Search Results

Social work values and ethics provide the foundation for social work practice around the world. Almost all countries where social work is a recognized profession have a Code of Ethics. Although there are many similarities among Codes of Ethics in different countries, cultural and societal differences have influenced their content and focus. The extent to which Codes of Ethics have a direct effect on social work practice has been debated. While Codes of Ethics reflect societal and national differences, what is universal and fundamental to social work practice from a human rights perspective should prevail.

Harold Lewis (1920–2003), social worker and activist, was Dean of Hunter College School of Social Work for twenty years. He published widely on social work values and ethics, epistemology of practice, child welfare, social welfare administration, and social work education.

Ethical standards in social work have matured significantly since the profession’s formal inauguration in the late 19th century. As in most professions, social work’s principal code of ethics has evolved from a brief, broadly worded document to a detailed, comprehensive guide to ethical practice. This article summarizes the diverse purposes and functions of professional codes of ethics and the historical trends and changes in social work’s codes of ethics. The key components of the NASW Code of Ethics—the code’s preamble, broad ethical principles, and more specific ethical standards—are described.

This article offers an introduction to macro social work practice interventions. Specifically, it seeks to: (a) identify the difference between direct service (micro) and macro practice; (b) describe historical and contemporary foundations for macro practice; (c) establish a connection between macro practice and core social work values; (d) describe specific examples of macro social work practice using 21st-century social justice issues as exemplars; and (e) identify roles needed for macro social work practice. This article emphasizes the need for macro social work practice to create much needed change in the areas of social, environmental, and economic justice. It will examine the trend in social work that has increasingly placed emphasis and value on micro practice, which has marginalized macro-level social work as a result. Society continues to confront seemingly intractable social justice issues and is, in the early 21st century, experiencing a critical reckoning of how systems of oppression continue to exact violence against vulnerable populations. This article uses examples of social, environmental, and economic justice issues with specific recommendations on how to adopt an anti-oppressive macro practice framework.

Apart from a few dissenting perspectives, social workers have not coherently engaged with the moral dilemmas inherent in the profession’s participation in coercing or mandating patients to mental health treatment. With roots in the development of asylums in 1400s Western Europe, involuntary mental health services continue to rely on processes involving the state in order to detain individuals who are deemed severely mentally ill. Legal precedent and practices in the United States as they pertain to involuntary mental health treatment reflect tensions about promoting individual freedom while maintaining safety. Given the diversity of circumstances that social workers may navigate in this particular area of practice, the profession’s ethical commitments to self-determination are potentially in conflict with practices of involuntarily hospitalizing or providing mental health services to individuals. In fact, international health and human rights bodies have weighed in on the role of coercion in mental health treatment, advocating for decreased use of coercive means of confining and treating patients with severe mental illness. Critical perspectives on involuntary mental health services are often rooted in the critiques of psychiatric consumer/survivor/ex-patient organizers, who argue that detaining patients against their will and mandating them to participate in treatment or take medication is a form of violence that violates their rights. There are also some promising approaches to severe mental illness that promote self-determination and attempt to reduce the likelihood of involuntary or coerced treatment, reorienting toward the value of peer support and denouncing the use of nonconsensual active rescue in crisis hotline work. Abolitionists also advocate for the elimination of involuntary mental health services, advocating instead for the development of non-coercive forms of crisis response and care that rely on alternatives to the police.

Social work is perhaps most distinctive for its clear and outspoken commitment toward improving the well-being of society’s vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, while still emphasizing the importance of respecting and defending personal rights and freedoms. Though there is a fundamental necessity for coercion, or its threat, for eliciting civil social behavior in a well-functioning society, it is professionally and ethically imperative that social workers make explicit our rationales for, justifications of, and the evidence used to support or reject coercive practices in our work. Social work’s engagement with coercion inevitably entails the ethical and social policy arguments for and against its use, as shown in a review of the empirical evidence regarding its impact on the professions’ clients, exemplified by three domains: (1) child welfare, (2) mental health, and (3) addictions. Recommendations for future improvements involve balancing the potential for harm against the benefits of coercive actions.