In Part 2, episode 114, nosotros beak most Section 1.04(e) knowing the laws inward your jurisdiction together with the 1 where your customer lives together with how that affects practicing across solid ground lines with or without technology. We also beak most 1.05, cultural competence.
In Part 3, episode 115, nosotros beak most 1.06(g) – professional person affiliations, together with the removal of the word “disability”. We beak most 1.15 – disruption inward electronic communications. We halt Part 3 with a word of resources for folks who desire to larn to a greater extent than most the NASW Code of Ethics, together with ethical issues inward social piece of job practice.
Bio
Allan Barsky, JD, MSW, PhD, is a professor at Florida Atlantic University where he teaches ethics, conflict resolution, addictions, generalist social work, together with diversity-informed practice. His mass credits include “Interprofessional Practice with Diverse Populations,” “Conflict Resolution for the Helping Professions” (Oxford University Press), “Clinicians inward Court” (Guilford), together with “Ethics & Values inward Social Work” (Oxford). Dr. Barsky has chaired the NASW Code of Ethics Task Force together with the NASW National Ethics Committee. He has taught internationally inward Israel, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Switzerland, together with Finland. For farther information, delight regard www.barsky.orgTranscript
IntroductionHey at that spot podcast listeners, today is the get-go of a three-part serial on the 2018 NASW Code of Ethics. In Nov 2017 I had a fabulous conversation with Allan Barsky, social piece of job professor at Florida Atlantic, together with the chair of the NASW commission responsible for the 2018 revision. You mightiness cry upward Allan from Episode 76 when he talked most his relational model for ethical conclusion making, or Episode 78 when nosotros talked most how social workers tin laid upward for court. Allan together with I talked most several of the changes Section 1 of the NASW Code of Ethics – ethical responsibilities to clients. Allan provided thus much proficient information that I’ve divided our conversation into 3 parts. Some are hot topics that you lot mightiness already receive got an thought about, similar getting consent earlier doing a spider web search for information most your customer (aka, Googling your client) which nosotros beak most inward Part 1, or removing the word “disability” from the Code, which nosotros beak most inward Part 3. We also talked most changes that you lot mightiness non receive got thought most like, are online communities considered dissimilar cultures, which nosotros beak most inward Part 2, or planning for disruptions inward electronic services, which nosotros beak most inward Part 3, or should you lot sext with your clients? Just kidding most that terminal one. No. But you lot knew that already. Hashtag boundary violation. But, together with here’s the of import thing, inward 2017 online boundary violations were non explicitly portion of the social piece of job Code of Ethics. It took the 2018 revision to acquire the Code of Ethics upward to speed on that one. Which got me wondering. What else used to live on missing? It turns out – a lot.
So, earlier nosotros hear from Allan, a quick, non boring, facial expression at the thrilling history of social piece of job ethics courtesy of Fredric Reamer’s 2013 entry inward the Encyclopedia of Social Work online.
Can I acquire a niggling background music for this?
[cue: Summer Smile from YouTube Audio Library]
Ok, non that!
[cue: Battleground yesteryear Ethan Meixsell from YouTube Audio Library]
Ok. Here nosotros go.
1946: What’s missing? Everything. No NASW, no code of ethics.
1947: The get-go social piece of job Code of Ethics ratified yesteryear the American Association of Social Workers. Still no NASW (that won’t laissez passer on off until 1955).
1960: NASW was a affair AND it ratifies the get-go NASW code of ethics. xiv promises together with proclamations. similar “I give precedence to my professional person responsibleness over my professional person interests,” together with “I abide by the privacy of the people I serve” (Reamer, 2013). Lots of things missing: Nothing unethical most clients together with social workers getting jiggy. That’s right. I only said “getting jiggy.” Also, zilch unethical most discriminating against clients based on the color of their skin, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
1967: the Code of Ethics added a pledge that social workers would non discriminate. Why 1967? Because it was middle of the civil rights movement, the women’s rights movement, together with the cusp of the gay rights movement. The Code of Ethics was responding to changing ethical norms together with standards.
