Ethics and Values in Social Work
Oxford University Press
Allan Barsky, JD, MSW, PhD
barsky@barsky.org
Framework for Managing Ethical Issues
? Framework for Managing Ethical Issues
? Case Examples
? Technology and Social Work
Allan Barsky – Pt.II-Advanced
Values & Ethics
8/31/2020
2
Traditional Approach to Ethical Decision
Making
? Clinician identifies ethical
dilemmas
? Clinician analyzes issues –
rational, cognitive process
? Clinician determines most
ethical solution
Dr. Allan Barsky – Ethics – PESI
8/31/2020
3
? Clinician and “others” work
together to identify, analyze, and
think about solutions
? Includes thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors
? Ethical issues may be managed
rather than resolved
Dr. Allan Barsky – Ethics – PESI
8/31/2020
4
Framework for Managing Ethical Issues
1. Identify Ethical Issues
2. Determine Appropriate Help
3. Think Critically
? Reflect on one’s own values, virtues, attitudes,
beliefs, motivations, emotions, capacities,
challenges, and social context (virtue ethics)
? Consider multiple perspectives
? Define goals for the ethical management process
? Identify and weigh obligations (deontology)
? Brainstorm options and assess consequences
(teleology)
4. Manage Conflict
5. Plan and Implement Decisions
6. Evaluate and Follow Up
*Loop back to earlier stages as needed.
See “Worksheet” on pp.503-504
Allan Barsky – Pt.II-Advanced Values & Ethics
8/31/2020
5
Legalism
Virtue
Ethics
? s
Deontology
Teleology
Dr. Allan Barsky – Ethics – AASC
8/31/2020
6
Videoconferencing (e.g., Skype – HIPAA?)
? Teleconferencing
? Email (text-based therapy)
? Messaging
? Chat rooms
? Online discussions
? Avatars
? Online Social Networking (e.g., Facebook)
? Cloud – Sharing Documents
? BITs: Electronic monitors, GPS, Guided Apps, Social
Robots, Automated Messages, AI
?
Dr. Allan Barsky – Ethics
8/31/2020
7
? Enhancing access for:
? Rural / Remote / Other languages or cultures
? Home-bound / Special needs
? Military / Frequent travel or relocation
? Prisoners / Children (Digital Natives)
? Continuity of service
? Cost savings – practitioner / clients
? Timeliness of intervention – “real time”
? Increased marketing opportunities
? Safety
? More honest/forthcoming? More thoughtful?
Dr. Allan Barsky – Ethics
8/31/2020
8
? Competence – in field of practice, and
use of the technology
? Confidentiality & Privilege
? Exceptions
? Use in court?
? Informed Consent – risks, research?
? Safety
? Documentation/Records
? Fees – fair and equitable?
? Boundaries / Dual Relationships
? Jurisdiction and Licensure
Dr. Allan Barsky – Ethics
8/31/2020
9
Ethics and Values in Social Work
Oxford University Press
Allan Barsky, JD, MSW, PhD
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
10
?
SUPERVISION
? ROLES
? ASSISTANCE WITH 6 STAGES
? CASES
?
ETHICS CONSULTATION
? DEFINITION
? COMPETENCIES
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
11
? Education
? Support
? Guidance
? Enforcement – agency policy, law,
professional ethics
? Risk management
? Establishing appropriate boundaries
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
12
Orientation – policies, procedures, laws, ethics
(agency specific)
? Ongoing Supervision
?
? How can a supervisor foster trust, so SW will come for
help… even when situation is potentially
embarrassing / risky?
? Case: A newly hired SW seems to fear supervisor,
reluctant to ask for help
? Case: A social work intern comes to you as her
supervisor and admits she gave a client money to buy
food for her family
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
13
Supervisor needs to know sources of help for
different types of issues: legal, clinical,
personal
? Supervisor may focus on agency
responsibilities – frontline worker may be
focusing more on client than agency: need to
consider both
? Case: Clair admits she provided agency with
fake identification in order to qualify for
services. Social worker Sandy initially wants
to handle the issue without bringing in
others. Supervisor Frances wants to bring in
agency attorney and executive director.
?
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
14
?
Ways supervisors can enhance critical thinking:
? Professional distance
? Professional expertise
? Reality testing
? Alternative methods of thinking (deontological,
utilitarian…)
? Risk management (cont’d next slide)
Case: Clem recently lost his wife to
cancer. He asks social worker Shanita to
attend funeral with him. Shanita asks her
supervisor, “What could it hurt? I should
be there for him. He’s my client and I
care about him.”
