The NOHS 2024 Code of Ethics Update

Introduction

Parsons and Dickson (2017) stated that ethics is the core of professional practice. If true, the most important professional document for human service professionals and National Organization for Human Services (NOHS) members to follow is our Ethical Standards of Human Services Professionals (referred to as the ethics code here forth), previously updated in 2015. Given the unique differences across many field-related ethical codes (Neukrug, 2022), some human services professionals who are also members of various helping professional associations (e.g., American Counseling Association [ACA], National Association of Social Workers [NASW]) will need to explore which professional code of ethics they need to follow or how to integrate those codes within their work. However, for the bulk of readers of this article, the ethics code is our most essential guideline for our professional work. A casual glance at various professional ethical codes shows that updates occur generally every ten years, and a lot can change within a field of study, and the society that field situates within, in a decade. Indeed, the current ACA Ethics Code (2014), by example, is under revision and projected to be completed in 2026 (Bhat, 2024). Therefore, the recent update of the ethics code (2024) is the current, essential version of professional standards that all human services professionals should follow, and our update timeline aligns with related helping professions, which answers the implied question of why update now?

Over the past year or more, a dedicated team worked to revise and update the ethics code to reflect current issues and needs in the field of human services. This committee engaged in many team meetings, sought input from a broad range of human services professionals via conferences and other outlets, and worked under the guidance of the NOHS board of directors to update the code. This article comprises interviews with several key members of the Ethics Committee and explores their roles in the process, what was updated and what they feel are some of the most important aspects to the current code, ways to use the code by professionals, and related questions impacting the ethical work of the diverse range of human services professionals working today. Many other individuals than those interviewed for this article participated in the update and we thank them all for their service to NOHS. Questions and responses have been edited for clarity and brevity.

Interview

Kevin C. Snow (KCS): Given your experience in the field of Human Services and/or NOHS, what role(s) did you play in updating the ethics code and how did you become involved?

Braxton A. Morrison (BM): The ethics committee was originally how I came to hear about NOHS. Now serving as the Vice-President and Treasurer, I found out about NOHS through my doctoral program and having to do assignments related to the ethics code. In 2023, there was a call for volunteers to become involved with the ethics code and I thought it would be a great way to get involved and learn more about an area I felt less educated in.

Christian Williams (CW): Since joining the NOHS Board of Directors in August 2022 as the treasurer, I have had the privilege of serving in various leadership roles, including Vice President and currently as the President of the Board. My involvement with the NOHS ethics committee began in the spring of 2023, and I assumed the role of chair in the fall of 2023. As the chair of the ethics committee, I have been deeply involved in the process of updating the 2024 ethics code. My responsibilities have encompassed every phase of the revision process. This has included seeking and integrating feedback from NOHS members, actively participating in the rewriting and revision of the code, and ensuring that all feedback is translated into actionable and cohesive ethical standards. By collaborating closely with our dedicated committee members and listening to the voices of our community, we have worked to create a comprehensive and forward-thinking set of ethical guidelines that reflect the evolving needs and values of the human services field.

Ed Neukrug (EN): I came in late on this code but offered some feedback on various aspects of it. I was on the ethics committee for the 2015 code and one of the chief architects of the original code.

Kristin Barker (KB): Over the past year, I have become increasingly involved with NOHS [especially with the] ethics committee…given my personal interest in ethics. The opportunity to contribute, help shape, and encourage change in our discipline through updated ethical standards was very exciting and motivating to me. The entire committee would meet to discuss the ethics code, and then we divided into groups to review individual sections more closely. My group’s focus was Responsibility to Students.

Kristin Ballard (KBL): My current role in human services is that of an educator, associate professor, and program chair. I wanted to become more involved in general with NOHS, so I reached out to the director at the time (Steve Kashdan) and asked what opportunities were available. I was connected with Christan Williams to discuss becoming part of the NOHS ethics committee to serve as a reviewer of the ethics code and any ethical violation allegations.

Leslie C.M. McClane (LM): I was part of the committee formed to look at the 1996 version of the ethics code and update it. I worked with two other committee members to look at suggested revisions for the section on the Responsibility to Clients section. I have been involved with NOHS serving as an officer for the southern region division when regional programs [existed] and have given several presentations at NOHS conferences on ethics.

Meghan N. Morgan (MM): I joined the NOHS ethics committee in June 2023. NOHS was recommended by a colleague at Capella University. I selected the ethics committee from the different committee options because I have served on an ethics committee within the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and found the work worthwhile and essential to protecting our practice in human services. We began to revise the code in July 2023. This was at the request of the executive committee, per Christian. The code had not been revised since 2015 and with so many changes to technology, telehealth, virtual work, and social media it seemed necessary at this point.

KCS: Were you on the committee as a student, professional, academic, leader, etc. and how did this role or roles influence your contributions to updating the code? Were there certain codes your role(s) brought greater emphasis too?

BM: I was part of the 2024 revision as a professional. I took an interest in the code due to the current lack of education and awareness around ethics in crisis intervention. I hope a contribution of mine was to ensure it remained broad to encompass those human services professionals who may not have a license or any other ethical code [to follow]. It is important that our code can apply to any professional in any field under our umbrella.

