Assignment #3 PAPA 6414

Cecily Rodriguez Fall 2013

National Organization for Human Services Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals
Introduction Human services are defined as organized activities which help people in the areas of health care, mental health, social welfare, childcare, criminal justice, housing, recreation, and education (Burger, 2013). The provision of human services is not a modern concept. Poor laws, the antecedent to human services, can be traced to colonial America when the British collected funds from local property owners to provide resources to the poor (Herndon, 2012). In the 1960s, a broad academic and professional movement began to focus on professionalizing the helping disciplines and making service delivery more effective and humane for people in need. This evolution resulted in a modernization of the profession which included refined record keeping, program metrics, and evidence based practices. It also resulted in the diversification of disciplines working in the sector. Nowadays, numerous individuals are involved in human services from psychologists and social workers to IT specialists and budget officers. Because there are so many disciplines and so many roles in human services, special attention must be given to ensure a broad understanding of ethical standards and their implications in this field. Why ethical standards are important in human services At its very core, human services are related to helping vulnerable people. Although there is general agreement that protecting vulnerable people from harm is a common moral

foundation (Haidt, 2012), history is full of accounts in which people are exploited or mistreated, especially when behavioral expectations are not explicitly articulated. When thinking about infamous ethical breaches, it does not take long to conjure up examples such as the 60s era Willowbrook State School where horrific treatment and conditions of individuals with intellectual disabilities caused public outcry even when it was the norm to institutionalize individuals with such conditions. Yet, ethical decisions arent just involved in big issues such as this; they are embedded in the routine tasks that human services workers make every day. Decisions around personal gain, eligibility determination, how to treat delicate information, or stewardship of public dollars are issues that human service professionals must debate on a daily basis. An often, because of their diverse backgrounds, individuals do not necessarily enter the field with a common set of values related to the treatment of human needs garnered from their education or training. Personal beliefs about human behavior, the reasons people are in need, and a natural inclination to stereotype or categorize people can be a big driver in decision making for human service professionals. Therefore, it is essential that the profession develop strategies to build moral communities (Frankel, 1989) to bind the sectors numerous disciplines through a set of common values and missions geared to help people in need. NOHS Ethical Standards in Human Services The National Organization for Human Services (NOHS) - Ethical Standards for Human Service Professionals seeks to achieve multiple goals to as a mechanism to address the multiple disciplines and multiple roles in Human Services. They are a set of standards which seek to

advance a normative (professional) reference group and an expectation for institutional mindedness in the approach to practice. The thirty-seven statements are a series of principles that cover a wide range of expected behaviors and obligations for the professional. They are organized so that human service professionals must consider ethics in terms of the responsibilities they have to clients, to the community and society, to colleagues, to employers, to the profession and to themselves. NOHS Standards Strengths and Weaknesses Many individuals who enter the profession do so out of a sense of obligation for social justice and a responsibility to address human needs. Regardless of the setting, human service professionals are likely to understand that they have responsibilities to the clients they serve. Values like confidentiality, respect, and integrity may already be a part of their philosophical orientation. But having them articulated in the standards serves as a mechanism for professional socialization and reinforcement around these issues. Organizing the standards to emphasize the multiple stakeholders to whom human service professionals are accountable is particularly useful as it requires the professional to look beyond his or her scope of operation to the larger implications of their actions. For example, in building the expectation that human service professionals should assess possible tensions between obeying the law and serving a person in need, the standards give human service professionals an invitation to recognize and respond to inequities in the larger system. Additionally, along with the requisite call for respect, dignity and serving in the best interest of the client, the code reinforces the need to recognize the imbalance of power that occurs in
3