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
15
Identifying, Assessing, Preventing/Reducing Risks
? Choices based not on what we have to do (law), or what we
should do (ethics), but what we CHOOSE to do
? What are the risks in the following situation, and how can
supervisor help manage the risks:
? Corabeth asks social worker for couples counseling. Her
partner Pam is verbally abusive, but Corabeth denies
physical abusiveness.
?
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
16
Possible conflict management roles for Supervisor:
? Enforcer
? Mediator
? Coach
? Arbitrator
What would each role entail for the following case?
Cinderella complains that her social worker,
Sabrina, doesn’t believe she has a fairy godmother.
Cinderella asks supervisor Fernanda to fire Sabrina
for showing disrespect. Sabrina tells supervisor
that Cinderella is delusional.
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
17
?
Possible Roles of Supervisor: help plan, assume
specific tasks to implement, monitor
implementation
Case: During supervision, Fatima determines
that social worker Velmarie knew a client was
neglecting a 9-year-old child (leaving home
alone after school). They determine the client
should be reported to child protective services,
but Velmarie is reluctant. Who should make
the call? Why?
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
18
? Who is involved in the process?
? When would it be a good idea to have
supervisor involved?
? Importance of documentation
Allan Barsky – Pt.II-Advanced
Values & Ethics
8/31/2020
19
?
?
How are they similar to/different from SW-Client
boundaries?
Aren’t social workers adults with the freedom to
do what they want? Why restrict supervisors from:
?
?
?
?
Having romantic relationships with supervisees
Asking a supervisee to help babysit
Going out for drinks with supervisees
Asking supervisees to participate in political
campaigning together
Are there any circumstances when any of these
situations might be appropriate?
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
20
Ethics Consultation:
Defined
Facilitating critical thinking and
empowering social workers (and
others) to make effective
decisions regarding ethical
dilemmas, violations, questions,
and processes for dealing with
them.
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
21
Purposes of Consultation
Early
Identification
Assisted
Deliberation
Risk
management
Emotional and
Professional
Informational
Development
Support
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
22
Consultation
Advice
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
23
Consultant Roles
Formal
Informal
Agency Ethics
Committee
Professor
Licensing Board
Colleague
Paid Supervisor or
Consultant
Group
NASW
Interprofessional
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
24
Competencies:
Knowledge
•
•
•
•
•
•
NASW COE
Laws
Ethical theory
Processes
Decision-making
Conflict resolution
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
25
?Competencies: Skills
•
(cf., National Center
for Ethics in Health
Care, 2015)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Information
gathering
Active listening
Validating
Clarification
Assessment
Educating
Socratic
questioning
Emotional
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
26
Begin by
establishing:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Roles
Parameters
Confidential?
Exceptions?
Boundaries?
Process
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
27
?Facilitate “Learning Discussion”
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
What are your concerns about… ?
What is the best/worst case
scenario… ?
Which ethical standards/principles
might apply… ?
What are some other perspectives or
options… ?
What might happen if… ?
Who benefits and who is hurt by… ?
Have you thought about… ?
How could you learn more about… ?
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
28
Risk Management for Consultants
•
•
•
•
•
Staying within areas of
competence
Insurance coverage
Documentation
Consultation service agreement
and policies
Knowing when to refer for legal
advice
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
29
Hearing Consultant:
Preparation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide technical assistance completing
forms
Explain process (including evidence)
Help with “how” to present evidence (not
“what”)
Help decide on witnesses and documentary
evidence
Help develop questions to ask witnesses
Prepare emotionally
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
30
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
31
Hearing Consultant:
During
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Is consultant present?
Can consultant speak?
Caucusing?
Legal advice?
