Creating Ethical Environments

Elizabeth DuMez. Manager, NASW Office of Ethics and ProfessionalReview (Retired) and

Diane Falk, Professor of Social Work, The Richard Stockton College ofNew Jersey1

Paper presented at the 34th Biannual Congress of the International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW)

Durban, South AfricaJuly 2008

Ethical principles hold a power to organize elements of societyand advance community. Variants and commonalities among ethicalconcepts represent philosophical and religious inclinations ofvarious societies. As the world struggles to identify commonground while competing for finite resources, the forces of bothideology and global inequalities inhibit the achievement of orderand mutual respect. On the premise that all effort and action canbe catalysts for change, we present a model of ethical thinkingand doing that is intended to protect basic human rights and toadvance social order in the realm of social services. Most socialworkers practice in organizations. Special knowledge and skillare required both to function ethically in those settings and tocreate structures and norms that promote and ensureorganizational and individual ethical integrity. Inculcatingrational practices can substantially improve one’s workingenvironment and prevent the risk of legal challenges andprogrammatic failures.

A preponderance of literature on social work ethical issuesfocuses on direct service responsibilities. Practitioners who arepart of an agency or organizational workforce, however, oftenfind themselves in an environment of competing priorities ordominance by the values of other professions. In addition to theforces that affect direct service practitioners, social workadministrators must juggle agency survival needs against the1 Elizabeth DuMez can be reached at: bethdumez@erols.com. Diane Falk can be reached at Diane.Falk@Stockton.edu.

2

mandate to serve, creating ethical dilemmas for them thatpractitioners may experience only indirectly. Similarly inacademic settings educators find themselves pulled by competingvalues and priorities. Pressure to survive in an academicposition (e.g., produce scholarship, bring in external funding,provide community service, achieve high ratings from students)and avoid litigation (minimize student complaints) can causeeducators to lose sight of their responsibilities to modelethical conduct and establish an ethical educational environment.As we will demonstrate in this paper, an ethical environment goeswell beyond teaching students about their responsibilities to beethical practitioners. Our purpose here is to suggestorganizational elements that will establish an environment insocial agencies and social work academic settings that promotesethical consciousness, reasoning, and action.

The Search for a Unified Values Base

While commonalities among structures for the provision of socialservices—even internationally—perhaps outweigh division anddifference (review of programs of international meetings underpinthat assumption), cultural and philosophical differences areinfluential forces as well. As a tool for developing a core ofuniversal goals, we turn to the IFSW and IASSW document (2004)Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles from which we begin byfocusing on its two foundation principles:

Human Rights and Human Dignity Social Justice

The Statement’s explication of professional conduct further definesthe contextual responsibility:

“Social workers should work to create conditions inemploying agencies and in their countries where theprinciples of this statement and those of their own nationalcode (if applicable) are discussed, evaluated and upheld”(p.12).

3

The IFSW/IASSW Statement also identifies some realities thatinhibit its applications and the integration of ethicalprinciples into actual practice. Some of these problem areasinclude:

The fact that the loyalty of socialworkers is often in the middle ofconflicting interests.

The fact that social workers function asboth helpers and controllers.

The conflicts between the duty of socialworkers to protect the interests of thepeople with whom they work and societaldemands for efficiency and utility.

The fact that resources in society arelimited (Preface).

The NASW Code of Ethics (1996 & 1999) for USA social workers providesfour relevant principles:

Social workers’ primary goal is to helppeople in need and to address socialproblems.

Social workers challenge social injustice. Social workers respect the inherent

dignity and worth of the person. Social workers recognize the central

importance of human relationships (pp. 5 &6).

The congruence of principles from these social workers’ codes ofethics serves to gird the assumption that there are universalbeliefs and practices, which are transferable among practitionersfrom many geographic and philosophic origins. Yet, there arequestions. Questions, however, may be ignored in the face of thepragmatic realities bred by scarce resources, desperate lifecircumstances, and emergencies. Unless one has grappled with thephilosophical foundations of actions, indefensible policies anddecisions may take one down disastrous paths.

To illustrate a particular dilemma faced by social workers in

4

international settings or who work with refugees and immigrants,one may examine the crucial issue of standards relating toadherence to laws and legal regulations. First, examine NASW’s1996 and 1999 codes. In 1999 the NASW Code of Ethics was modified byaction of the Association’s Delegate Assembly. One clause wasremoved from the 1996 edition (which had entailed a comprehensivereview and revision):

1:07(c) Social workers should protect theconfidentiality of all information obtained in thecourse of professional service, except for compellingprofessional reasons. The general expectation thatsocial workers will keep information confidential doesnot apply when disclosure is necessary to preventserious foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client orother identifiable person (end of revised edition) orwhen laws or regulations require disclosure without aclient’s consent (Both editions, p.10).

Another source—not developed for social workers but, rather, forinternational educators—provides relevant ethical considerationsas well. In the 2008 edition of the Code of Ethics for Education Abroad,Ethical Principle 4 “Good Practice” includes the responsibilityto observe applicable laws and good practice:

“In all administrative, business, and financialarrangements, all applicable U.S. and international lawsshould be observed and principles of good practice followed”(p.4).

Principle 5 “Observance of Law” further articulates theresponsibility:

“Institutions, provider organizations and individualsengaged in education abroad should take reasonablesteps to inform themselves of applicable laws of thehost country…

All contracts regarding employment should comply fullywith applicable law and, where a choice of laws offersdiffering standards, the higher or more protective

5

standard should be applied” (pp. 9 & 10).

