Since social work is an explicitly value-based profession (see Chapter One), broad agreement about what those values are is fundamental for both practitioners and students. The IFSW definition of social work, noted above, includes the central position of ‘social justice, human rights, collective responsibility and respect for diversities’ (IFSW, 2014). These emphases are widely echoed in the literature (for example, Congress, 2010; Thompson, 2015). However, alongside the consensus this suggests, clarity about social work values has repeatedly been found wanting (for example Timms, 1983; Clark, 2000; Banks, 2012). In addition, commentators note the significance for social work, and social work values, of place and time. From a geographical perspective, critics of the feasibility of a global social work identity highlight differences in dominant values from place to place, typically contrasting the individualist Global North with the more community focused Global South (for example, Yip, 2004; Healy, 2007; Hugman, 2010b). Through a historical lens, Reamer (2013b, p.20) notes the profession’s changing principal orientations: the ‘paternalistic, social justice, religious, clinical, defensive and amoralistic’. He goes on to identify distinct periods within which these perspectives variously dominate, beginning with the nineteenth century preoccupation with the morality of service users to a focus on professionals themselves, in the contemporary climate of accountability and risk. Thus social work values are on the one hand, widely emphasised as fundamental to the profession, but on the other, shaped by differing and shifting contexts.
Table 1: The evolution of social work values and ethics
Period Concerns and characteristics Nineteenth century:
morality The organisation of relief for the indigent poor and attempts to strengthen their wayward morality. Challenged by growing demands for social reform
Mid twentieth
century: values The profession clarifies its underpinning principles including commitment to challenge discrimination and oppression Late 1970s: ethical
theory and decision making
Surge of interest in the professional application of ethics, fuelled by
challenges posed by new technologies, litigation and rights perspectives 1980s:
ethical standards and risk
management
Increased amount of formal ethics guidance and concerns with ethical misconduct and the impact of
organisational and financial strictures Twenty first century:
digital ethics Challenges arising online including confidentiality and boundaries Adapted from Reamer, 2013a and 2013b
Historical accounts of the development of social work in the UK generally highlight the influence of two nineteenth century initiatives, the Charity Organisation Society and the Settlement Movement (for example Doel, 2012; Horner, 2012; Bamford, 2015). Also found in the US (Horner), both these precursors to social work were based on charitable and Christian principles, with their common concern the alleviation of poverty and its effects, but their emphases differed. Bamford (p.7) notes the ‘profoundly moral approach’ to poverty advocated by the Charity Organisation Society, whose casework model favoured self-help, the improvement of character, and selective provision of financial assistance to those deemed deserving. Conversely, he characterises the Settlement Movement, which placed university students to live among and support poorer people, as focusing on neighbourhood strengths and the importance of understanding the circumstances in
which poverty arises. In subsequent decades UK welfare has become increasingly secularised and social work professionalised (Banks, 2012). Its ethical concerns have developed accordingly, also reflecting changing circumstances and issues. For example, Reamer’s ‘digital period’ is discernible in BASW’s recognition of the ethical challenges as well as practice opportunities that its members may encounter in the use of social media (BASW, 2012). However, concerns with both individual needs and difficulties and the societal circumstances that give rise to them continue to mark the UK profession, and its ethical frameworks. Doel (p.11) argues that while these different responses to poverty need not necessarily be contradictory, in modern social work the casework model dominates, at the expense of interventions with a community focus.