Moral support
Use of notes
If SW is not telling truth…
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
32
Hearing Consultant: After
Debriefing
Evaluation
Follow-Up
Termination
Allan Barsky – Supervision
8/31/2020
33
NASW
Procedures for
Professional Review
Revised
Sixth Edition
Sixth Edition
NASW
Procedures for
Professional Review
Revised
Approved by the Board of Directors
June 22, 2012
Revised by the Board of Directors
June 1972, June 1978, September 1988, July 1991, April 2001, June 2005, and June 2012
Effective March 2015
National Association of Social Workers
750 First Street NE, Suite 800
Washington, DC 20002-4241
Darrell P. Wheeler, PhD, MPH, ACSW, President
Angelo McClain, PhD, LICSW, Chief Executive Officer
The NASW Procedures for Professional Review
NATIONAL ETHICS COMMITTEE (NEC)
Allan E. Barsky, PhD, JD
Ellen M. Burkemper, PhD, LCSW
Billye Jones-Mulraine, LCSW
Paul D’ Agostino, LCSW
Willie “Bo” Walker, ACSW, LCSW, DCSW
Nancy M. Levine, MS, ACSW, LICSW
Donald P. Didier, MSW, LCSW
Natalie Holzman, MSW, ACSW
NASW STAFF
Dawn M. Hobdy, MSW
Director, Office of Ethics and Professional
Bekki Ow-Ärhus, LICSW, ACSW, DCSW
Senior Professional Review Associate
Andrea Murray
Senior Ethics Associate
Carolyn L. Polowy, JD
NASW General Counsel
Martha Rothblum
Creative Arts Manager
Julie Gutin
Managing Editor, Books and Journals
©2015 National Association of Social Workers. All Rights Reserved.
CONTENTS
PREFACE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii
Purpose of Professional Review
Authority
Full Disclosure
Goals of Professional Review
1.
REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Who May File an RPR
B. How to File an RPR
C. RPR Requirements for Child Custody and Child Welfare Matters
D. Self-Reporting
E. Location of the Adjudication or Mediation Sessions
F. Acknowledgment of the RPR
2.
CONFIDENTIALITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
A. Responsibilities
B. Exceptions
C. Alleged Breaches of Confidentiality
D. Use of Confidential Information During the Professional Review Process
3.
NONPARTICIPATION IN THE PROFESSIONAL REVIEW PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
A. Chapter Participation
B. Failure of NEC to Act
C. Complainant’s Failure to Participate in the Professional Review Process
D. Respondent’s Failure to Participate in the Professional Review Process
E. Resignation from NASW by Respondent
F. Withdrawal of the Complaint
4.
ACCEPTING OR REJECTING THE RPR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
A. Criteria for Acceptance
B. Rejection of an RPR
C. Definition of the Scope of the Professional Review
D. Special Circumstances
E. Personal Safety
F. No Appeals
G. Closing Cases Prior to Intake
5.
REFERRAL TO MEDIATION OR ADJUDICATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
A. Referrals to Adjudication
B. Referrals to Mediation
C. Matters That May Be Referred to Adjudication or Mediation
6.
PREMEDIATION ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
A. OEPR Activities Following Receipt of the RPR
B. NEC Activities Following Acceptance or Rejection of the RPR
C. NEC Activities Following Acceptance of the RPR
D. Complainant’s and Respondent’s Activities Following Acceptance of the RPR
E. Mediator’s Activities Following Acceptance of the RPR
F. Termination of the Process
7.
MEDIATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
A. Steps in the Mediation Process
B. The Mediator
C. The NASW Representative
D. The Mediation Session(s)
E. The Mediation Agreement
F. Activities Following the NASW Representative’s Indication of Concern
Regarding the Mediation Agreement
G. Disposition of Information and Documents
H. Taping of Mediation Session(s)
I. Termination of Mediation When No Agreement Has Been Reached
8.
PREADJUDICATION ACTIVITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A. OEPR Activities Following Receipt of the RPR
B. OEPR Activities Following Acceptance or Rejection of the RPR
C. NEC Activities Following Acceptance of the RPR
D. Complainant’s and Respondent’s Activities Following Acceptance of the RPR
E. Hearing Preparation
9.
ADJUDICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
A. The Adjudication Hearing
B. Attendance at the Hearing
C. Recording or Transmission of the Adjudication Hearing
D. Report of the Adjudication Hearing
E. Review of Draft Report by the OEPR
F. Review by the NEC
G. Distribution of the Report
H. Implementation of the Final Report Recommendations
I. Authorization to Publish the Final Report
10. CORRECTIVE ACTIONS & SANCTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
A. Guidance for the Decision-Making Process
B. Recommendations for Corrective Actions
C. Plan for Monitoring of Corrective Actions
D. Responsibility for Monitoring of Corrective Actions
E. Reporting of Monitoring of Corrective Actions
F. Recommendations for Sanctions
G. Request for Implementation of Sanctions
H. Removal of Sanctions
I. Determination of Fitness
11. APPEALS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
A. Appellate Bodies
B. Appeals—Mediation
C. Appeals—Adjudication
D. Grounds for Appeal—Adjudication
E. Filing an Appeal
F. Response to the Appeal
G. Issuance of the Final Report
H. Notification of Action on Appeals
I. Finality of Decisions on Appeals
12. CLOSING OF CASES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
A. Criteria for Closing Cases Prior to Acceptance
B. Criteria for Closing Mediation Cases
C. Criteria for Closing Adjudication Cases
D. Reopening of Cases
E. Maintenance of Records
PROFESSIONAL REVIEW TIMEFRAMES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
GLOSSARY. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
APPENDIX 1: Ethics Committees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
A. National Ethics Committee
B. Chapter Ethics Committees
APPENDIX 2: Forms for Use in Professional Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
A. Request for Professional Review (RPR): Ethics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
B. Request for Professional Review (RPR): Self-Reporting Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
C. Professional Review: Appeal Form . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
D. Professional Review: Confidentiality Pledge/Statement of Understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
E. Professional Review: Agreement to Mediate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
F. Professional Review: Mediation Settlement Agreement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
G. Professional Review: Complainant – Time Limits Waiver Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
INDEX
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
PREFACE
Procedures delineate the steps that guide the National
Association of Social Workers’ (NASW’s) professional
review process approved by the NASW Board of Directors.
NASW has established a peer review process that permits
two methods (mediation or adjudication) of reviewing
grievances pertaining to professional conduct. The basis of
a peer review is that the conduct of professional social
workers will be reviewed by other qualified professional
social workers. Chapters 1 and 2 describe the introductory
steps and the rules of confidentiality that are common to
both adjudication and mediation. Chapter 3 describes
steps taken to address nonparticipation of all parties
involved in the professional review process. Chapters 4
and 5 outline the steps involved in accepting a grievance
i
for review and determining whether a grievance will be
settled through mediation or adjudication. Chapters 6
through 9 describe the procedures that guide mediation
and adjudication. Chapter 10 outlines guidelines for
selecting, monitoring, and implementing corrective
actions and sanctions. Chapters 11 and 12 describe the
policies for appeals and the closing of cases. A reference
guide for timeframes and a glossary with definitions of
terms used (which readers are encouraged to review before
reading the Procedures) follow the chapters. Appendices
contain NASW Delegate Assembly policy statements, a
description of the Ethics Committee, and forms to be used
in the professional review process.
NASW PROCEDURES FOR PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW)
promotes the quality and effectiveness of social work
practice. This mission encompasses the maintenance of
ethical conduct with respect to race, ethnicity, national
origin, color, gender identity or expression, sexual
orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion,
immigration status, and mental or physical disability.
To fulfill this part of its mission, NASW has the
responsibility of reviewing and resolving complaints of
alleged violations of the NASW Code of Ethics. The
NASW Procedures for Professional Review describes the
procedures that NASW uses in considering such
complaints. NASW’s professional review involves an
examination of professional behavior by members of
NASW. This is a peer review process that seeks to uphold
the standards of social work practice. It also affords a
means of redress for aggrieved persons.
This process is designed to correct and improve social
work practice as needed. It is not intended to serve as an
opportunity for parties to prepare for litigation. Parties
pledge confidentiality, thus providing an environment in
which the parties can present their positions with an
emphasis on resolution and restoration. Although on
occasion the process may result in financial remuneration,
it is not designed to create an avenue for assessing
monetary damages.
NASW has the responsibility to conduct its peer review
process in a fair and just manner. NASW fulfills this
responsibility within the guidelines for due process that
the courts have established for peer review proceedings.1
1. NASW’s peer review procedure is discussed at length in Swatch v.
Treat, 41 Mass. App. Ct. 559, 671 N.E. 2d 1004 (1996). See also, Ayash v.
Dana Farber Cancer Institute, 8 Mass L. Rptr. 216, 1998 WL 77854
(Mass Super Ct., Feb. 19, 1998); Shapiro v. Butterfield & NASW, 921
S.W. 2d 649, 109 Mo. App. E.D., May 7, 1996; Quinones v. NASW, 2000
WL 744146 (S.D. NY, June 6, 2000)
NASW PROCEDURES FOR PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
To meet this responsibility, the NASW Board of Directors
has adopted these procedures, and the association has
implemented them. NASW’s Procedures for Professional
Review outlines the steps in NASW’s peer review process.
This peer review process offers two avenues of redress:
mediation and adjudication.