Reason and judgment must prevail. From the NASW Code:“Principles and standards must be applied by individuals ofgood character who discern moral questions and, in goodfaith, seek to make reliable ethical judgments.” (Emphasesthe authors’)

The underpinning of ethical decision-making involves morality andvalues. What one decides to do may be based in variousphilosophical foundations. In translation to an applied level,one must recognize that an individual’s character and integrityare significant variables. A willingness to learn ethicalreasoning and to ponder issues, a decision to accept codes as animportant basis for decisions, the ability to reflect on one’sown motivations and biases, honesty, and our propensity to knowwhen we should seek assistance are the marks of character thatwill advance ethical functioning (Meacham, 2007). Decision-making inevitably has a values base. If there is congruence amongacademic, managerial, and operational level definitions andactions, and if the values espoused and realized are autonomy,beneficence, non-malfeasance, and justice, an ethicallyintegrated service-delivery program can thrive (Hugman and Smith,1995).

The Cultural Context

“Social work values and ethics have often been held out asunifying features of the profession. From a global ormulticultural perspective, however, values and ethics may be moredivisive than unifying” (Healy, 2007 p.11). Are underlying valuesin the construct of codes of ethics universally relevant?“Competing schools of thought in ethics differ in the extent towhich ethical rules are viewed as fixed or contextual.” (p.12)Healy sees the middle ground in this continuum as articulated inthe first purpose of the IFSW-IASSW Declaration of EthicalPrinciples: “…to formulate a set of basic principles for socialwork, which can be adapted to social and cultural settings…”(2.1). Healy states, “… it must be recognized that existing

6

social work codes of ethics... fail to explicate the communalistperspective and are fairly heavily biased towards moderateuniversalism” (Healy, 2007, p.24). Healy articulates thechallenge inherent in respecting culture while upholdingprofessional ethics. Globalization and increasingmulticulturalism often pose competing priorities. She encouragesa moderately universalist path, one that values both diversityand human rights. How this can be practically applied may rest onan individual’s propensity for an integrated ethicalconsciousness as well as cross-cultural experience.

Moldovan and Moyo (2007) articulate the dilemma:

Western social work exerts its influence in thedeveloping world through the individualisticmethodologies of helping, but it also exports itslatent ideological conflict (461). International socialwork needs to renew its commitment to the socialworkers in transitioning countries, not only withprofessional expertise but also with the egalitarianideology of helping. A global social work movement trueto the values of social justice and equality is onethat is self-examining, one that is connected beyondculture, ethnicity and geography (469).

In our increasingly fluid world it is usual, if not inevitable,that social worker and client (whether an individual, acommunity, or a group) will experience working relationships thatinclude persons of other nationalities or contrasting lifeexperiences. Competence in working cross-culturally requiresknowledge of and experience in culturally diverse circumstances,permitting a depth of insight that can lead to the development ofculturally appropriate intervention strategies.

NASW’s Standards for Cultural Competence (NASW, p.5) provides afoundation and encourages preparation for the almost inevitableexperience of cross-cultural practice. “The word culture is usedbecause it implies the integrated pattern of human behavior thatincludes thoughts, communications, actions, customs, beliefs,

7

values, and institutions of a racial, ethnic, religious, orsocial group. Culture often is referred to as the totality ofways being passed on from generation to generation.” Among theten standards, a practitioner is expected to (paraphrased):

Possess self-awareness Possess cross-cultural knowledge and skill Be knowledgeable about the services and resources available

in a community or society Appropriately engage in empowerment and advocacy.

Again, however, we must extrapolate. The standards pertain toworking in the USA and perhaps can only begin to prepare apractitioner for international settings. A cross-culturalorientation to social work practice is fast becoming essential.

North American social workers may be basically ill prepared toapply the ideals of cross-cultural practice unless their lifeexperience has equipped them. diFranks explores the discrepanciesbetween belief and ethical behavior as well as the disjuncture(distress) that emanates from this incongruence. First off,diFranks observes that social workers are more often employed inhost (non-social work) settings than in ones where social workprofessionals are most prevalent and administer. Yet, there wereno significant differences in the distress levels related todecision-making. Specific education in ethics, she found, reducedthe distress level, hypothesized to be because of a heightenedawareness of discrepancies between belief and behavior andsubsequent efforts to decrease the incongruence (diFranks, pp.170-171).

One might hypothesize that social workers in cross-culturalsettings would be subject to a higher degree of discrepancybetween local beliefs and ethical mandates. This possibilityargues for a thorough-going immersion in the cultural mores andbeliefs of a host setting coupled with an analytical exercise inreviewing tenets of relevant codes of ethics in the context oflocal cultural and economic realities. In developing countriesfamily and community are likely to be dominant sources in the

8

decision-making of at-risk populations. A careful pursuit ofinformation and experience, understanding and respect mustprecede a commitment to work internationally or in substantivelydiffering cultures of one’s own countries. It is incumbent onadministrators to provide this relevant training, education, andoversight to ensure effective, productive outcomes.

The Organizational Context for Ethics

From among the social work roles that we identify as in a realmof indirect social work practice—administrator, supervisor,educator, researcher—we focus on those of administrator andeducator. Principles from both the IFSW/IASSW Statement ofEthical Principles and the National Association of SocialWorkers’ Code of Ethics have particular relevance in anarticulation of responsibility. A considerable body of literaturehas been generated to illustrate and explore social workers’relationships with and responsibilities to clients in directservice settings. The NASW code articulates these as standards orresponsibilities (behavioral level articulations), which take theform of prescriptive and proscriptive statements. Less researchand writing has focused on the responsibilities of servicedelivery systems to ensure an environment that promotes andsupports ethical conduct by both front line workers and theorganizations themselves. Ethical functioning is advanced andrealized if the organizational and academic settings in whichsocial work services and education occur subscribe to policiesand procedures that are congruent with ethical principles. Bothorganizational and academic environments are characterized bypolicies and practices that emanate from market place forces,competitive models, and individual aggrandizement as well as fromstated purposes.

