Ethical Standards for Human Services Professionals

National Organization for Human Services adopted 2024

Ethical Standards Subjects

Preamble Responsibility to the Public & Society

Responsibility to Clients Responsibility to Employers

Responsibility to Colleagues Responsibility to Self

Responsibility to the Profession Responsibility to Students

PREAMBLE

The field of human services is broadly defined, uniquely approaching the objective of meeting human needs through an interdisciplinary knowledge base, focusing on prevention as well as remediation of problems, and maintaining a commitment to improving the overall quality of life of service populations. The human services profession is one which promotes improved service delivery systems by addressing not only the quality of direct services, but also by seeking to improve accessibility, accountability, and coordination among professionals and agencies in service delivery.

Ethics Code Purpose:

The purpose of this ethics code is to establish a set of principles and standards to guide decision-making and conduct for all human services professionals. It serves to safeguard the well-being of clients, uphold the integrity of the profession, and foster trust and respect in all professional relationships. This code is designed to promote excellence in service delivery, ensure ethical practice in diverse social contexts, and address ethical dilemmas with professionalism and moral clarity. By adhering to this code, members commit to the highest standards of ethical behavior of their field which transcend legal requirements, foster enduring trust and respect, and advance the principles of human dignity, social justice, and responsible stewardship of the care placed in them by clients and society towards making profound contributions to their well-being.

Persons who use this code include members of the National Organization for Human Services, students in relevant academic degree programs, faculty in those same programs, researchers, administrators, practitioners, employers, supervisors, and others in community agencies who identify with the human services field (henceforth all are referred to throughout this code as human service professionals). The ethical standards are organized according to defined professional domains.

This ethics code emphasizes our unwavering commitment to ethical decision-making, a cornerstone of the human services profession. This commitment obliges all human service professionals to engage in continuous reflection, prioritize the welfare and rights of service recipients, and navigate complex ethical landscapes with diligence and moral clarity. It mandates the seeking of counsel and adherence to established ethical guidelines when confronting dilemmas, and ensures decisions are made with integrity and transparency.

RESPONSIBILITY TO CLIENTS

STANDARD 1 Human service professionals recognize and build on client and community strengths.

STANDARD 2 At the beginning of the helping relationship, human service professionals obtain informed consent for services from clients. Clients should be informed that they may withdraw consent at any time and can ask questions before agreeing to the services. Clients who are unable to give consent should have those who are legally responsible for them review an informed consent statement document and provide appropriate consent. In the case of mandated services, human service professionals explain to clients their right to consent, including limitations to confidentiality and privacy, and possible consequences from service refusal.

STANDARD 3 Human service professionals protect the client's right to privacy and confidentiality except when such confidentiality would cause serious harm to the client or others, when agency guidelines state otherwise, or under other stated conditions (e.g., local, state, or federal laws). Human service professionals inform clients of the limits of confidentiality prior to the onset of the helping relationship.

STANDARD 4 When a human service professional suspects a client's behavior may endanger themselves or others, they must take appropriate and professional actions to ensure safety, which may include consulting, seeking supervision, or, in accordance with state and federal laws, breaching confidentiality.

STANDARD 5 Human service professionals recognize the potential harm and impaired judgment resulting from dual or multiple relationships with clients. If such relationships cannot be avoided, professionals must assess whether to limit or forego the professional relationship and make appropriate referrals as needed.

STANDARD 6 Human service professionals must not engage in sexual or romantic relationships with current clients. In the case of former clients, their friends, or family, professionals must thoroughly assess any potential harm or exploitative dynamics before considering such relationships.

STANDARD 7 Human service professionals ensure that their values or biases are not imposed upon their clients.

STANDARD 8 Human service professionals are responsible for safeguarding the integrity, safety, and security of client records. Client information, whether in written or electronic form, can only be shared with other professionals with the client's prior written consent, unless required or allowed by law or during professional supervision.

STANDARD 9 When providing services through the use of technology, human service professionals take precautions to ensure and maintain confidentiality and comply with all relevant laws and requirements regarding storing, transmitting, and retrieving data. In addition, human service professionals ensure that

clients are aware of any issues and concerns related to confidentiality, service issues, and how technology might negatively or positively impact the helping relationship.

RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC AND SOCIETY

STANDARD 10 Human service professionals are committed to delivering services equitably, ensuring inclusion and accessibility, and respective diversity by valuing and affirming differences in age, ethnicity, culture, race, ability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, language preference, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, nationality, and other identities associated with historically marginalized groups.

STANDARD 11 Human service professionals are knowledgeable about their cultures and communities within which they practice. They are aware of diversity in society and its impact on the community as well as individuals within the community. They respect the cultures and beliefs of individuals and groups.

STANDARD 12 Human service professionals have a duty to be informed about relevant local, state, and federal laws. They bear the responsibility to advocate for amendments or changes in regulations and statutes when they conflict with the ethical standards and/or the rights of clients.

STANDARD 13 Human service professionals stay informed about current social issues as they affect clients and communities. If appropriate to the helping relationship, they share this information with clients, groups, and communities as part of their work.

STANDARD 14 Human service professionals are aware of social and political issues, comprehend their effects on clients, and recognize how the impact of such issues vary among individuals from diverse backgrounds.

STANDARD 15 Human service professionals must establish processes to identify client needs and assets, actively draw attention to them, and facilitate planning and advocacy at individual, community, and societal levels to address them.

STANDARD 16 Human service professionals advocate for social justice and seek to eliminate oppression. They raise awareness about systems of discrimination and inequity that affect historically minoritized and marginalized groups and advocate for systemic change to address these inequalities within their workplace, communities, and legislative systems.

STANDARD 17 Human service professionals accurately represent the effectiveness of their treatment programs, interventions, and techniques, substantiating claims with empirical data and/or sound theoretical inferences whenever feasible.

RESPONSIBILITY TO COLLEAGUES

STANDARD 18 Human service professionals avoid duplicating another professional's helping relationship with a client. With written permission from their client, human service professionals consult with other professionals who are assisting the client in a different type of relationship when it is in the best interest of the client to do so.

STANDARD 19 When human service professionals have a conflict with a colleague, they first seek out the colleague to manage the problem. If this effort fails, the professional then seeks the assistance of supervisors, consultants, or other professionals in efforts to address the conflict.

STANDARD 20 Human service professionals have a duty to respond appropriately to unethical behavior of colleagues. This generally means first discussing the issue directly with the colleague in question, unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as concerns about repercussions due to an existing power relationship. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached or extenuating circumstances exist, the professional should report the colleague's behavior to a supervisor. If the potential unethical behavior is seen as egregious, then the individual should report the behavior to the colleague’s professional association, credentialing board, police, and/or other administrators or boards, as appropriate.

STANDARD 21 Clients have a right to information discussed between their helper and other professionals, except when state or federal law notes otherwise. All information discussed among professionals should be kept confidential from all others, except when withholding information would lead to harm to clients, others, or communities.

RESPONSIBILITY TO EMPLOYERS

STANDARD 22 Human service professionals honor their commitments to employers to the fullest extent possible.

STANDARD 23 Human service professionals participate in efforts to establish and maintain employment conditions which are conducive to high quality client services. Whenever possible, they assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the agency through reliable and valid assessment measures.

STANDARD 24 When a conflict arises between fulfilling the responsibility to the employer and the responsibility to the client, human service professionals work with all involved to manage the conflict.

RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PROFESSION

STANDARD 25 Human service professionals seek the training, experience, education, and supervision necessary to ensure their effectiveness in working with culturally diverse individuals, families, and communities.

STANDARD 26 Human service professionals provide services only within their expertise and scope of practice, recognizing the limits to their knowledge and skills.

STANDARD 27 Human service professionals must accurately represent their qualifications, encompassing, but not limited to, their skills, education, credentials, training, and areas of expertise, to the client, colleagues, and members of the public. When any intentional or accidental misrepresentation is discovered, they must take immediate action to rectify the situation.

STANDARD 28 Human service professionals must pursue relevant consultation and supervision to guide their decision-making in the face of legal, ethical, or other complex dilemmas.

STANDARD 29 Human service professionals promote cooperation across related disciplines, aiming to enhance professional development and maximize the benefits of inter-professional collaboration for clients at all levels.