The development of social work values into formal codes reflects this professional evolution. UK commentators note practitioners’ historical ambivalence towards unified professional status, whether driven by specialist loyalties or the connotations of professional power potentially at odds with partnership with service users (Rogowski, 2010; Pierson, 2011; Bamford, 2015). Today, different types of document translate values into practice directives. These include both codes of ethics controlled within the profession and also those externally imposed, which may have a statutory and regulatory role and be used to determine an individual’s fitness to practise (Webster, 2010; McLaughlin, Leigh and Worsley, 2015). In parallel to these regulatory arrangements, the IFSW and IASSW subscribe to an agreed Statement of Ethical Principles – ‘Human Rights and Human Dignity…Social Justice…Professional conduct’ (IFSW, 2012) – that they expect member associations to reflect in their own
guidelines. Social work tends to be most highly regulated in the Global North, including the UK and the US, and in countries elsewhere that mirror this model such as Hong Kong and the Philippines (Hugman and Bowles, 2012). Relationships between regulatory requirements and professional associations’ codes are diverse. For example, while the Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW, 2017) encourages members to apply for one of its ‘trade marks’ this is not obligatory. In the US, NASW is a membership association but statutory registration authorities refer to the NASW Code of Ethics in their policies (Hugman and Bowles, 2012). In Europe, Hussein (2011) found that while 12 countries defined social work as a regulated profession there was wide variation in requirements. These global differences compromise direct comparison of the codes themselves, as their purpose varies. However, summarising surveys she undertook in 1994, 2000 and 2005 of IFSW member associations’ codes, Banks (2012) makes four general observations. First, codes tend to grow over time, with NASW’s evolving from one page in its first version in 1960 to 27 by 1996. Second, they typically include professional ideals and values, practitioner characteristics, ethical principles and specific directives and prohibitions. Here, they reflect the theoretical diversity and shift noted above, as although principles dominate, attention to character is also, and increasingly, invoked. Third, newer codes draw heavily on those longer established, especially NASW’s. Finally, while codes’ stated purposes are generally public protection and practitioner guidance, they also reflect the relationship between ethics and professional status noted in Chapter One. Reviewing responses to codes in the literature, Banks reports that criticism has included that they are both too general and too prescriptive, and privileging professional interest over service–user
perspectives. She also notes that codes may facilitate blame of individual workers for organisational failings. Other authors, echoing the critiques of a global definition of social work above, conclude that codes’ tendency to emphasise casework-related principles shows the enduring dominance of Eurocentric perspectives (for example Kreitzer, 2006; Healy, 2007).
In the UK, and especially in England, the immediate context for this study, arrangements binding social workers to an ethical code continue to shift. Following the unification of social services in 1970, BASW was established as the UK’s first generic professional social work organisation (Bamford, 2015). The BASW Code of Ethics (2014), underpinned by values of human rights, social justice and professional integrity, sets down expectations of BASW members throughout the UK. BASW (2017a) describes its Code, reflecting the Global Definition of Social Work (IFSW, 2014) and most recently revised in 2012, as ‘the definitive document underpinning social work practice’. However, the BASW Code is one to which social workers may or may not choose to opt in, via BASW membership. Conversely, all UK social workers are bound by the ethical codes or standards produced by one of the four national bodies responsible for their professional regulation and registration (HCPC, 2016c; Northern Ireland Social Care Council (NISCC), 2015; Scottish Social Services Council (SSSC), 2016; Social Care Wales (SCW), 2017). While these vary in presentation and supporting documents, there are three broad commonalities. First, all include respect for and attention to individuals, together with escalation of concerns about the impact on service users of practice failings. Second, they highlight reliability, honesty and accountability, including practitioners’ responsibility
for their own continued professional development. Third, all show awareness of the significance for ethics in practice of the organisational context, whether in the provision of a separate code for employers in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland, or with reference to employers’ responsibilities in the code for practitioners in Wales. However, while the codes share concerns with duty and character, an explicit rights perspective, reflected in the Scottish, Northern Irish and Welsh codes, is absent in England. The value of social justice is also missing. That is not to say that rights and social justice are entirely absent from HCPC expectations. Both appear in the Standards of Proficiency, which ‘set out what a social worker in England should know, understand and be able to do when they complete their social work training’ (HCPC, 2017b). Nonetheless, their not being included as ethical requirements may imply that they are regarded as matters of technical skill rather than the active consideration of what is right or wrong that ethics comprises (Hinman 2013, and see Chapter One). Moreover, while both human rights and social justice are included in BASW’s Code of Ethics (BASW, 2014), BASW’s UK membership in 2013 was around 15,000 (BASW, 2013), compared with over 93,000 social workers in England alone bound by the ethical requirements of the regulator (HCPC, 2017a). This means that most social workers in England have formal recourse to a single ethical code, in which explicit reference to rights and social justice is absent.
Table 2: Summary of UK regulatory ethical codes for social workers
England: HCPC - Standards of conduct,
performance and
• Promote and protect the interests of service users and carers
• Communicate appropriately and effectively • Work within the limits of knowledge and skills • Delegate appropriately
ethics • Manage risk
• Report concerns about safety • Be open when things go wrong • Be honest and trustworthy • Keep records of work.