AUTHORITY
NASW’s professional review is a collaborative process
between individual state chapters and the national Office
of Ethics and Professional Review (OEPR). Together, they
are responsible for implementing NASW’s Bylaws
responsibilities for monitoring compliance with the
NASW Code of Ethics. In particular, the Bylaws state:
“The Board of Directors shall create a standing Ethics
Committee with the responsibility of hearing and
determining complaints filed in accordance with the
policy approved by the Delegate Assembly and with the
further responsibility of making recommendations to the
Board of Directors for the improvement of such
procedures and for the development of new procedures.”
(See Appendix 1 for the policy statements of the Delegate
Assembly and Appendix 2 for a description of the Ethics
Committees.)
The Office of Ethics and Professional Review provides
ethics and professional review education and training,
administers the professional review process, offers
consultation regarding social work ethics to members, and
provides information about members who have been
sanctioned through the NASW professional review
process. The OEPR is part of the NASW national office.
The staff coordinates with and provides administrative
support for the national and chapter ethics committees.
The National Ethics Committee (NEC) is responsible for
educating NASW membership and the larger professional
community about standards of ethical professional
practice. The committee along with OEPR staff, oversees
chapter professional review activity, develops policy and
procedure for professional review, offers interpretations of
procedures, and provides technical assistance and training.
ii
The committee hears complaints that are designated as
national cases against members who are alleged to have
violated the Code of Ethics and is authorized to conduct
adjudications and mediations with NASW members. The
NEC hears appeals of chapter cases and oversees the
development of ethics education training and programs.
The NEC is composed of volunteer NASW social work
members from across the United States.
The Chapter Ethics Committee (CEC) processes
complaints of alleged violations of the NASW Code of
Ethics, by chapter members. It is responsible for providing
education and training to NASW members in
coordination with the NEC and OEPR. The CEC is
composed of volunteer NASW members from across the
relevant state.
FULL DISCLOSURE
NASW expects all parties within a professional review
process to provide and fully disclose any and all facts and
information that are material and necessary to the issues
or allegations at hand, so long as doing so does not violate
any applicable laws. Full disclosure is required whether
parties are involved in mediation or adjudication. Both
procedures review and assess the same information/
documentation. Failure to fully disclose on the part of the
Complainant may result in closure of the case. Failure to
fully disclose on the part of the Respondent may result in
additional corrective actions or consequences against the
Respondent.
iii
GOALS OF PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
The goals of the NASW professional review process are:
? To protect clients, consumers, agencies, colleagues, and
the public from practices that violate the NASW Code
of Ethics
? To provide Complainants and Respondents with a fair
and confidential process to review allegations of
misconduct
? To safeguard the integrity of the social work profession
NASW’s actions are intended to be constructive,
corrective, and educational rather than punitive. In cases
of ethics violations, NASW recognizes the importance of
appropriate corrective and educative resolutions that not
only will serve as redress for a violation, but also will
enhance the quality and effectiveness of the member’s
future practice.
In cases of serious misconduct, NASW may impose
sanctions, including, but not limited to, termination of
membership in NASW or removal of NASW-issued
credentials, notification to state regulatory boards, and/or
publication of findings. In order to protect the public,
NASW may also make recommendations to social work
accreditation and licensing boards regarding interruption,
restriction, or preclusion of practice.
NASW PROCEDURES FOR PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
CHAPTER
1
REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
This chapter identifies those who may submit a Request
for Professional Review (RPR) to the National Ethics
Committee (NEC), details the procedures for filing an
RPR, describes special requirements for child custody and
child welfare matters and self-reporting, specifies the
NEC’s responsibility for management of the professional
review process, and delineates the procedures for
acknowledgment of the RPR.
The NEC has primary administrative responsibility in all
professional review matters. Therefore, the Office of Ethics
and Professional Review (OEPR) administers all matters
related to decisions regarding RPRs.
A. WHO MAY FILE AN RPR
The following parties may submit an RPR in the event of
an alleged violation of the NASW Code of Ethics:
1. An individual who has engaged in a professional social
work relationship with an NASW member and was
directly affected, personally or professionally, by the
alleged violation of the NASW Code of Ethics; or an
individual who has direct knowledge of the alleged
violation stated in the RPR (including self-referred
individuals).
2. A group of individuals in an agency or organization
who have direct knowledge of an NASW member’s
professional conduct within a professional social work
relationship or setting.
3. An individual acting on behalf of another person as
long as that person is either mentally or physically
incapacitated, or is a minor child, and the person filing
has proper standing to bring such an action on behalf
of either the incapacitated adult or minor child (e.g., a
legally appointed guardian).