And piece this was great, at that spot was zilch inward the Code that clearly spelled out if a social worker was acting unethically – something that consumers together with social workers alike were bespeak for.
[cue: All Aboard yesteryear Silent Partner from YouTube Audio Library]
Fast forwards to 1979: NASW published a revised code of ethics that included vi brief principles together with “standards for the enforcement of ethical practices with social workers.” 1979 was the get-go fourth dimension that the Code of Ethics included aspirational AND baseline standards. One of the aspirational ideals was “social workers should promote the full general welfare of society.” NASW included things that social worker should prevent, such every bit people practicing every bit social workers who were non qualified to live on social workers, together with things that social workers should non do, such every bit exploit clients for their personal advantage. It also added some rattling specific language, such every bit “The social worker should nether no circumstances engage inward sexual activities with clients.” So 1979 marks the “Death of Disco” together with the halt of dating your clients. Thank you lot rattling much.
The Code of ethics didn’t alter for some other eleven years. But during that fourth dimension the land of professional person or do ethics grew upward inside together with exterior of social work. The 1990 revision reflected this to a greater extent than nuanced agreement of do ethics. It also reflected the rising inward managed tending together with social workers entering into the land of individual practice. The 1990 revision added several principles related to how social workers tin acquire clients together with how they tin acquire paid for services. Three years late, inward 1993, the Code was revised to include linguistic communication most avoiding dual-relationships together with linguistic communication most social workers beingness impaired.
[cue: Believer yesteryear Silent Partner from YouTube Audio Library]
The side yesteryear side major revision came inward 1996. The 1996 revision included 4 major sections: the Preamble provided, for the get-go time, a mission arguing for the profession. The bit section, called “Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics” provided an overview together with brief guide for dealing with ethical dilemmas. The tertiary section, “Ethical Principles” outlined the vi abstract principles that are nigh together with honey to every social worker’s heart: service, social justice, dignity together with worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, together with competence. The Code provided a brief explanation of what each of these meant. It was inward the 4th section, “Ethical Standards” that the Code provided 155 standards inward vi categories, including social workers' ethical responsibilities to clients, to colleagues, inward do settings, every bit professionals, to the profession, together with to guild at large. These were described every bit enforceable standards. In his 2013 article, Reamer (who, btw, chaired the 1996 revision), noted that the Code identified 3 dissimilar kinds of issues: mistakes, dilemmas, together with misconduct. H5N1 fault mightiness live on next agency protocol of having parents sign a unloose of information form, but accidentally having them sign the incorrect form. H5N1 dilemma is only that: a province of affairs inward which social workers receive got to brand decisions which privilege 1 ethical regulation or measure over another. H5N1 dilemma mightiness live on deciding whether or non your duty is to your customer or to your agency or guild (as inward the instance of kid maltreatment). Misconduct includes… you lot guessed it, having sexual practice with your client, getting to eat gratuitous at your client’s restaurant, double billing, etc. The listing goes on together with on…
Since 1996 at that spot receive got been several updates to the code, most extensively inward 2008 together with in 1 lawsuit to a greater extent than inward 2017.
The 2018 Code of Ethics, which is what the 2017 revision is called, has nineteen novel clauses but no novel standards. Mostly, the 2018 Code of Ethics reflects changes inward technology, but at that spot are some changes that reverberate shifting social norms together with expectations. And what’s missing from this version? When you lot figure it out, permit us know.
Part 1 – that’s today’s episode – provides a historical overview of the NASW Code of Ethics together with discusses WHY the NASW Code of Ethics was revised for 2018. Then Allan together with I beak most Section 1.03, Informed Consent, together with specifically subsection “I” which has to do with electronic searches.
In Part 2, episode 114, nosotros beak most Section 1.04(e) knowing the laws inward your jurisdiction together with the 1 where your customer lives together with how that affects practicing across solid ground lines with or without technology. We also beak most 1.05, cultural competence.