human service settings. This dynamic could be ignored by human service professionals who are not trained in the fields of human behavior. The fact that it is explicitly stated as a standard encourages everyone, regardless of their training or role, to take the steps necessary to understand its influence and modify their behavior accordingly. Statements related to the responsibility to community and society also encourage human service workers to look broadly at the implications of their behavior within the system. These standards describe an expectation that workers will embrace continuing education related to current social issues, emerging practices, and complex interactions in human relations. They also set an expectation that workers will be advocates for clients, transparent with regards to the effectiveness of programs, honest about their capacity to serve a client effectively, and committed to non-discrimination. Responsibilities to the profession and to employers further fleshes out the broad expectations for professionals who may not have a big picture orientation. This includes encouraging collaboration between disciplines, commitment to further developing the profession, support organizational effectiveness, and limit the duplication of services. In a nutshell, they require that human service professionals lead from where they stand, regardless of their role in the organization. Lastly, the standards encourage the human service professional to strive to personify the characteristics of helping professions (e.g., accountability, respect, empathy, etc.) and to work to foster self-awareness and personal growth. The strengths discussed in the paragraphs above reflect the multiple functions that a good code of ethics can have in advancing and sustaining a profession.
4

There are some distinct weaknesses in the NOHS Ethical Standards of Human Services Professionals. A significant weakness is the nature of the standards themselves. These standards are clearly aspirational. In his article on professional codes, Mark S. Frankel describes aspirational codes as ideals which professionals should strive (p.110). In these kinds of codes, there is no mechanism for sanctions if standards are violated. This is true for the NOHS Code of Ethics. The standards are entirely geared towards professional self regulation. Frankel argues that self-regulation has too many risks and too few rewards to make it a viable consequence for unethical behavior in human services (p. 113). In fact, when discussing violations or unethical behavior of a colleague, the human service professional is encouraged to address the issue with the colleague himself as opposed to raising it to an administrative level. This selfregulation approach only serves to reinforce the likelihood that violators will not be reported because professionals are reluctant to report their own. A second weakness in the standards is a failure to address the human service professionals purview related to performance metrics or positive outcomes. An important method in which human service programs demonstrate their value and legitimacy to the public is through their ability to prove optimal outcomes for the programs they operate. This is done by using evidence based tools and systematic evaluation processes to analyze long term outcomes for clients. This is an activity that should be embraced by all professionals, regardless of their role. NOHSs standards do not set an expectation that human service professionals will utilize proven evaluation methods to analyze and enhance program outcomes.

Conclusion The NOHS document is an aspirational code that attempts to address what Frankel describes as the society-professional nexus. That is, it seeks to balance the providers pursuit of autonomy to serve and advocate for a client in the most flexible way possible but also to ensure a standard for which the public can hold professionals accountable for the quality of services. It focuses less on what is right and wrong and more on how to fully realize human potential for clients. It can be used in many ways by practitioners. It can be used to build community norms by providing a foundation for behavior. Because it outlines actions such as seeking out consultation or avoiding dual relationships, it can be used as a touchstone for ethical decision making. It can be used to enhance the publics trust in human services as it requires professionals to represent their qualifications accurately, contribute to research endeavors, and invest in lifelong learning. Although it does have some weaknesses, particularly its reliance on self regulation, it is a useful list of standards that should be embraced by human service professionals on a broad scale. It is not universally embraced within the field, but if it could be more widely adopted, the standards could go a long way in establishing a community of professionals, enhancing professional reputation and public trust, and be a source for evaluation of human service delivery and outcomes for people in need.

References Burger, William R. (2013) Human Services in Contemporary America. Cengage Learning. New York, New York. Frankel, Mark. S. (1989) Professional Codes: Why, How, and with What Impact? Journal of Business Ethics 8:109-115. Haidt, Jonathan. (2012). The Righteous Mind. Pantheon Books. New York/Toronto. Herndon, R. (2012). Poor Women and the Boston Almshouse in the Early Republic. Journal of the Early Republic, 32(3), 349. Kinnier, Richard, Kernes, Jerry L., Dautheribes, Therese M. (2000). A Short List of Universal Moral Values. Counseling and Values, (45). 4-16. Kitchener, K. S. (1984). Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: The foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology. Counseling Psychologist, 12(3), 43-55. Lewis, Carol W. and Gilman, Stuart C. (2012). The Ethics Challenge in Public Service. San Francisco, CA. Josey Bass. National Organization for Human Service Education. (1995). Ethical standards of human service professionals. In codes of ethics for the helping professions (3rd ed) (2007) (pp. 196-201). Belmont, CA: Thomson Brooks/Cole. National Assembly of Health and Human Service Organizations: Code of Ethics.