An analysis of role and context within organizational structuresyields ideas and strategies for creating ethical environments inwhich individual professional functioning can be enhanced andpromoted and from which the rights and well-being of clients andgroups for which services are provided will be ensured. In thestructures of service-providing agencies and academic

9

institutions, social workers often assume that their roles are nolonger subject to the values and skills of their profession ofsocial work. Decisions become strongly informed by the businessmodels, which, in the United States at least, have come todominate service provision and, increasingly, institutions ofhigher education. Social work agencies are increasingly “economicorganizations,” which leads to “direct conflict with its socialwork purpose.” Decisions are made on the basis of managerial andeconomic expediency rather than on client need (Hugman, p.120).We contend that there is not an inherent incompatibility betweenbureaucratic functioning and adherence to social work values andprinciples. The ultimate values of the social work profession(NASW Code of Ethics pp.5-6)—service, social justice, the dignityand worth of persons, the importance of human relationships,integrity, and competence—will be advanced if social workers canpractice in organizations and institutions which are similarlydriven. Social workers practicing as administrators and educatorscan create this context.

A business ethics organization’s annual survey of employees in2007 provides a window on the state of how ethics are applied ina variety of work settings. The survey led to a number ofconclusions with pragmatic applications, relevant for socialwork. “… the world of “ethics” has moved far beyond the world of‘compliance.’ The number of formal ethics and compliance programsis on the rise…” The increased reporting reduces ethics risk. An“enterprise-wide” ethical culture dramatically reducesmisconduct. Some of the pressures that compromise ethicalbehavior are “meeting performance goals, advancing one’s owncareer, and supervisory pressure.” In order to constitute aformal ethics and compliance program, there must be “writtenstandards for ethical conduct, training, a mechanism for seekingethics-related advice and information, discipline of employeeswho violate ethical standards, and an assessment of ethicalconduct as a part of employee performance evaluations” (EthicsResource Center, 2007).

Seligson and Choi’s research demonstrates that a formal ethicsand compliance program alone does not substantially impact

10

outcomes in an organization. “…ethical culture often has more ofan impact on achieving an effective ethics and compliance programthan do program inputs and activities.” Three ethics relatedactions have an especially large impact on outcomes expected ofan ethics and compliance program:

Setting a good example Keeping promises and commitments Supporting others in adhering to ethics

standards

Formal ethics training does not have the same impact on alllevels of employees. Training needs to be different formanagement versus non-management employees (Seligson & Choi,2006).

Social Work Administrative Roles in Organizational Settings

Typical dilemmas for a social work administrator are varied. Theprestige and perceived power of professions such as law, medicineand business trump that of social work. Social workers can becomeidentified with those whom they primarily serve—oppressedpeople, disabled and disenfranchised groups, victims of crime andabuse—who are generally perceived as powerless. Moreover, socialwork may be the ancillary discipline, particularly in medicalsettings. Yet, it is imperative that social workers who are inadministrative roles assert their profession’s ethical mandatesand strive to demonstrate the consequences for client well-beingand practitioner satisfaction. A broad range of guidelines isavailable for implementation.

The IFSW/IASSW Code of Ethics—in its section on social justice—provides behavioral mandates applicable to the organizational andinstitutional level of policy-making and functioning(paraphrased):

Distribute resources equitably Challenge unjust policies and practices Acknowledge and be accountable for one’s

11

actions to the users of their services,the people they work with, theircolleagues, their employers, theprofessional association and to the law—recognizing that these accountabilitiesmay conflict.

Foster and engage in ethical debate withcolleagues and employers and takeresponsibility for making ethicallyinformed decisions.

Work to create conditions in employingagencies and in one’s country where theprinciples of this statement and those ofone’s own national code (if applicable)are discussed, evaluated and upheld(Ethics in Social Work, Statement ofPrinciples, section 4.2).

While the NASW Code of Ethics provides standards with regard to manyadministrative questions and dilemmas (NASW Code of Ethics, sections3 and 5), administrators may have to collaborate or compromisewith people representing other professional disciplines who arein equal or superior positions. Greater weight—that is, broaderinfluence as an outcome of decisions as well as the challenge ofpowerful external forces—may make decision making both moreconsequential and more difficult to implement. In the face ofchallenging decision making, social workers often must exercisemoral courage and then endeavor to sustain ethical habits, whichcan be consciously developed and reinforced over time. Strom-Gottfried articulates moral courage:

Moral courage is the ability to put ethicsinto action. It means standing up andstanding out in defense of principle, evenwhen others are standing aside. Ethicalaction is more than whistle blowing. Itinvolves daily acts of integrity, carried outwith dignity, in which individuals stand up

12

for what is right and encourage others to dothe same. (www.formoralcourage.com/)

To be morally courageous is often challenged by the dimensions ofpragmatism. Such a consideration of the consequences of availablealternative actions may be more challenging for administratorsthan direct service practitioners. The fate of an agency ororganization in its community context may be threatened either bymoral or strategic error. Consequences can be far-reaching. Thewell being, based on access to service, of a universe of clientsmay be in the balance.