In Part 3, episode 115, nosotros beak most 1.06(g) – professional person affiliations together with the removal of the word “disability”. We beak most 1.15 – disruption inward electronic communications. We halt Part 3 with a word of resources for folks who desire to larn to a greater extent than most the NASW Code of Ethics, together with ethical issues inward social piece of job practice.
And now, without farther ado, on to Episode 113 of the Social Work Podcast, The 2018 NASW Code of Ethics (Part 1): An Interview with Allan Barsky, JD, PhD.
Interview (forthcoming)
[11:10]
Jonathan Singer: Allan. Thank you lot thus much for beingness dorsum on the Social Work Podcast, together with talking with us again, this fourth dimension most the 2018 revision of the NASW Code of Ethics. So, what prompted the revision of the Code of Ethics?
Allan Barsky: Sure. So, if you lot facial expression at the history of the NASW Code of Ethics…the get-go code of ethics was inward 1960. And it was only a one-page arguing of full general principles together with they genuinely asked people to hang on their walls inward a frame together with a number of social workers today yet cry upward doing that. The side yesteryear side major revision was to a greater extent than or less 1979. The most electrical current version is genuinely based on the 1996 version. So that was a rattling major update that was led yesteryear Rick Reamer inward damage of genuinely identifying heart together with soul values together with principles together with and thus beingness to a greater extent than specific inward damage of what standards of do at that spot were. There were a lot of changes over the years inward damage of legal responsibilities. And also, the recognition of social piece of job every bit a profession. So, 1996 was the terminal rattling major change. There were some pocket-size changes inward 1999 together with 2008. And so, what you lot mightiness live on recognizing is that at that spot are increments of every 3 years, 6 years, or nine years, nosotros receive got the possibility of updating our Code of Ethics because NASW has its delegate assembly every 3 years. So, most 3 years agone at that spot was a conclusion that the code genuinely needed some updating inward damage of engineering scientific discipline issues. We had some linguistic communication inward the Code of Ethics from 1996 that said things similar if you’re going to transfer information electronically you lot needed to delete or exclude whatever identifying information. So that was dorsum inward the twenty-four hours when you lot know the latest together with greatest engineering scientific discipline was a fax machine, thus you lot only blot out the cry of a customer at the laissez passer on of a file earlier you lot fax that information. Well, right away at that spot is thus much electronic sharing of information, with insurance companies, together with betwixt providers, together with automatic access of information to clients that the information inward the Code of Ethics was genuinely quite outdated. The other affair that happened dorsum inward 2014, 2015 is The Association of Social Work Boards began a procedure of developing do regulations. And, this is for regulatory bodies, licensing bodies inward states to facial expression at how solid ground legislation should live on updated to accept engineering scientific discipline into account. And so, they began that process, non fifty-fifty only restricted to the States of America but they had international participants from Europe together with from Canada every bit well. They invited some members of NASW together with some of those members also became members our chore strength to update the NASW Code of Ethics. So, there’s a number of dissimilar processes that all came together around the same time.
[14:13]
Jonathan Singer: It sounds similar it was both procedural, inward the feel that NASW has a timeline for updating the Code of Ethics, but also it was prompted yesteryear a recognized shift inward the do landscape, specifically around technology. But, I assume at that spot were other things that changed every bit well. Now, every bit I read through the 2018 Code of Ethics, it seemed similar the basic construction together with principles hadn’t changed from that 1996 document, but that it was by together with large the department that talks most the standards, right, the ethical standards where the bulk of changes took place. Is that correct?