STANDARD 30 Human service professionals are committed to the continued development of the field. They promote professional association memberships, support research initiatives, foster educational advancement, advocate for appropriate legislative actions, and engage in other professional development activities.

STANDARD 31 Human service professionals continually seek out new and effective approaches to enhance their professional abilities and use techniques that are evidence-based. When practicing techniques that are experimental or new, they inform clients of the status of such techniques as well as the possible risks and gain client consent for their usage.

STANDARD 32 Human service professionals engage in research that upholds ethical standards, meets institutional standards, and maintains scientific integrity. Such research accounts for cross-cultural and diversity bias and is reported with transparency regarding its limitations.

STANDARD 33 Human service professionals exercise discretion in sharing personal information on social media, knowing that they reflect the profession of human services. They also reflect on how their public behavior might impact their personal reputation and the perception of their professional community.

RESPONSIBILITY TO SELF

STANDARD 34 Human service professionals maintain awareness of their own cultural and diverse backgrounds, beliefs, values, and biases. They recognize the potential impact of these factors on their relationships with others and commit to delivering culturally competent services to all clients.

STANDARD 35 Human service professionals are committed to their personal growth and well-being to ensure they provide the highest quality service to clients. Should they become aware of any physical, emotional, or psychological impediments to their ability to serve clients effectively, they direct clients to appropriate alternative services and seek measures for personal remediation of such impediments via consultation, treatment, or education.

STANDARD 36 Human service professionals are dedicated to lifelong learning, consistently seeking to enhance their knowledge and skills to better serve their clients.

RESPONSIBILITY TO STUDENTS

STANDARD 37 Human service educators develop and implement teaching methodologies that are culturally sensitive, using pedagogical approaches that recognize student’s diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

STANDARD 38 Human service educators commit to fostering equity and inclusion, actively employing measures to ensure educational accessibility for students of all abilities.

STANDARD 39 Human service educators uphold high standards of scholarship in their academic, pedagogical, and professional engagements. They remain abreast of developments in the field through active participation in professional associations, attendance at workshops and conferences, and engagement in both the review and conduct of research.

STANDARD 40 Human service educators recognize and acknowledge the contributions of students to their work including, but not limited to, case material, grants, workshops, research, publications, and other related activities.

STANDARD 41 Human service educators monitor students' field experiences to ensure the quality of the placement site, the supervisory experience, and that the educational outcomes align with the objectives of personal, professional, academic, career, and civic development of the student. When students experience potentially harmful situations during field placements, educators provide appropriate investigations and respond as necessary to safeguard the student.

STANDARD 42 Human service educators establish and uphold appropriate guidelines regarding student disclosure of sensitive or personal information. This involves providing students with advance notice of any activities requiring self-disclosure, offering students the option to opt-out of in-depth self-disclosure when reasonable, and ensuring that there are processes in place to discuss and debrief these activities.

STANDARD 43 Human service educators acknowledge the inherent power imbalance in their relationships with students and are committed to defining and upholding clear ethical and professional boundaries. This commitment includes avoiding any behavior that is demeaning, embarrassing, or exploitative. Human service educators are dedicated to treating all students with fairness and equity, actively working to eliminate discrimination in all forms, and ensuring a respectful and inclusive educational environment.

STANDARD 44 Human service educators ensure that students are familiar with, guided by, and held accountable to the ethical standards and policies established by their academic program or department, the specific guidelines outlined in the course syllabus by the instructor, the expectations of their advisors, and the Ethical Standards of Human Service Professionals.

Copyright © 2024 National Organization for Human Services. All rights reserved. Note: This document may be reproduced in its entirety without permission for non-commercial purposes only. Any reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, or commercial use of this document, or any part thereof, without prior written permission is strictly prohibited.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95260 © 2017 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Received 06/15/15 Revised 01/23/16

Accepted 02/15/16 DOI: 10.1002/jcad.12140

Ethical Guidelines for Mass Trauma and Complex Humanitarian Emergencies Vilia M. Tarvydas, Lisa Lopez Levers, and Peter R. Teahen

Issues pertaining to trauma, especially mass trauma and complex humanitarian emergencies, are explored through the lens of ethical counseling guidelines. In mass trauma, particular attention must be paid to the experiences of both survivors and counselors to enhance understanding of ethical best practices and to emphasize the importance of contextual factors in framing effective responses to trauma and humanitarian crises. Recommendations regarding ethical guidelines for counseling practice, clinical involvement, and training are offered.