4. An NASW member who has concerns that his or her
own actions in a situation may have violated the NASW
Code of Ethics.
NASW PROCEDURES FOR PROFESSIONAL REVIEW
5. Any person wishing to file a complaint must be able to
fully participate in the professional review process and
be able to adhere to the timeframes established in the
Procedures manual. Therefore, a person who is
incarcerated or otherwise institutionalized may not be
able to file because that person may not be able to fully
participate in the professional review process and
adhere to the established timeframes.
B. HOW TO FILE AN RPR
1. The steps for submitting an RPR are as follows:
a. RPR forms may be obtained from NASW’s OEPR
and are contained in these Procedures (see
Appendix 3). They are also available online at
www.socialworkers.org/nasw/ethics/
ProceduresManual.pdf
b. After receiving an inquiry about filing an RPR,
the OEPR will offer a consultant to the
Complainant and to the Respondent in order to
provide assistance in the professional review
process. The parties are not required to accept the
assistance of a consultant.
c. The Complainant must send the original RPR,
supporting statement (no more than three pages,
double spaced, 12-point font, 1-inch margins), and
the Confidentiality Pledge/Statement of
Understanding to the chairperson of the NEC at the
OEPR. If an RPR is not submitted in the
appropriate format, the OEPR may return it to the
Complainant for revision.
2. The Complainant must describe, in the supporting
statement, the alleged violation of the NASW Code of
Ethics. Specific standards from the NASW Code of
Ethics must be cited (www.socialworkers.org/pubs/
code/code.asp). The statement is limited to three pages
and must include:
1
a. a list and detailed description of sources of evidence
to be used that will support the allegation, including
witnesses, documentation, etc.
b. a summary of any other actions taken to correct
the matter
c. the status of any legal actions under way related to
this matter.
3. Individuals filing RPRs are responsible for complying
with the time limits for filing as stated in these
Procedures. Submissions must be legible. (Time limits
and specific criteria are described in Chapter 4.)
C. RPR REQUIREMENTS FOR CHILD
CUSTODY AND CHILD WELFARE MATTERS
RPRs involving child custody or child welfare matters
often present complex issues that require additional
information for review. Such cases will continue to be
reviewed for acceptance by the NEC Intake Subcommittee
in spite of their complexity, as there may be important
ethical issues to be considered and addressed.
In these cases, a valid RPR must address specific
violations of the NASW Code of Ethics and not simply
the Complainant’s disagreement with the Respondent’s
evaluations, opinions, or recommendations to the court.
The guidelines for the submission of an RPR that involves
child custody or child welfare matters are outlined as
follows:
1. Only the person who is legally responsible for the child
at the time the RPR is filed may serve as the
Complainant.
2. At the time of filing, the Complainant must provide
documentation that establishes legal custody (or
guardianship) and standing to file an RPR. This must
include signed copies of court orders, agreements,
divorce decrees, separation agreements, child
protection orders, or other relevant legal
documentation. Parents with joint or shared custody
each have standing to file an RPR.
3. The Complainant must have pursued appropriate
remedies within the venue in which the Respondent’s
actions occurred before the NEC Intake Subcommittee
2
will review the RPR. For example, if the complaint
arose from actions taken related to a court case, the
court complaint or grievance process should be used
before an RPR is filed, if such avenues for remedy are
available.
4. The Complainant must provide documentation that
other appropriate remedies for the complaint have
been pursued within the venue in which the
Complainant’s action occurred and that there is no
other action related to this complaint that is active or
pending in another venue.
5. In the event that a related legal complaint or
administrative action is active or pending, the RPR will
be placed in pending status until the reviews in other
venues are concluded.
6. The Respondent should document how he or she was
retained: Was the Respondent employed as an agent of
the court or hired by one or both of the parties to the
child custody case?
7. The parties must provide all documentation requested
by the Intake Subcommittee before the matter is
reviewed. The Intake Subcommittee may defer
consideration of the matter until any outstanding
information is provided. All documents must contain
the appropriate signatures or seals.
D. SELF-REPORTING
Self-reporting is a process by which NASW members
report possible unethical conduct in which they have
engaged. Such conduct may have been found to have
been a violation of an ethics code, professional
misconduct, unprofessional conduct, incompetence, or
negligence in any state or country.
1. It is in a member’s best interest to self-report a possible
ethics violation in order to ensure that he or she is
adhering to the NASW Code of Ethics, which is a
requirement of NASW membership. Self-reporting also
demonstrates the member’s good faith effort in seeking
NASW’s review and recommendatio