Allan Barsky: Absolutely. So, if you lot read the department on ethical principles, it’s the same vi values together with the same vi ethical principles that were at that spot before. We tried non to alter the construction of the code rattling much, because people are familiar with it together with nosotros didn’t desire people to receive got to brand major shifts. H5N1 lot of states genuinely contain the Code of Ethics into their legislation and, thus it’s also got some legal issues to it. So, nosotros did non receive got the mandate to endeavour to redraft or rewrite the entire code. When nosotros talked most the basic principles, it wasn’t every bit if at that spot was whatever glaring issues that nosotros needed to alter the linguistic communication or alter the values or the principles. So, primarily nosotros were asked to focus on engineering scientific discipline issues, but at that spot were a number of other areas where at that spot were some needed updates. Some of that only inward damage of linguistic communication that didn’t genuinely receive got a large impact on practice, you lot know. For instance, at that spot was the reference to the commission on research from the NASW. Well, the commission on research was changed to The Nationals Ethics Committee a number of years agone together with we’ve nationalized together with changed that process, thus it’s genuinely only an updating of linguistic communication that doesn’t genuinely deport upon people’s practice.
[16:12]
Jonathan Singer: So there’s only some text revision items inward at that spot every bit good every bit some actual additions for engineering scientific discipline together with some other things.
Allan Barsky: Absolutely.
[16:25]
Jonathan Singer: Okay. As a practicing Social Worker that’s swell to know that my basic agreement of the construction together with the principles that social piece of job ethics are based on has non changed. [laughter]
Allan Barsky: Exactly. So, there’s genuinely nineteen novel clauses inside the code, but no actual novel standards. So, for instance, nether informed consent it’s yet the same basic measure but we’ve added some additional subsections to that. There are also nineteen amendments to existing standards but at that spot isn’t, at that spot aren’t whatever completely novel standards.
[16:59]
Jonathan Singer: So you lot mentioned informed consent together with 1 of the things that I saw when
I was reading through at that spot was, inward informed consent department 1.03 together with and thus there’s department i. And it talks most Social Workers should obtain customer consent earlier conducting an electronic search on the client. Exceptions may arise when the search is for the operate of protecting the customer or other people from serious, foreseeable, together with imminent harm, or for other compelling professional person reasons. Could you lot beak most this thought of obtaining consent earlier conducting an electronic search together with and thus also that thought of what is a compelling professional person reason.
Allan Barsky: Excellent questions. So, 1.03(i) is a subsection of 1.03, it’s yet framed inside the same parameters together with thus the concept of informed consent, letting clients know the nature of our services together with what we’re planning to do with them, making sure that they receive got choices, that at that spot are options, together with making sure they empathize the risks together with the benefits. All of that remains the same. Now, historically nosotros would never think of doing an online search, because Google together with Bing together with other electronic search engines didn’t be when the master copy Codes of Ethics were beingness developed. So, if you lot desire to facial expression at a parallel, if I’m going to conduct an assessment with a client, I should permit the customer know what types of information I’m gathering, am I going to come across with the customer inward my portion together with inquire them questions, am I going to speak with their physician, with their doctor, with their child’s teacher. I wouldn’t acquire talking to whatever of those people unless I had their consent first. Similarly, if I wanted to uncovering them at dwelling or inward the community, I would inquire them for consent first. I wouldn’t acquire over to someone’s solid together with peer into the window to regard what’s going on or follow them around the populace marketplace to regard what’s going on with them unless I had their permission first. So, similarly, fifty-fifty though at that spot is a lot of populace information out at that spot most people, I wouldn’t do an online search most a customer unless I had their consent first. And, so, the basic thought of abide by for clients together with abide by for their privacy is that nosotros should receive got their permission earlier nosotros get together sure types of information most them. And nether 1.07(a), confidentiality together with privacy, it fifty-fifty talks most the notion that nosotros don’t get together information most clients unless it’s something that is relevant to the type of piece of job that nosotros are doing with them. So, some of it only builds on the same types of principles. Now, at that spot could live on exceptions to doing online searches without customer consent. So, for example, if you lot had a province of affairs where a customer was threatening other people together with you lot needed to live on able to contact them or you lot needed to live on able to access what the degree of withdraw chances was, together with thus it mightiness live on ethically justifiable to acquire online together with to get together information, to regard what else is going on. On their social networking sites are at that spot specific threats? Are you lot able to seat the potential victims together with live on able to warn those potential victims? So, nosotros didn’t desire to say that at that spot was no argue for having an electronic search on a customer without their permission, but at that spot needed to some compelling professional person reasons. Now, thus sure imminent, serious damage to the customer or others would live on an example. And we’ve got that sort of linguistic communication every bit an exception to confidentiality, thus it should sure live on an exception here. Whatever other compelling professional person reasons are genuinely may depend on the item circumstances. So, it may be, for example, that you’re a forensic social worker working with criminal judge organisation together with the customer is an involuntary customer together with is portion of your probation piece of job or your corrections work, you lot demand to get together some additional information online together with at that spot isn’t a requirement or maybe you’re fifty-fifty legally authorized to get together information. Child protection workers may also receive got the ascendancy to get together sure information online most clients, fifty-fifty though they don’t receive got the client’s consent. But, that would depend on, you lot know, solid ground laws together with agency policies every bit well.
