Members of the National Organization for Human Services (NOHS) have cause to invest in the revision to their ethical code, Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals. As the Ethics Committee of NOHS is pursuing a revision, a public discussion of the current revision process for the NOHS ethical code was offered in workshop format at the annual conference. Points of discussion were initiated after participants completed a questionnaire. This conference proceeding offers a synthesis of the points offered by the participants. These points do not constitute any final statements on the revision to the NOHS ethical code. The authors thank all of the attendees who participated in the complex and enlightening discussion

Wark, Linda J.

Opus: Research and Creativity at IPFW

Indiana University – Purdue University Fort Wayne
Opus: Research & Creativity at IPFW
Human Services Faculty Presentations Department of Human Services
2011
Revision to NOHS Ethical Code: Year One
Linda J. Wark
Indiana University - Purdue University Fort Wayne, warkl@ipfw.edu
Follow this and additional works at: http://opus.ipfw.edu/humser_facpres
Part of the Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons
This Proceeding is brought to you for free and open access by the Department of Human Services at Opus: Research & Creativity at IPFW. It has been
accepted for inclusion in Human Services Faculty Presentations by an authorized administrator of Opus: Research & Creativity at IPFW. For more
information, please contact admin@lib.ipfw.edu.
Opus Citation
Linda J. Wark (2011). Revision to NOHS Ethical Code: Year One. 2011 NOHS National Conference Proceedings. 48-50. National
Organization for Human Services.Presented at 2011 NOHS National Conference, Austin, TX.
http://opus.ipfw.edu/humser_facpres/19
  
 
 
 
2011 NOHS National 
Conference Proceedings
San Antonio, Texas
                        
                                                          
 
Achievement       Collaboration
 
Assistant Editor: 
 
© 2012
1 
 
 – October, 2011 
      
ACCESS to HUMAN SERVICES 
 
       Community       Education       Standards 
 
Editor: Steve Cockerham 
Kristina Morreale 
Editorial Review Board 
Lisa Nelligan 
Cecil Blankenship 
Mary Langenbrunner 
 
 
   National Organization for Human Services 
 
      Services 
48 
 
Revision to the NOHS Ethical Code: Year One 
Linda Wark and Judith Slater 
Abstract 
Members of the National Organization for Human Services (NOHS) have cause to invest 
in the revision to their ethical code, Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals. 
As the Ethics Committee of NOHS is pursuing a revision, a public discussion of the 
current revision process for the NOHS ethical code was offered in workshop format at the 
annual conference.  Points of discussion were initiated after participants completed a 
questionnaire.  This conference proceeding offers a synthesis of the points offered by the 
participants.  These points do not constitute any final statements on the revision to the 
NOHS ethical code.  The authors thank all of the attendees who participated in the 
complex and enlightening discussion. 
 
Background 
The need for a revision to the Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals was 
initiated by members of the Ethics Committee and earned the approval of the NOHS Board of 
Directors.  Philosophical and practical support for a revision has been outlined in Wark (2010). 
The Ethics Committee developed a three-year plan.  The conference workshop related to this 
proceeding took place at the end of the first year of the three years.  Eight conference attendees 
left their questionnaires with the presenters while others left with the questionnaires.  All eight 
were submitted anonymously.  What follows first is a summary of the discussion during the 
workshop.  Afterwards is a summary of their responses to items on the questionnaire.  The 
authors tried to represent the attendees as clearly as possible and dealt with some writing that 
was not easy to read.  Not everyone responded to each question. 
 
Workshop Dialogue 
 
Threads of conversation during the workshop enlightened the attendees’ perceived areas 
of revision to the ethical code.  The first thread was related to the relationship between students 
and the code.  One attendee noted that her students didn’t believe they were bound by the code.  
Some attendees responded and thought it critical that the revised code have a section for students 
or make clear that students should be bound by the code.  Students in attendance noted that it 
seemed to make a difference whether or not the ethical code and how to abide with it was 
incorporated into all program courses.  Other attendees noted that from the day students enter 
they must understand they will be held to ethical standards.  Finally, it was suggested that state 
laws be considered when enforcing ethical codes.  For example in Colorado, when you start the 
profession, you fall under the law, so you would also fall under the codes. 
 A second thread of conversation was related to ethics and technology.  Addressed were 
social media, email, and internet social services such as Skype, and using text messages to set 
appointments.  Providers hold the responsibility for setting boundaries, and education regarding 
the consequences of using social networks can affect careers.  Perhaps the revised ethical code 
should include reference to HIPAA.  The third thread was cultural competence, the importance 
49 
 
of it, and the distinction with cultural diversity is not the same. Definitions will be important in 
this area for the revised code.  The code should infuse responsiveness to cultural needs.  A final 
thread highlighted the skills necessary to make ethical decisions.  Some attendees thought that 
process models should be provided to work through gray areas and solve ethical dilemmas. 
 