Keywords: trauma/crisis counseling, ethical and legal issues, mass trauma, complex humanitarian emergencies

Vilia M. Tarvydas and Peter R. Teahen, Rehabilitation and Counselor Education Department, University of Iowa; Lisa Lopez Le- vers, Department of Counseling, Psychology and Special Education, Duquesne University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vilia M. Tarvydas, Rehabilitation and Counselor Education Department, University of Iowa, N338 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA 52242-1529 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Systematic response to a variety of traumatic events, includ- ing individual trauma, mass trauma or disaster, and complex humanitarian emergencies, is a relatively recent phenomenon. The definition of trauma can vary, and every traumatic event is unique in its circumstances and impact on people and their communities. This article focuses on guidelines for appropri- ate counselor ethical response in extreme circumstances of mass trauma and complex humanitarian emergencies. The negative consequences that are inherent in situations involv- ing mass trauma make the application of counseling ethical best practices much more difficult (Levers, 2012b; Tarvydas & Ng, 2012).

Trauma commonly involves actual or threatened death or serious physical or psychological injury to the individual or to others. However, the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) emphasizes the variability of responses to trauma, from person to person. During political strife or military fighting, innocent populations often are unwillingly involved. Challenges may increase when disaster occurs or when large groups are displaced and need assistance. The delivery of aid can be compromised, and relief workers may be put in harm’s way (Mathieu, 2012; Watts & Horne, 1994). Such events are termed complex humanitarian emergencies (CHEs) or mass traumas (Brennan & Nandy 2001).

Simply put, CHEs refer to deep social crises in which large numbers of people die from war, displacement, disease, and hunger; mass trauma may include CHEs along with large- scale catastrophe, disaster, any type of community violence, and terrorism (Klugman, 1999). Because of the close inter- relatedness of these phenomena, the term mass trauma is

used in this article but also is intended to encompass CHEs, disasters, and related trauma. Within complex and multilevel contextual situations, such as those just described, individual counselors seek to provide ethical care to victims in often difficult and challenging circumstances. Professional ethical standards in counseling and related professions traditionally have addressed more mainstream types of practice; however, these standards have not directly addressed the types of high-stakes dilemmas that may emerge in CHE-specialized practices. Both the formative elements and the solutions to these ethical problems for individuals are linked intimately to the specific social systems and hierarchies from which they emerge (Levers, 2012a, 2012b), making traditional forms of ethical analysis (Tarvydas & Ng, 2012) and counseling standards insufficient (Webber & Mascari, 2009).

We conducted a content analysis of four practice-relevant professional codes of ethics: American Counseling Asso- ciation (ACA; 2014), American Psychological Association (APA; 2010), Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Cer- tification (CRCC; 2010), and National Association of Social Workers (2008). We searched for and counted the singular and plural forms of the following terms most related to the ethical discussion at hand: trauma, crisis, emergency, and disaster. While a full analysis is beyond the scope of this article, in brief, the terms had perfunctory mention only 17 times across all four codes. Considering the ubiquitous nature of trauma, crisis, emergency, and disaster in the presentation of client problems to helping professionals, we found the lacuna of these terms in major codes of ethics to be a reflection of an important gap in ethical orientation to professional practice. Across all the codes, specific mention of the terms tended to

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95 261

Ethics and Mass Trauma

be merely cursory (e.g., “not to withhold client records in an emergency,” “call supervisors to assist with handling crises”) rather than substantive. For this reason, we consulted relevant best-practice documents (e.g., APA, 2008; American Red Cross [ARC], 2012; Green Cross Academy of Traumatology [GCAT], 2015; Inter-Agency Standing Committee, 2007; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Tarvydas, 2012; Tarvydas & Ng, 2012) and concluded that the lack of substantive men- tion of key aspects of trauma, crisis, emergency, and disaster in the major codes of ethics is representative of an absence of sufficient understanding of an important category of cli- ent suffering and resilience. We explore relevant issues to illuminate the ethical complexities of mass trauma work and the need for aligned ethical guidelines. In this article, we (a) identify specific ethical issues and obligations that pertain to mass trauma survivors, (b) describe the current state of ethical guidelines related to trauma counseling ethics in counseling and related professional organizations, (c) recommend ethical practice guidelines, and (d) identify professional implications.