[21:19]
Jonathan Singer: I love the metaphor of looking through somebody’s window. I don’t know that I commonly think most Google searches every bit looking through someone’s window. I sort of think about, you lot know if somebody has posted something online together with it’s populace or if their Facebook page permissions are laid to public. I sort of think most them every bit only sort of leaving things out on the street, but the way that you’re framing it genuinely says this individual materials together with you lot tin receive got access to it. Kind of similar it’s inward their house, Facebook is their house, together with and thus the populace permissions agency that the shades are pulled dorsum together with you lot tin facial expression in. But, at that spot are ethical considerations most when together with how you lot peer into that window. Even though you lot tin together with fifty-fifty though the information is there, at that spot is yet an ethical responsibleness for Social Workers to live on conscientious together with to, inward this situation, obtain consent with a few exceptions from clients earlier peering into that window.
Allan Barsky: Yeah, no. That’s a swell way that you’ve explained it. So, physically together with technically it’s possible to get together that information, at that spot may live on no laws from the full general populace to non facial expression into other people’s publicly posted Facebook information, or social networking information, or online blogs, or whatever. But, nosotros concur ourselves to a higher standard, thus nosotros are restricting our ain civil rights when nosotros stride inward that role. Also, think most what you lot would do with the information you’ve gathered. I’ve gone around speaking to a number of dissimilar groups. Some people would say good they acquire online to search most the customer to regard if they desire to piece of job with that client. That makes me genuinely nervous about, well, who are they non serving because they’ve got some information from online. Are they doing racial profiling? Are they looking at information that they could discriminate against people? The information that’s online may live on information that is inaccurate. So, you lot know, you’re non fifty-fifty giving the customer the chance to answer to the information that’s out at that spot together with it could live on inaccurate, thus you’ve got all sorts of imitation tidings these days together with people intentionally posting mistaken information to mislead people. I think I desire to live on genuinely careful most it, thus if you lot give the customer to chance for informed consent that gives them the possibility of maxim you lot know, I know there’s some information out at that spot or could you lot delight present me the information you’re relying on together with nosotros tin beak most it to regard if it’s existent or do I receive got a argue why that information may live on out at that spot together with may live on giving an inaccurate film of my seat unit of measurement or my friends, etc.
[24:05]
Jonathan Singer: Yes, because my Facebook is a perfect reflection of who I am. [chuckles] There’s zilch filtered most that.
Allan Barsky: And together with thus you’d mentioned, people could laid their privacy settings differently. H5N1 lot of times people are non genuinely sure how to laid their privacy settings appropriately together with sometimes the systems intentionally endeavour to encourage people to part information that they never had the intention to share. Or you lot post service something on your unopen Facebook but a honey friend of yours decides to part with the residue of the world. So, inward damage of levels of informed consent together with agreement what people are keeping individual or intending to share, I think nosotros receive got to facial expression at protecting people inward their most vulnerable states.