The Questionnaire 
 
 Additional information was learned from the completed questionnaires.  The eight 
sections below are directly related to the eight questions on the questionnaire.  What is reported 
here excludes redundant information from the dialogue among attendees. 
 
Reasons to revise the current NOHS ethical code. 
Among the reasons given were: a commitment to social justice; practice standards can 
change over time; it should include a mandate to know and follow state laws on mandatory 
reporting.  The current code was criticized for both wordiness and lack of depth. In the current 
version, it is too difficult to locate specific ethical issues.  One attendee indicated that all of the 
items suggested for consideration in questionnaire item one be used in the revision.  
 
Ideas for additions or modification to the current ethical code. 
Additions or modifications to the current ethical code included:  electronic information 
security; guidelines for online clinical practices; definitions of terms such as informed consent; a 
separate section on cultural competence; a statement on social justice and advocacy; references 
to common laws among states; structure to the code to ease use; a specific timeline to permit a 
transition from a professional to personal relationship between professional and client. A core 
values statement to underscore the code was also suggested. One attendee offered editing as well 
as references to laws and computer protection in statements four and five. 
 
Statements to eliminate from the current ethical code. 
 It was suggested that Statement 50 related to the CSHSE Standards and the Community 
Support Skill Standards be eliminated although no reason was given.  More copy edits were 
suggested from the same questionnaire as above.  In addition, a suggestion to add a statement 
about using research-supported techniques was made.  One attendee wanted the Responsibility to 
Self section eliminated.  Streamlining the entire code and eliminating redundancies was also 
suggested.   
 
Statements to keep in the current ethical code. 
  Keeping the dignity of the client as an emphasis was desired as well as providing 
information to apply in specific situations.  One attendee did not want the aspirational tone to be 
stricken.  Another attendee asserted that most of the code still seems relevant. 
 
Work setting situations that the NOHS ethical code could address. 
 Responses included self-disclosure, professionalism, and boundaries.  Two detailed 
examples describing the dilemmas of an intern were also presented.  One attendee desired short 
statements that could reference other documents that could be found on the NOHS website.  
Information on third party pay requirements and insurance requirements for diagnoses was 
50 
 
suggested. Finally, an attendee wished the code to address the conflicts between corporate 
priorities and student needs in a for-profit educational setting. 
 
Areas of ethical practice that seem to conflict with laws. 
Faith issues such as a religious objection to abortion or homosexuality.  Respect for 
multiculturalism can conflict with cultural practices such as genital mutilation.  Clients may 
reveal abuses of the system to professionals.  While there is no reporting mandate, there are 
ethical dilemmas as a consequence of the disclosure.   
 
Areas of ethical practice that seem to conflict with workplace’s policies or norms. 
Four attendees responded to this item.  Among their responses to conflicts between ethics 
and their workplaces’ policies or norms were:  faith issues, for-profit university goals, the best 
interest of students, confidentiality, boundaries issues, best practices, and professional 
development.  Students witnessing frequent ethical violations during internships was also 
mentioned as well as the conflict between human services ethics and a college’s core values. 
 
Ideas for the organization of the ethical code. 
 Having sections of the code was deemed as helpful.  A distinction between aspirational 
items and those which are measureable was requested.  Similarly, another attendee liked an 
organization by guiding principles with rules for behavior and examples.  Separate sections for 
student and professionals rounded out the comments. 
 
Summary. 
 As we reviewed the responses to the questionnaire, we could see the expected tension 
between points of view.  In addition, the need for a comprehensive overhaul of the existing code, 
and the confirmation of the need for gathering data from as many members as possible was re-
enforced.    
 
References 
Wark, L. (2010).  Ethical standards for human service professionals: Past and future.                    
Journal of Human Services, 30(1), 18-22. 
 
Author Information 
Dr. Linda Wark, Chair – NOHS Ethics Committee          Judith Slater, Im. Past NOHS President 
Department of Human Services          Dept of Social Work & Human Services 
Indiana University-Purdue University, Fort Wayne        Kennesaw State University 
warkl@ipfw.edu            jslater@kennesaw.edu 
 
  


Revision to NOHS Ethical Code: Year One

http://opus.ipfw.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1018&context=humser_facpres

Revision to NOHS Ethical Code: Year One

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Opus: Research and Creativity at IPFW