Unique Ethical Context Mass trauma counseling should be understood as a unique and emerging specialty field (Cook, Newman, & New Haven Trauma Competency Group, 2014; Lopes Cardoso et al., 2012; Saleh, 1996). Ethical practice in mass trauma counseling is ex- traordinarily intense in the demands that it places on counselors, and this intensity influences counselors’ ethical considerations and responses. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to flesh out a job description and a full set of responsibilities, such work entails specific existential burdens for counselors as individuals, typically requiring counselors to (a) work under chaotic and difficult hardship conditions; (b) cope with ex- treme physical and emotional demands related to safety risks, extreme weather, widespread damage, and lack of utilities; (c) use nontraditional or indigenous approaches; and (d) attend to the physical and emotional well-being of survivors (SAMHSA, 2014b). Thus, mental health responders serve in conditions that are difficult at best, and mass trauma work requires use of systemic ethical analysis and response skills beyond those of typical practitioners in more traditional settings (Smith, 2005; Trippany, White Kress, & Wilcoxon, 2004).

Counselors who work in mass trauma practice must ad- dress the myriad clinical and ethical challenges that would affect any complex counseling practice. Beyond that, situational complexities mean that mass trauma counselors routinely are in situations that involve competing interests as well as intersecting and disparate social systems, cultures, and interpretations of social justice—in essence, broader social contexts than typically form the boundaries involved in professional practice in more settled community-based settings (Hoffman & Kruczek, 2011). Some ethical issues

arise from situational operations and resource limitations that restrict the manner in which counselors and all re- sponders can conduct their work. It also is commonplace that political considerations at local, regional, state, and national levels, as well as media and communications enti- ties, become involved in shaping the situation and exerting pressures on the responders.

Counselors who deploy internationally and work in CHEs face unique challenges typically not found in domestic disasters. The unstable political, social, or economic ac- tivities that can exist in a CHE or mass trauma can create an environment of high security risks for counselors and relief workers (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [IFRC], 2013; Stoddard, Harmer, & Huges, 2012). Aid workers, once considered quasi-neutral parties, have witnessed a significant growth in violence directed at them over the past few years (IFRC, 2013; Stod- dard et al., 2012). Counselors may be targeted for violence for various reasons, including being punished for actions considered “helping the opposition”; being terrorized to convince them to abandon operations; being robbed for their vehicles, possessions, money, or other items; being kidnapped for ransom or coercion or attacked in an effort to further destabilize conditions; or being caught in the crossfire because they provide aid in conditions that are precarious (IFRC, 2013; Stoddard, Harmer, & Ryou, 2014).

Ethical mass trauma responses occur in broader and particular social-practice contexts that are beyond those typically addressed in core professional ethical standards that govern more typical practices (IFRC, 2013; Stoddard et al., 2012, 2014). In mass trauma counseling, counselors often must confront clinical, interprofessional, institutional, and public policy forces that may have marked effects on their ethical judgments and boundaries. Mass trauma practice calls upon practitioners to solve complex ethical dilemmas, with multiple and diverse stakeholders, in chaotic circumstances that may strain the ethical decision-making capacity of practitioners. Such situations often go beyond those envisioned by traditional professional standards, that is, those that are delimited by more typical agency-bounded and relatively well-defined systems.

Recovery may not be successful unless attention is given to ethical responsibilities related to both the individual and col- lective trauma experienced in mass trauma (Lopes Cardoso et al., 2012). In his classic study of the Buffalo Creek, West Vir- ginia flood of 1972, sociologist Kai Erikson (1994) described two types of trauma, individual and collective, that occur jointly and continuously in most mass traumas. Mental health services must take both types of trauma into consideration in addressing community needs. Individual trauma is defined as a “blow to the psyche that breaks through one’s defenses so suddenly and with such brutal force that one cannot react to it effectively” (p. 233). Collective trauma is “a blow to the basic

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95262

Tarvydas, Levers, & Teahen

tissues of social life that damages the bonds attaching people together and impairs the prevailing sense of community” (p. 233); it is often less visible