Social Work Professional Standards: An Exploratory Study

Professional standards of care establish the accepted or normative behavioral conduct of social workers in practice (NASW, 1993; National Association of Black Social Workers, 1980). According to Reamer (1995), "professionals are required to perform in a manner consistent with the 'standard of care' in the profession" (p. 595). Such standards are presumed to guide the day-to-day practice of social work as well as help practitioners when confronted with ethical dilemmas (Loewenberg & Dolgoff, 1988; Pine, 1987). In addition, standards in part may help agency supervisors and other administrative personnel evaluate the performance of their workers (NASW, 1989). According to Croxton, Jayaratne, and Mattison (1995), social work's standards of care serve three purposes. First, they are an internal monitoring and accountability mechanism for the profession. Clients who have concerns about their interaction with a social worker may bring grievances to the professional committee on inquiry. The committee can invoke an array of sanctions, including revocation of membership in the professional association (Berliner, 1989; NASW, 1994). Second, standards of care are a quality control measure for practice. In states where social workers are licensed or registered, standards may help regulatory bodies hearing client grievances against practitioners determine if sanctions should be invoked (Hardcastle, 1990; Thyer & Biggerstaff, 1989; Whiting, 1992). In most proceedings, the criteria by which the social worker will be judged are established professional standards (for example, Michigan Occupational Code, 1992). Third, standards of care are the criteria by which social workers will be judged in courts of law. Although not all legal actions against social workers involve standards of care, cases alleging breach of contract (Barker & Branson, 1993; Croxton, 1988; Smith, 1986), breach of fiduciary trust (Feldman-Summers, 1989; Horak v. Biris, 1985), and negligence or malpractice (Reamer, 1995) are often decided on conduct according to appropriate professional behavior. In fact, most complaints against social workers fall within the context of appropriate standards (Barker & Branson, 1993; Holder & Hayes, 1984; Reamer, 1994, 1995). If the standards are vague and overbroad, professionals are left vulnerable to grievance claims. Practitioners may believe they are conforming to appropriate practice standards when in fact they are not, and judges or licensing boards may render judgments in the absence of specific standards, which is unfair to practitioners. Those who judge practitioners may be forced to impose de facto standards, and social work may be stripped of its ability to define standards, to the detriment of the profession (Helling v. Carey, 1974; Perlin, 1992; Price, 1990; Reamer, 1982; Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the University of California, 1976). Although significant nonempirical literature exists to guide social workers encountering ethical dilemmas (Levy, 1993; Reamer, 1994; Rhodes, 1986) and professional malpractice (Besharov, 1985; Kurzman, 1991), there is only a modicum of material on standards of care (NASW, 1989, 1992). NASW has 11 pamphlets on professional standards; other relevant publications are produced by organizations such as the Child Welfare League of America (1989, 1994). However, even existing standards have been challenged as ineffective and largely irrelevant to the burgeoning population of social workers in private practice (Barker, 1992). In contrast, the health care field is guided by the voluminous Bioethics Reporter (1989-1995) and the multivolume Biolaw (1985-1995). In addition, a literature search using the PsycINFO database for ethics and standards retrieved 2,950 psychology articles and only 512 social work articles. Social workers are guided by the NASW Code of Ethics (NASW, 1996) and the previously mentioned pamphlets. Unfortunately, however, these publications are nonspecific. …