[24:50]
Jonathan Singer: Yeah, only to pose a fine betoken on it, I think it’s genuinely clarifying to say that fifty-fifty if your customer is searching for you lot online, it doesn’t hateful that you lot tin together with thus search for your client. Because nosotros are held to a higher standard. I’ve heard people say, good they’re going to facial expression for me, thus I should live on able to do the same affair for them.
Allan Barsky: Right, together with clients receive got a right to self-determination, clients receive got a right to confidentiality. We every bit Social Workers don’t. So, it isn’t a human relationship that goes precisely the same both ways. We are non friends with our clients. We receive got a higher fiduciary duty, thus nosotros receive got some obligations to them that they don’t receive got towards us. On the other hand, nosotros may also live on modeling some proficient pro-social behavior. So, maybe they volition follow some of our higher ideals together with values.
[25:40]
Jonathan Singer: Hey at that spot podcast listeners. Part 1 is done. Don’t forget to brain to parts 2 together with 3 of this conversation. In Part Two, when Alan together with I beak most Section 1.04 (e), knowing the laws inward your jurisdictions together with the ones where your customer lives. How that affects practicing across solid ground lines with or without technology. We also beak most 1.05, cultural competence. In Part Three, Episode 115, nosotros beak most 1.06 (g), professional person affiliations together with the removal of the word disability from the Code of Ethics. We beak 1.15, disruptions inward electronic communications. And nosotros halt Part Three with a word most resources for folks who desire to larn more. Thanks for listening. Keep upward the proficient work.
[26:36]
Jonathan Singer: I’m Jonathan Singer together with cheers for beingness with me today for some other episode of the Social Work Podcast. If you lot missed an episode or receive got suggestions for time to come episodes, delight see socialpodcast.com. If you’d similar to back upward the podcast, delight see our online shop at cafepress.com/swpodcast. To all the Social Workers out there, proceed upward the proficient work. We’ll regard ya side yesteryear side fourth dimension at the Social Work Podcast.
--End--
[27:00]
Resources together with References
- Barsky, A. E. (2017). Conflict resolution for the helping professions (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
- Barsky, A. E. (2012). Clinicians inward court: H5N1 guide to subpoenas, depositions, testifying, together with everything else you lot demand to know. New York: Guilford Press.
- Barsky, A. E. (2010). Ethics together with values inward social work: An integrated approach for a comprehensive curriculum. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Barsky, A. E. (2017). Social Work Practice together with Technology: Ethical Issues together with Policy Responses. Journal of Technology inward Human Services, 35(1), 8–19. doi: 10.1080/15228835.2017.1277906
- Barsky, A. E. (2016). The Ethics of App-Assisted Family Mediation: The Ethics of App-Assisted Family Mediation. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 34(1), 31–42. doi: 10.1002/crq.21168
- Hilty, D. M., Ferrer, D. C., Parish, M. B., Johnston, B., Callahan, E. J., & Yellowlees, P. M. (2013). The Effectiveness of Telemental Health: H5N1 2013 Review. Telemedicine Journal together with E-Health, 19(6), 444–454. doi: 10.1089/tmj.2013.0075
- NASW Webinar on the 2018 Code of Ethics: https://naswwa.inreachce.com/Details?groupId=77263aba-2bf3-4da4-852e-51b56cf90067
- Reamer, F. (2013-06-11). The NASW Code of Ethics. Encyclopedia of Social Work. Retrieved 3 Jan. 2018, from http://socialwork.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199975839.001.0001/acrefore-9780199975839-e-829.
APA (6th ed) citation for this podcast:
Singer, J. B. (Producer). (2018, Jan 3). #113 - 2018 NASW Code of Ethics (Part1): Interview with Allan Barsky, JD, MSW, PhD [Audio Podcast]. Social Work Podcast. Retrieved from /search?q=social-work-ethics-interview-with-allan
Buat lebih berguna, kongsi:
