factors such as race, ethnicity, and national origin. All the other diversity factors used positive, strengths-based language. In the new Code, the term “disability” is replaced with “ability,” a more inclusive and strength-based term. Rather than focusing upon deficits or problems, the term ability invites social workers to think about the different abilities of people. Thus, under standard 1.05(c), social workers should “obtain education and seek to understand the nature of social diversity and oppression” with respect to people with varying abilities (among other diversity factors). The term “ability” is also incorporated into Standards 1.05(d), 1.06(g), 2.01, 4.02, and 6.04 for similar reasons.

Preamble (Regarding Technology)

    Many of the changes to the Code involve issues related to the use of technology. A new aspirational paragraph was added to the Preamble, identifying ways that technology may be used in various aspects of practice and reminding social workers that similar ethical standards apply whether social workers are communicating in person or through the use of technology. Thus, ethical standards such as informed consent, avoiding conflicts of interest, and maintaining client confidentiality apply whether or not social workers are using technology. Some of the new standards do not add new ethical obligations, but rather educate social workers about how the existing ethical obligations apply when workers are using technology. Note that additional guidance on how to use technology in social work practice may be found in the 2017 Practice Standards on Technology and Social Work, available at: https://www.socialworkers.org/includes/newIncludes/homepage/PRA-BRO-33617.TechStandards_FINAL_POSTING.pdf

Informed Consent (1.03)

    A new standard, 1.03(e), encourages social workers to discuss policies concerning use of technology in the provision of professional services. This section does not dictate what the policies should be, but rather focuses on the social worker’s responsibility to explain these policies as part of the informed consent process.

    A new standard, 1.03(f), encourages social workers who plan to use technology in the provision of services to obtain client consent to the use of technology from the outset. This standard also asks social workers to assess each client’s capacity to provide informed consent and, when utilizing technology to communicate, verify the identity and location of clients. Verifying the identity of clients is particularly important when the social worker and client are not meeting in person. Also, social workers need to know the location of the client for a number of reasons: in case there is an emergency and the worker needs to alert emergency services to help the client, to ensure that the worker understands the cultural and environmental context of the client, and to ensure the worker knows which laws and regulatory provisions apply (including whether the worker is permitted by law to provide certain types of services).

    A new standard, 1.03(g), alerts social workers to the need to assess clients’ ability to access and use technology, particularly for online and remote services. It also guides social workers to help clients identify alternate methods of service delivery if use of technology is not appropriate.

    An addition was made to 1.03(h) to update language from “audiotaping and videotaping” to making “audio or video recordings,” given that digital recording is now more common than analog and tape recording.

    A new standard, 1.03(i), guides social workers to obtain client consent before conducting an electronic search on clients. This fits with other informed consent procedures, ensuring clients are informed about the worker’s plans for gathering information, assessing, and intervening with a client. An exception is provided for compelling professional reasons, such as the need to prevent serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm (e.g., a client who is suicidal or homicidal).

Competence (1.04)

    A new standard, 1.04(d), extends the concept of competence to include the ability to use technology in a competent manner. Social workers using technology in practice need to understand the possibility of communication challenges and how to address these challenges.

    A new standard, 1.04(e), guides social workers using technology to ensure that they comply with the laws of both the jurisdiction where the social worker is regulated and located, as well as where the client is located. The use of video conferencing, text messaging, and other distance technologies allows social workers to serve clients in different states or countries. Consider, for instance, a social worker who is licensed in New York, is traveling to California, and is providing counseling to a client in Kansas or Toronto. Social workers should take note of how laws in each of these jurisdictions may apply to them (e.g., professional licensing laws, child and elder abuse reporting laws, tax laws, and so forth).

Cultural Competence and Social Diversity (1.05)

    The heading for this section was changed from “Cultural Competence and Social Diversity” to “Cultural Awareness and Social Diversity.” This change was made to acknowledge the changes in social work literature and language when discussing issues related to culture and human diversity. Some people have questioned whether the term “competence” presupposes that social workers can become competent in someone else’s culture or any other aspect of their social diversity. Terms such as cultural awareness, cultural humility, and cultural responsiveness have been used to convey that social workers should be aware of the client’s culture, to understand how they may need to learn more about the client’s culture, and to ensure that their interventions and interactions with clients should be tailored to meet the needs of the client, including attention to cultural and diversity concerns. The wording of the standards under this provision has not changed.

    A new standard, 1.05(d), guides social workers to be aware of, assess, and respond to cultural, environmental, economic, ability, linguistic, and other social diversity issues that may affect delivery or use of services that involve the use of technology. In some situations, technology can be used to improve access to services for people from diverse or vulnerable backgrounds. In other situations, the use of technology may present challenges for social workers helping particular clients or groups, given each client’s unique needs, strengths, and differences (e.g., can the client afford technology required to communicate with the worker, how can technology address visual impairments or other abilities, and how can online text-based interventions be modified for people with low levels of literacy?).

Conflict of Interest (1.06)

    A new standard, 1.06(e), discourages social workers from communicating with clients using technology for personal or non-work-related purposes. Given the rapid growth in online social networking and other forms of social media, it is important for social workers to be aware of the importance of maintaining appropriate client-worker boundaries (including with respect to digital communications).

    A new standard, 1.06(f), suggests that social workers should be aware that posting personal information on professional websites or other media could cause boundary confusion, inappropriate dual relationships, or harm to clients. This puts the onus on social workers to determine whether it is appropriate to post personal information online. The Task Force determined that it would not be appropriate to include a provision that unduly restricted the social worker’s ability to post personal information online, as this could infringe the worker’s rights to the freedom of speech and expression. Each worker will need to exercise professional judgment.

    A new standard, 1.06(g), suggests that social workers should be aware that clients may discover personal information about them based on their personal affiliations and use of social media. The Task Force determined that prohibiting social networking could be a violation of a social worker’s freedom of association and freedom of speech. As with Standard 1.06(f), this standard focuses on the social worker’s being aware of potential pitfalls, so the social worker will use professional judgment when making decisions about online social networking and posting information using digital technology.

    A new standard, 1.06(h), suggests that social workers should avoid accepting requests from or engaging in personal relationships with clients on social networks or other electronic media. The purpose of this section is to prevent boundary confusion, inappropriate dual relationships, and harm to clients. The Task Force felt that this provision was in keeping with other sections of the Code that encourage social workers to avoid personal relationships with clients.

Privacy and Confidentiality (1.07)

    Standard 1.07(a) was amended to state that social workers should not solicit information from or about clients except for “compelling professional reasons.” The term “compelling professional reasons” replaces “essential to providing services or conducting social work evaluation or research.” The new language is more concise. The new language also focuses the worker on “professional” considerations rather than just what the worker believes is “essential.”

    Standard 1.07(c) was amended by removing the term “identifiable person.” Under the revised version of this section, an exception to confidentiality arises when “disclosure of confidential information is necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or others.” Note that this section permits social workers to disclose confidential information under certain circumstances; it does not require them to do so.

    The removal of “identifiable person” is important for situations such as threats of terrorism, school shootings, or other violence in which the risk is serious, imminent, and foreseeable, even though the worker cannot specifically identify the individuals or groups at risk. In some jurisdictions, mandatory reporting laws require social workers to report information or take other steps to address particular risks of harm, even though the worker cannot identify the particular people at risk. This revision ensures that the worker is ethically permitted to follow such laws and reflects changes in many states’ laws since NASW adopted the current Code of Ethics.

    Standard 1.07(f) was amended to state that when social workers provide counseling to families, couples, or groups, their agreement with the parties should include consideration of whether confidential information may be exchanged in person or electronically among clients or with others outside of the formal counseling sessions. Such an agreement would address questions such as whether the clients agree that information may be shared electronically by the social worker (e.g., through email), as well as whether the clients want any restrictions on the sharing of confidential information among family or group members (e.g., an agreement not to discuss group information on social media).

    Standard 1.07(i) was amended to clarify that social workers should not discuss confidential information “electronically or in person,” unless confidentiality can be ensured.

    One of the most outdated standards in the 2008 Code was 1.07(m), which referred to facsimile machines, answering machines, and telephones as examples of technology. This standard instructed social workers to avoid disclosing confidential information when using such technology. This standard was first adopted in 1996, long before social workers were using online videoconferencing, smart phones, text messaging, social robots, remote electronic storage of client records, online social networking, and other forms of technology. Today, transmitting identifying information through technology is not only pervasive, but required for many purposes (e.g., submitting client information to insurance companies for reimbursement for services). The new version of 1.07(m) permits transmission of identifying information, but advises social workers to take reasonable steps to protect the confidentiality of electronic communications, including information provided to clients or third parties. To protect client confidentiality, social workers should use applicable safeguards, such as encryption, firewalls, and passwords. As technology changes, social workers need to keep up to date on which methods are most appropriate ways to protect client confidentiality.

    A new standard, 1.07(n), advises social workers to develop and disclose policies and procedures for notifying clients of any breach of confidential information in a timely manner. Some social workers and social work agencies are required by law to notify clients of any breach of confidential information, so this new standard alerts social workers to this issue.

    A new standard, 1.07(o), builds on 1.07(n) by advising social workers to inform clients of unauthorized access to the social worker’s electronic communication or storage systems, consistent with other laws and applicable standards. Disclosure of such breaches permits clients to take steps to protect themselves from identity theft or other possible consequences of the breach.