Northern Ireland: NISCC - Standards of conduct and practice for social workers.
• Protect and promote service users’ and carers’ rights and interests
• Create and maintain their trust
• Promote their autonomy while protecting from harm
• Respect their rights while minimising harm • Uphold public trust and confidence in social
services.
• Be accountable for the quality of work and maintain and improving knowledge and skills.
Scotland: SSSC - Codes of Practice for Social Service Workers and Employers
• Protect and promote service users’ and carers’ rights and interests
• Create and maintain their trust
• Promote their independence while protecting from harm
• Respect their rights while minimising harm • Uphold public trust and confidence in social
services.
• Be accountable for the quality of work and maintain and improve knowledge and skills.
Wales: SCW - Code of Professional Practice for Social Care
• Respect service users
Establish and maintain trust.
• Promote wellbeing and safety of users and carers • Respect individuals’ rights while preventing harm • Act with integrity and uphold confidence in the
social care profession.
• Be accountable and develop knowledge and skills • Embed the Code in others’ work if a manager. Adapted from HCPC (2016b); NISCC (2015); SSSC (2016); SCW (2017)
Professional regulatory arrangements for social workers in England have been subject to continual change over the past two decades, with attendant changes to the codes of ethics by which practitioners are bound. For Blair’s New Labour Government, regulation was a means to raise the status and expectations of social care staff and thus key to their intended modernisation of social services (Department of Health (DoH), 1998; Ladyman, 2004). Across the UK, social workers have been subject to compulsory registration since ‘social worker’ became a
protected title (Care Standards Act 2000). In England, the body initially responsible for registering social workers – and students on qualifying social work courses – was the General Social Care Council (GSCC), set up as a dedicated regulator for the social work and social care workforce (GSCC, 2012). The GSCC Codes of Practice for Social Care Workers were developed to ‘ensure that workers know what standards of conduct employers, colleagues, service users, carers and the public expect of them’ (GSCC, 2010, p.3). They incorporated the rights perspective absent from the current regulatory code, with service users’ rights mentioned in three of the six standards (GSCC, 2010). Summarising learning points from its time as regulator, the GSCC (2012) concluded that it would have been beneficial to develop a specific code for social workers, reflecting the values, ethics and duties inherent in the social work role. However, in the aftermath of Peter Connolly’s death in 2007 there was further scrutiny of the profession, and attendant drive for change and higher standards of practice. The government commissioned two reports (Laming, 2009; Munro, 2011) and established the Social Work Task Force (SWTF) and then the Social Work Reform Board (SWRB; Department for Education (DfE), 2014). All proposed urgent attention to social work practice (and education, addressed later in this chapter). Subsequently the GSCC was abolished (GSCC, 2012) and its regulatory role passed to the HCPC, which also regulated 15 other professions (HCPC, 2017a). The HCPC’s Standards of Conduct, Performance and Ethics (see above) are brought together in a generic document, applicable to all the professionals the HCPC regulates, most of whom are allied health workers. Initially, alongside the change of regulator a new body was also set up to provide the dedicated ‘strong, independent, national leadership’ called for by the task force (SWTF, 2009, p.7). This body, The College of Social Work
(TCSW), had its own ethical code, which included rights and social justice (TCSW, 2012a), but proved short-lived. In 2015 The Guardian reported a ‘profession in shock’ at the withdrawal of TCSW funding and hence its closure (Hardy, 2015). The following year the government announced far-reaching reforms of children’s social work and a social work regulator answerable to the Secretary of State (DfE and Morgan, 2016). Criticism followed (BASW, 2016; House of Commons Education Committee, 2016) and plans were revised, with a new body, Social Work England (SWE), named as the regulator from 2018 (Children and Social Work Act 2017b). Questions about SWE’s independence from government persist nonetheless (McNicholl, 2016). The significance of this for the present study is that despite the intrinsically ethical character of social work practice (see Chapter One), the profession does not have ownership of the ethical expectations by which its practitioners are and will be bound. In England, social workers have had two regulators since 2001 with a third proposed for 2018, and codified commitments to rights and social justice – longstanding social work principles - are absent from regulatory ethical requirements. This makes it all the more important that qualifying social work educators are effectively equipped to develop ethically literate practitioners able to articulate, apply and maintain the profession’s ethical commitment in turbulent times.