What we decide to do may be based in variousphilosophical foundations, but in the end, wemust live with the consequences. Ethicaldecision-making most often involves characterand integrity.  The willingness to learn andto ponder these issues, the decision toaccept our codes as an important part ofdecisions, the ability to self-reflect on ourown motivations and biases, our honesty, andour propensity to know when we needassistance all involve the type of person weare (Meacham, 2007).

Organizational leaders face unavoidable ethical dilemmas. Toprevent negative consequences, administrators should:

Examine their own values, which inevitablyguide culture and decisions.

Honor the spirit or letter of agreements. Disclose future plans to employees. Disclose future plans to the community and

stakeholders. Note and act on improper behavior by peers

or other organizations. Assess the risk of decisions undertaken. Resign if there are irreconcilable

disagreements with board decisions

13

(Markkula Center for Applied Ethics,2008).

On the same pragmatic basis, an administrator can systematicallyassess the state of the organization by using tools such asFrederic Reamer’s Ethics Audit (Reamer, 2001). It is a manual thatserves as a risk management tool to guide in an assessment oforganizational policies and procedures and to create an actionplan. Compliance is likely to reduce the risk of injury ordisservice to clients and to bring congruence for practitionersbetween their individual professional responsibility and thefunctioning of the organizations of which they are a part.

Tools for implementing a pervasive and lasting ethicalenvironment include: organizational reviews based on consistentcriteria, staff training, performance appraisals inclusive ofethical conduct elements, modeling behavior, institutional ethicscommittees in appropriate settings, transparency inadministrative decision making, the identification andinstitution of best practices models, employment/admissionpolicies, explicit guides for use of electronic tools, recordspolicies and practices, comprehensive, confidential performanceappraisals, and expectations for professional staff to belicensed.

The Context of Ethics in Higher Education

In the United States, a series of major corporate scandals led tothe passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Pub. L. 107-204,116 Stat. 745). Public attention to the negative press accountsof accounting and other irregularities at corporations such asEnron and WorldCom has resulted in increasing attention to theimportance of providing ethics education to students of business.On a global level, the Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment, with its 30 member nations, has conducted extensivework in creating ethical awareness, developing a set of ethicsprinciples for governments and companies (information availableat: http://www.oecd.org/home/). Despite the increasing demandson institutions of higher learning to take on additional roles,

14

(such as regional engagement and other forms of corporate socialresponsibility, internationalizing the curriculum, and greateraccountability to stakeholders), there has not been comparableinternational effort to develop a set of ethical principles forhigher education (Marmolejo, 2006). In a report entitledEmbedding Ethics in Business and Higher Education: From Leadership to ManagementImperative, the author recommends a twofold approach: first,examining high-risk areas of their institutions and finding waysto assure integrity in the operations of their own affairs; andsecond, by establishing as an explicit educational goal the moraldevelopment of its students and then monitoring the university’sprogress on achieving this goal (Soule, 2005). In 2005, theUnited Kingdom’s Council for Industry and Higher Education (CIHE)published a guide for institutions of higher education to helpthem create more ethical environments (available online at:http://www.cihe-uk.com/docs/PUBS/0509Ethics.pdf). These effortsdemonstrate at least a beginning realization that guidelines forethical conduct need to be inculcated throughout institutions ofhigher education, not just in the corporate world. Ethics in Social Work EducationIn the United States, social work educational programs aremandated to integrate content on social work values and ethicsthroughout the curriculum (CSWE, 2001). Specifically:

Social work education programs integratecontent about values and principles ofethical decision making as presented in theNational Association of Social Workers Codeof Ethics. The educational experienceprovides students with the opportunity to beaware of personal values; develop,demonstrate, and promote the values of theprofession; and analyze ethical dilemmas andthe ways in which these affect practice,services, and clients (CSWE, 2001, p. 8).

Considerable material has been created to guide educators in howbest to instruct students enrolled in social work programs on howto become ethical practitioners. There has not been much

15

guidance, however, for educators on how to create ethicalenvironments in social work educational programs or on how tobehave ethically in their roles as educators. In fact, someeducators appear to view themselves as having left the professionto enter into a new one, one in which social work codes of ethicsare presumed not to be pertinent. In fact, the NASW Code of Ethicsdevotes minimal attention to social workers in the role ofeducator. It states (paraphrased) that social workers whofunction as educators should:

Teach only in areas where they are competent and keep up to date on advances in their field

Evaluate students fairly and respectfully Assure that clients are informed when they are being seen by

students Not engage in dual relationships where there is risk of harm

or exploitation of the student (NASW, 1999, Section 3.02, available online at http://www.naswdc.org/pubs/code/code.asp)

Compared to the detailed set of ethical standards that pertainprimarily to practitioners, these guidelines are minimal. Theyalso do not address the need for creating ethical environmentswithin social work educational programs. The social workprofession is very aware of the importance of an environment thatsupports and sustains human growth and development. It makes agreat deal of sense that educators and their students will morelikely be aware of ethical issues and act accordingly if theeducational program itself explicitly and consistently,throughout all of its processes, maintains an ethicalconsciousness and promotes ethical behavior, as well as teachesethics and values in the classroom. In the introduction to avolume entitled The Future of Doctoral Education (2006), Golde arguesthat those who earn the doctorate should be seen as stewards ofthe discipline and that stewardship involves not only roles andskills but also principles that guide the discipline. “The goalof professional education,” he states, “is to inculcate those weeducate with the highest levels of competence and integrity (p.9).”

16

Despite the relative lack of specific guidance for educators inthe NASW Code of Ethics, educators may be vulnerable to charges ofethical violations. Two studies have examined areas of ethicalvulnerabilities among educators. Wykle (1999), in a nationwidesurvey of social work educators (including instructors, fieldsupervisors, chairs, deans, and others who evaluate students),found that there exists considerable uncertainty about what isethical in several domains (professional behavior; course contentand preparation; and relationship boundaries). The areas ofgreatest uncertainty concerned “dating and sexual contact withex-students and with other social work educators,” “sellingcomplimentary texts, smoking marijuana, moonlighting, use ofschool resources, requiring students to be research subjects, andfactors relevant to grading (pp. 183-4).” The author concludesthat the NASW Code of Ethics needs to contain more guidance forsocial work educators. Strom-Gottfried (2000) conducted ananalysis of ethics complaints involving students, facultymembers, and field instructors considered by the NationalAssociation of Social Workers Committee on Inquiry between 1986and 1997. In an examination of 894 ethics cases, the author foundthat 58 (6.5%) involved students, faculty, or field instructors.Of these 58 cases, only 26 went to hearings; and only 14 of theseresulted in findings of violation of the Code of Ethics. (It shouldbe noted that the relatively low number of cases adjudicated byNASW may reflect the lack of specificity in the Code related tosocial work education. The author suggests that many of thesecases may also be handled through school-based channels, ratherthan through NASW.) The cases involved: “boundary violations(including sexual and other dual relationships),” “failure toaddress collegial or supervisory responsibilities,” “failure tocomplete, maintain, or provide proper records or reports;” “pooruse of social work skills or knowledge;” “failure to discusspolicies or provide informed consent;” “misrepresentation orother fraudulent behavior;” “failure to seek consultation;”“breach of confidentiality;” and “conflicts of interest.” Inthese cases, complainants included both students and facultymembers. Approximately 75% of the complaints were filed againstfaculty members or administrators, and 25% against students (by

17

faculty, field supervisors, or clients). The author concludesthat social work educators (faculty and administrators) should beaware that social workers functioning as educators are still heldto the ethical standards of the Code of Ethics. She suggests thatthe social work literature concerning boundaries and dual roles,confidentiality, gate-keeping, competence, and supervisoryliability contains considerable wisdom about ethical issues insocial work education and that educators would do well toconsider how such wisdom can be used preventively.

In designing a new social work program, it is especiallyimportant to structure the curriculum, program policies, andprocedures so that the mission, goals, and objectives of theprogram may be addressed and achieved. One of these objectives isto prepare graduates who are grounded in social work values,committed to ethical practice, and prepared for the inevitabledifficulties that arise when ethical principles clash, givingrise to ethical dilemmas. Effective teaching about values andethics best occurs in an environment where there is clarity aboutvalues, ethical principles and standards in the educationalprogram, and policies and procedures that implement programvalues, principles, and standards. Some of the more perplexingissues that confront social work educational programs will now bediscussed, with the aim of suggesting approaches to creating andmaintaining an ethical consciousness and culture throughout allaspects of those programs.

Competence

It goes without saying that social work educators should becompetent. Hopefully the process of selecting faculty membersassures that potential educators have at least demonstratedmastery of some content area in social work. In the UnitedStates, accreditation standards require that educators who teachsocial work practice must have had at least two years of practiceexperience (CSWE, 2001). Of course it is entirely possible thatan individual who has completed an advanced degree has not yetdemonstrated the ability to teach. The tenure process and othermethods of reviewing faculty members are structured to weed out

18

individuals who are not able to learn the fundamentals ofeffective teaching. Promotional ladders also provideopportunities to review educators’ productivity and currency intheir fields. Despite these methods of assuring competence,academia still provides comfortable niches for individuals tosettle into and become stagnant in their teaching, scholarlyproductivity, and service. Furthermore, there are difficultsituations in the classroom that challenge even the mostcompetent, ethical educator. For example, Congress (1992)described the challenges of teaching culturally diverse students.Cultural norms intersect with learning styles, and educators needto assure that they are continually enhancing their own levels ofcultural competence if they are effectively to reach increasinglydiverse student populations. Since the passage of the Americanswith Disabilities Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-336), educators havefound themselves accommodating increasing numbers of studentswith a variety of special learning needs. Educators, even thosewith multiple years of teaching experience, must adapt to changessuch as this. Furthermore, the field of social work is alwaysbeing renewed, responding to changing political and socialenvironments. In order to stay effective, educators must keep upwith the social work literature, as well as advances inparticular fields of practice. Once tenured and promoted, whereare the safeguards to assure that students are receiving the bestpossible information on practice issues and are being mentored byfaculty members who are fully engaged as teachers andprofessional social workers? A recent editorial in the Journal ofSocial Work Values and Ethics, (Marson, 2006) suggested that social workeducators should maintain professional licensure, even if theyare not currently acting in the role of practitioner. The authorcompared social work to medicine and law, where educatorsmaintain their medical or legal licenses, suggesting thatlicensure is one way of assuring continuing competence. Theeditorial prompted an immediate challenge to the notion thatlicensure actually measures competence (Liles, 2006). The debatecontinues. One thing is not debatable: social work studentsdeserve competent, ethical professors. An environment thatsupports ongoing discourse among the faculty about the ethicalmandate to be competent would help assure that educators at least

19

reflect on the necessity of lifelong learning to maintaincompetence.

Dual Relationships

Congress (1996) identified the issue of dual relationships insocial work education as an understudied issue. Citing only threeprevious articles on the topic (Shorr and Sanville, 1974;Holzman, 1984; and Kagle and Giebelhausen, 1994), she reviewedthe following types of dual relationships that can arise inacademia: social work educator as sexual partner, social workeducator as friend, social work educator as therapist, and socialwork educator as employer, raising a number of questions foreducators to consider about each type. Because of the inherentpower differential between student and educator, the authorclassified dual relationships of a sexual nature as sexualharassment and suggested that such relationships are clearlyunethical. This position was supported by Levenson (2006) in anarticle that explored sexual dual relationships in some depth.Congress (1996) stated that there was considerably less clarityabout nonsexual forms of dual relationships in academic settings.The same author (Congress, 2001) conducted a national survey ondual relationships in social work education. Her findings werethat educators were quite divided about whether dualrelationships are ethical or not. Although there was consensusthat sexual relationships with current students are unethical,opinions were divided about whether such relationships withformer students (those who had graduated) were ethical. Even moreuncertainty was expressed concerning other types of dualrelationships (educators were asked about dual relationshipsinvolving professional employment, nonprofessional employment,individual social relationships, group social relationships,therapy relationships, and professional-collegial relationships).Furthermore, only 34.5% of responding social work programsindicated that they have policies about dual relationships. Theauthor concluded that considerably more attention needs to bedevoted to this topic by educators and educational programs.

Discrimination

20

Although social work codes of ethics (e.g., NASW, IFSW/IASSW,British Code of Ethics) advocate respect for diverse beliefs andnondiscrimination, Ressler and Hodge (2005), in a study thatsampled members of the North American Association of Christiansin Social Work (NACSW) and students from three state universityclasses in spirituality and religion, found that religiouslyorthodox students (as opposed to religious progressives) reported“unwarranted, frequently public, criticism for religious beliefsby social work faculty and students” (p. 68). Some respondents tothe study were advised they should not be in social work, and afew reported that efforts had been made to force them out of theprofession. Although this was admittedly a small, probably biasedsample, the study does raise some concerns about the possibilityof discrimination in social work education.

Gatekeeping

Strom-Gottfried (2000) suggested that the issue of gatekeepingintersects with ethics. Social work educators have aresponsibility to teach students, advise them, support them, and“bring them along” until the students are adequately prepared forentry-level professional work. They also have a responsibility toassure society that the graduates of their programs have therequisite values, commitment to ethical behavior, knowledge, andskills to carry a professional role. Not every individual whowants to become a social worker has the requisite qualities, andnot every student with the requisite qualities advancessufficiently within the educational program so that he or she isprepared for the profession. Educators are faced with thedecision on whether to admit an individual to the program ofstudy, whether to allow an admitted student to continue studying,and whether to certify a student for graduation. Standards areestablished, and judgments are made. In every aspect ofgatekeeping in social work, the rights of students and potentialstudents to an education must be balanced against the right ofsociety to have competent, ethical social workers.

21

The 1990’s produced a variety of articles on gatekeeping. Coleand Lewis (1993) reviewed a large number of court cases thatconsidered academic and disciplinary dismissals of studentsenrolled in higher education programs, concluding that the courtshave, by and large, declined to overturn decisions of educators,unless the educational programs: (1) failed to disseminateclearly stated academic and behavioral expectations andconsequences for not meeting expectations, (2) failed to usetheir own criteria and procedural guidelines in making decisions,(3) made decisions that were demonstrably arbitrary orcapricious, (4) or denied students due process (includingadequate notice of deficiencies and a review/appeal process). Thecourts have been particularly unwilling to intervene in academicdecisions, as opposed to disciplinary ones. Cobb (1994), inreviewing a court decision involving a medical student [Horowitzv. Board of Curators of the University of Missouri (1976)],argued that for the professions, behavioral criteria can beconsidered academic. This suggests that there may be no need toestablish separate procedures and guidelines for nonacademictermination of students in social work: students who violateprofessional behavioral standards can legitimately be givenfailing grades. Cobb (1994) suggested a number of guidelines forsocial work programs managing unethical students and stronglyrecommended obtaining legal opinions on the social work program’sproposed positions from a university attorney.

Gatekeeping at admissions has been discussed by a number ofauthors. Miller and Koerin (1998) surveyed admissions criteriaand procedures used by MSW programs to assess admissibility ofstudents. Although 85% of the responding programs reported havingnonacademic admissions criteria (in addition to academiccriteria), most programs reported discomfort in using theircriteria to make admissions decisions. The authors suggested thatsystematic and equitable procedures throughout the admissions andeducational process would provide the necessary support foreducators to make decisions not to admit or not to graduateunsuitable students. Gibbs (1994) reported that there is verylittle gatekeeping at admissions to the major in BSW programs,although most programs (95%) report some screening (usually grade

22

point average) mechanism at entry into a field practicum. Despitethe presence of a screening mechanism, very few students arescreened out. The author concludes that educators may beavoiding their responsibility to society by failing to developexclusionary criteria for their programs and allowing studentswith serious personal difficulties into the profession. In anarticle suggesting a model of gatekeeping for undergraduateprograms, Moore and Urwin (1991) warned that, in periods ofdeclining enrollment in social work programs, educatorsexperience pressure to relax scrutiny of applicants, and thatthis eventually can have negative effects on clients. Koerin andMiller (1995) also reported that, during a period of decline inapplications to graduate programs in the late 1970’s and early1980’s, acceptance rates increased significantly. Cole (1991)reviewed relevant case law concerning social work programadmissions, summarizing the pitfalls that programs should avoidin excluding unsuitable students from their programs: arbitrarydecisions; not honoring the program’s published criteria;discrimination on the basis of race, sex, handicap, orcitizenship; and not protecting the privacy of student records.The author recommended that social work programs develop clearcriteria and standards that identify the qualities of applicantsthat will be suitable for successful program completion.

Koerin and Miller (1995) studied the termination of students fornonacademic reasons, surveying MSW programs to determine whetherprograms had policies concerning nonacademic termination and forwhich type of situations such policies might apply (whether ornot policies existed at the particular program). The authorsfound that two-thirds of all programs had no policy onnonacademic termination. Programs reported that nonacademictermination should be considered for issues relating to ethics,mental health or substance abuse problems, poor performance infield, criminal behavior, as well as misconduct in the classroom.Koerin and Miller cited a Born and Carroll (1988) study thatdiscussed professional role confusion, suggesting that educatorsmay think of students as clients and see nonacademic terminationas denying services to a needy client. They made a number of

23

recommendations for programs to use in developing or refiningpolicies for nonacademic termination.

Academic Dishonesty

Academic dishonesty is one of the triggers for engaginggatekeeping policies, but it merits some separate considerationas well. According to Saunders (1993), “When social work studentsengage in dishonest behavior—within the classroom or in theirpracticums—they dishonor the academic integrity of the program,the social work profession, and possibly put their clients injeopardy (p. 1).” Stories about social workers fabricating clientrecords or lying about services provided demonstrate that studentdishonesty can lead to worker dishonesty, which can harm clientsand cast a negative light on a noble profession (see, forexample, Marson and Finn, 2006). Plagiarism is the most oftencited example of academic dishonesty. When confronted withcharges of plagiarism, students often claim that they did notunderstand that what they had done was plagiarism. Even studentscaught downloading large amounts of text from websites andincorporating it into papers unattributed may express ignorancethat this is academically dishonest. In undergraduate programs,especially in institutions that accept large numbers of studentstransferring from community college, it can be difficult to knowwhat students have been taught about plagiarism. Giving studentsthe benefit of the doubt is often easier than following throughwith formal charges, so students may have the opportunity topresent the same claims of ignorance to several professors.Clearly “letting things slide” is not a way to hold students tostandards of academic honesty. An ethical educational environmentis the best preventive medicine for the disease of academicdishonesty. Such an environment, we believe, must:

Provide students with a clear definition of plagiarism (orother form of academic dishonesty), with examples.

Teach students how to write in their own voice and how toreference the ideas of others.

Engage in open discussions of academic dishonesty withstudents, demonstrating the links between student dishonesty

24

and practitioner dishonesty and the potential negativeeffects on client systems.

Have clear policies and procedures for handling academicdishonesty, with a variety of consequences thatappropriately fit the nature of the dishonesty.

Follow through with procedures. Keep records that document the issue and the consequence. Model integrity in all aspects of scholarship and

interactions with students.

Even though most institutions of higher education have policiesand procedures for handling academic dishonesty, effectivefollow-through may be difficult for a variety of reasons. Giventhat dishonesty violates social work codes of ethics, academicdishonesty may be handled by the social work program itself,assuming that there is appropriate backing from the universityfor the program’s decisions.

Recommendations for Social Work Educators

Educators are responsible for teaching ethical behavior tostudents. Students learn best, not by the words they read intexts or hear in lectures but from participating in anenvironment where ethical behavior is lived. Educators’ behavioris the most powerful text. Educators will model ethical behaviorbest if the environment in which they carry out theirresponsibilities clearly articulates consciousness of ethicalissues and promotes ethical behavior. Educators are responsiblefor creating environments that support and promote ethicalconsciousness and behavior—in the classroom, in the field, and inall of their interactions with students and with each other. Tocreate such environments, we conclude that they must:

Understand the expressed values and ethical framework of theeducational institution in which they function, engaging indialogue with that institution when they discover aspects ofinstitutional behavior that do not comport with its values.

Understand and internalize the profession’s core values,ethical principles, and ethical standards.

25

Have a firm grasp of the particular threats to ethicalbehavior in social work educational programs.

Create policies and procedures that support and promoteethical behavior on the part of social work educationaladministrators, staff, faculty, field instructors, andstudents.

Create and sustain a process of periodic review of theethical health of the social work educational environment.

Engage in continuous self-assessment and assure that theirown behaviors are ethical.

Assure that social work values, ethical consciousness,ethical principles and standards are infused throughout thecurriculum.

Assure that all participants in the educational environment—especially administrators, faculty, field instructors, andstudents—learn how to identify and resolve ethical dilemmas.

Concluding Note

The ideal environment to support social workers and ancillaryprofessionals in realizing morally defensible and optimallyeffective social service and educational systems is one in whichvalues and ethical behavior are consistently considered,discussed, taught, and demonstrated. With effective leadership,over time and with practice, perceptions, attitudes and actionswill become increasingly congruent with clearly stated ethicalprecepts. Throughout the history of the social work profession,social workers have adhered to an unflinching commitment toimprove the human condition. Using appropriate tools to enhanceethical consciousness and practices, the profession will maintainits moral compass and strengthen its functioning in society.

SOURCESIFSW-IASSW Conference 2008

Altizer, L. (2003-2004). Why small organizations need our help. Ethics today online, (selections from vol. 2, 4 & 13). Available online at: www.ethicsa.org

26

Cobb, N. H. (1994). Court-recommended guidelines for managing unethical students and working withuniversity lawyers. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(1).

Cole, B. S. & Lewis, R. G. (1993). Gatekeeping through termination of unsuitable social work students:

Legal issues and guidelines. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(2).

Cole, B. S. (1991). Legal issues related to social work program admissions. Journal of Social WorkEducation, 27(1).

Congress, E. P. (1996). Dual relationships in academia: Dilemmas for social work educators. Journal ofSocial Work Education, 32(3).

Congress, E. P. (2001). Dual relationships in social work education: Report on a national survey. Journal of Social Work Education, 37(2).