    A new standard, 1.07(p), advises social workers to develop and inform clients about their policies on the use of electronic technology to gather information about clients. This section is intended to make social workers aware of client privacy issues, particularly when considering whether to gather client information electronically.

    A new standard, 1.07(q), builds on 1.07(p) by discouraging social workers from searching or gathering client information electronically unless there are compelling professional reasons, and, when appropriate, with the client’s informed consent. For instance, a social worker may need to gather information electronically to protect the life or safety of the client or another person. Whenever possible, the client’s consent should be requested in advance of search for client information.

    A new standard, 1.07(r), states that social workers should avoid posting any identifying or confidential information about clients on professional websites or other forms of social media. Although clients may consent to having identifying information posted on a social worker’s social media, social workers should ensure that such consent is fully informed. Consider, for instance, a client who offers to post a positive comment on a social worker’s website attesting to the great addictions counseling she received. The client may not realize how future employers or others may have access to this information, or how it may be safer to post a comment without identifying information.

    Standard 1.07(s) contains a small change in language from the original standard, replacing “state statutes” with “applicable laws.” When considering how to transfer or dispose of records, social workers may need to consider state and federal statutes, as well as case law. The new language covers all forms of applicable laws.

Sexual Relationships (1.09)

    Standard 1.09 was amended to prohibit “inappropriate sexual communications,” in addition to sexual activities and contact with clients. This new language covers both in-person and electronic communications.

Sexual Harassment (1.11)

    Standard 1.11 was amended, adding “written” and “electronic” contact. This change clarifies that prohibited forms of sexual harassment may include verbal, written, electronic, or physical contact of a sexual nature.

Derogatory Language (1.12)

    Standard 1.12 was amended, adding “electronic” to the forms of communication, so that social workers should not use derogatory language whether the communication is written, verbal, or electronic (including electronically transmitted photos, videos, or other communications).

Interruption of Services (1.15)

    Standard 1.15 was amended, adding “disruptions in electronic communication” as a possible concern that social workers should be prepared to address.

Sexual Relationships (2.06)

    Standard 2.06(a) [formerly 2.07(a)] was amended to clarify that prohibited types of sexual relationships with supervisees, students, trainees, or other colleagues over whom social workers exercise professional authority include verbal, written, electronic, or physical contact. Electronic contact may include text messages, transmitting videos or photos, or any other form of contact through electronic means.

Sexual Harassment (2.08)

    Standard 2.07 [formerly 2.07(a)] was amended to clarify that prohibited types of sexual harassment include verbal, written, electronic, or physical contact.

Unethical Conduct of Colleagues (2.10)

    Standard 2.10(a) [formerly 2.11(a)] was amended to clarify that social workers need to take adequate measures to discourage, expose, and correct the unethical conduct of colleagues, “including unethical conduct using technology.”

    Standard 2.10(a) [formerly 2.11(a)] was amended to update the name of the committee currently responsible for professional review, the NASW National Ethics Committee (which replaced its predecessor, the Committee on Inquiry).

Supervision and Consultation (3.01)

    Standard 3.01(a) was amended to note that the standards for supervision or consultation apply “whether in-person or remotely.”

    Standard 3.01(c) was amended to note that dual relationships in supervisory relationships may arise in the context of “using social networking or other electronic media.”

Education and Training (3.02)

    Standard 3.02(d) was amended to note that dual relationships in educator-student relationships may arise in the context of “using social networking or other electronic media.”

Client Records (3.04)

    Standard 3.04(a) was amended to clarify that documentation may be in electronic or paper forms.

    Standard 3.04(d) was amended to clarify that, when considering storage of client records, social workers should consider all “relevant laws, agency policies, and relevant contracts” (not just state laws and relevant contracts).

Evaluation and Research (5.02)

    A new standard, 5.02(f), advises social workers using technology to facilitate evaluation or research to obtain clients’ informed consent for the use of such technology. It also encourages social workers to assess clients’ ability to use the technology and, when appropriate, offer reasonable alternatives. Although technology can be used to make evaluation and research processes more efficient, social workers need to ensure that technology is not being used in a way that excludes or disadvantages certain participants.

    Frederic Reamer, Dawn Hobdy, and I will be presenting an online training on the new Code on October 25, 2017, from 2:00 to 4:00 p.m. Eastern. Social workers can join from a computer, tablet, or smartphone. Register at: https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/6289851210564638979

Allan Barsky, Ph.D., J.D., MSW, is Professor of Social Work at Florida Atlantic University and author of  Social Work Values and Ethics (Oxford University Press).

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily represent the views of any of the organizations to which the author is affiliated, or the views of The New Social Worker magazine or White Hat Communications.