Congress, E. P. (1992). Ethical teaching of multicultural students: Reconsideration of social work values for educators. Journal of Multicultural Social Work, 2(2).

DiFranks, N.N. (2008). Social workers and the NASW code of ethics: Belief, behavior, disjuncture. Social Work, 53(2).

Ethics Resource Center. (April 2008). Ethical culture building: A modern business imperative. Arlington

VA: Author. Available online at: http://www.ethics.org/erc-publications/EthicalCulture.asp

Ethics Resource Center. (June 2008). A new survey of HR professionals.Arlington VA: Author.

Available online at: http://www.ethics.org/ethics-today/0608/shrm-erc-survey.asp

Ethics Resource Center. (2007). The 2007 National Business Ethics Association Survey. Arlington VA: Author. Available online at: http://info.ethicspoint.com/files/PDF/resources/ERCs_National_Nonprofit_Ethics_Survey%5B1%5D.pdf

27

The Forum on Education Abroad. (2008). Code of ethics for education abroad. Carlisle, PA: Dickinson

College.

Gibbs, P. (1994). Screening mechanisms in BSW programs. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(1).

Golde, C. M. (2006). Preparing stewards of the discipline. In Golde, C. M. & Walker, G. E. (2006). The future of doctoral education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Healy, L. M. (2007). Universalism and cultural relativism in social work ethics. International Social

Work, 50(1).

Hugman, R. & D. Smith. (1995). Ethical issues in social work. New York: Routledge

International Federation of Social Workers and International Association of Schools of Social Work. (2004). Ethics in social work: Statement of principles. Bern, Switzerland: Author. Available online at: www.ifsw.org/cm_data/Ethics_in_Social_Work_Statement_of_Principles

Jaskyte, K. & W. Dressler. (2005). Oranizational culture and innovation in nonprofit human service organizations. Administration in Social Work. 29(2).

Johnson, K. (2003-2004). The role of leadership in organizational integrity and five modes of ethical leadership. Ethics Today Online (selections from vol. 2). Available online at: www.ethicsa.org

Koerin, B. & Miller, J. (1995). Gatekeeping policies: Terminating students for nonacademic reasons. Journal of Social Work Education, 31(2).

Levenson, J. S. (2006). Sexual harassment or consensual sexual relations? Implications for social work education. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 3(2). Available online at: http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/content/blogcategory/13/46/.

Liles, R. E. (2007). Response to “Licensing social work faculty: An issue of ethics?” Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 4(1). Available

28

online at: http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/content/blogcategory/12/44/.

Marmolego, F. (2006). Fostering the development and implementation of principles for managing ethics in higher education institutions: An international comparative perspective. Paper presented at the 2006 General Conference of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Available online at: http://eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/27/f7/2c.pdf .

Marson, S. M. & Finn, J. (2006). How far do you go? (editorial comment). Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 3(1). Available online at: http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/content/blogcategory/12/44/.

Marson, S. M. (2006). Licensing of social work faculty: An issue of ethics? (editorial comment). Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 3(2). Available online at: http://www.socialworker.com/jswve/content/blogcategory/13/46/.

Markkula Center for Applied Ethics (an online resource for consultation). (2008). Santa Clara, CA: Santa Clara University. Available online at: www.scu.edu/ethics

McDaniel, C. (2004.) Organizational ethics: Research and ethical environments. Williston, VT: Ashgate Publishing.

Meacham, M. J. (2007). Ethics and decision making for social workers. Journal of Social Work Values

and Ethics, 4(3). Miller, J. & Koerin, B. (1998). Can we assess suitability at admission? A review of MSW application

procedures. Journal of Social Work Education, 34(3).

Moldovan, V. & Moyo, O. (2007). Contradictions in the ideologies of helping. International Social Work.

50(4).

Moore, L. S. & Urwin, C. A. (1991). Gatekeeping: A model for screeningbaccalaureate students for field

29

education. Journal of Social Work Education, 27(1).

National Association of Social Workers. (1996) & (1999). Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington DC: NASW Press.

National Association of Social Workers. (2001). NASW standards for cultural competence in social work

practice. Washington DC: NASW Press.

National Network for Social Work Managers. Available online at: http://www.socialworkmanager.org/index.html

Navran, F. (2003-2004). Are unethical decisions more a function of theindividual decision maker or the decision maker’s environment? Ethics today online. selections from 2(15). Available online at: www.ethicsa.org

Reamer, F. G. (2001). The social work ethics audit: A risk management tool. Washington DC: NASW Press.

Ressler, L. E. & Hodge, D. R. (2005). Religious discrimination in social work: Preliminary evidence. Journal of Religion & Spirituality in SocialWork, 24(4).

Saunders, E. J. (1993). Confronting academic dishonesty. Journal of Social Work Education, 29(2).

Seligson, A. L. & L. Choi. (2006). Critical elements of an organizational ethical culture. Ethics Resource

Center and Working Values, Ltd. Available online at:www.ethics.org/erc-publications/organizational-ethical-

culture.asp

Soule, E. (2005). Embedding ethics in business and higher education: From leadership to management imperative. Available online at:http://www.bhef.com/.

Strom-Gottfried, Kimberly. (2000). Ethical vulnerability in social work education: An analysis of NASW

complaints. Journal of Social Work Education, 36(2).

Strom-Gottfried, Kim. (2007). Moral courage: Ethics in Action. Available online at: http://formoralcourage.com/

30

Wykle, G. T. (1999). Ethics on campus—A nationwide survey of social work educators. Journal of

Teaching in Social Work. 19(1/2). E. DuMez, D. Falk 2008