CW: I have served on the NOHS ethics committee as both a professional and an assistant professor of human services. My dual roles have enabled me to approach the ethics code with a comprehensive understanding of its application across various settings. As a professional, I have firsthand experience with the practical challenges and ethical dilemmas that human service practitioners face daily. As an educator, I understand the importance of clear, accountable, and action-oriented ethical guidelines for students and future professionals who rely on these standards to guide their work. Additionally, a crucial emphasis for me was creating a code that is inclusive of the many occupations and professions that fall under the umbrella of human services. The human services field is incredibly diverse, encompassing various roles and specializations. It was essential to develop an ethics code that reflects this diversity and provides relevant guidance for all practitioners, regardless of their specific job titles or areas of expertise.

EN: I was on the committee as a past contributor to the code and as an academic.

KB: I served on the ethics committee as both an academic and a professional. I am a full-time faculty member in higher education and a part-time employee at a nonprofit community center in Northern Indiana. I believe my full-time position as a faculty member encouraged my participation to especially focus on our Responsibility to Students section of our code.

KBL: My role helped me analyze the Responsibility to Students to ensure that the standards are current, inclusive, and thorough enough for our rapidly changing times.

LM: I was on the committee as an academic. I teach our major class on ethics most semesters and always talk with students about what could be added or changed in the ethical standards.

MM: I was on the committee as a professional and academic. I teach part-time and run a small private mental health practice, and work full-time for the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs as a social worker. I took the perspective of both my learners, as I teach courses related to ethics, and as myself as both a professional and an adjunct faculty person. We decided it was important to revise some aspects to ensure the standards were as concise as possible by eliminating redundancy. We combined some codes related to protecting clients’ confidentiality in telehealth and regarding record keeping, as well as our responsibility as human services professionals to remain engaged in current training and policies for ethical practice and advancement of the field. We also worked to streamline the language with consistent terms such as human service professional and clients.

Stephanie Collins (SC): I was a part of the team as a student representative.

KCS: Again, given your role(s) in the field and within NOHS, why do you feel it was important to update the code now?

BM: Humans services as a field appears to have finally started to become recognized on its own merits and put its history that is tied to social work and licensed mental health professionals where it belongs…while social workers and licensed clinicians are human services professionals, and will always be where human services came from, the profession is much more diverse now. The field encompasses the teenage food pantry volunteer to the psychiatrist, to the local case manager for child services. The ethics code [must] be applicable to each field under its umbrella as some may not have another code to [follow]. Updating the code now shows the organization’s steadfast commitment to remaining current with best practices and the temperature of the field.

CW: Given my roles in the field and within NOHS, I believe it was critically important to update the ethics code now for several reasons. The human services field is constantly evolving, and our ethical standards must keep pace with these changes to remain relevant and effective. One of the primary motivations for updating the code was to ensure it encompasses all domains of the field. The human services profession includes a wide range of occupations and specializations, each with unique challenges and ethical considerations. By revising the code, we have been able to create a comprehensive set of guidelines that address the diverse needs of all practitioners, ensuring that everyone within our field has a clear, actionable, and relevant ethical framework to guide their work. Additionally, it was essential to update the language of the code to reflect contemporary values and realities. Society has undergone significant changes since the last revision, and our ethical standards needed to be updated to resonate with today’s social, cultural, and technological contexts. This includes recognizing and valuing the diversity that makes up our society. Our updated code aims to be more inclusive, acknowledging and respecting the various backgrounds, identities, and experiences of both human services professionals and the communities we serve. By addressing these critical areas, the updated code not only reinforces our commitment to ethical excellence but also demonstrates our dedication to fostering an inclusive and supportive environment for all. This update is a testament to our ongoing commitment to integrity, accountability, and the continuous improvement of the human services field.

EN: Codes are, to some degree, a product of the system in which they are created. Thus, as time moves on and societal and professional values and knowledge changes, codes also need to change to better reflect these changing values and knowledge. Updating a code every ten years makes sense to me, as major shifts in culture and society can occur within a ten-year range. Even with that, codes are often behind the times in their changes and sometimes do not reflect the current status of the culture and society.

KB: Our services have changed in many ways, and we have needed to adapt. From my experience, the pandemic was not something any education was able to prepare us for. As helping professionals, we have seen larger gaps than ever before, prompting us to shift our offerings and meet our clients where they are. This significant shift made it clear that it was time for leaders in the helping professions to come together and revise our ethics code. I especially appreciate Christian Williams’ leadership on this task and the collaboration we had to come together and make a change.

KBL: The 2015 edition of the ethics code was aligned to society then. It is important to examine the ethics code every 5-10 years to ensure that language is current and appropriate to the cultural and societal climate.

LM: With changes in technology, and changes in how we deliver services, it was important to look at the standards. Also, as we grow and change as a society, learning more effective ways to interact with people, we can see the need to change wording to be more respectful or inclusive. Teaching has allowed me to examine the ethics code each semester with a new group of students, and to see where areas need to be changed or updated.

MM: The field has changed tremendously since the Covid-19 pandemic with how we access and provide care to clients. It was very exciting for me to discover when I joined the committee it was already at the forefront of the members’ minds to update the code. I completed a doctoral degree in human services in 2021 and can recall many times referencing the NOHS ethics code and noticing gaps or redundancy in the standards compared to the NASW (2021) ethics code I am familiar with. This update brings human services work into the present-day climate in our country. It incorporates consistent language and expectations to protect both professionals and clients, highlights how to provide best practice through telehealth, and [emphasizes] the importance of ongoing training and competency efforts to protect best practice.

KCS: To your knowledge, what has been the history and process of updating the code?

CW: I believe it is important to pay tribute to the foundational work of Ed Neukrug and his graduate students in developing the original code. Their dedication and effort laid the groundwork for the ethical standards that have guided our profession for years. Ed’s willingness to stay involved and support us through these recent revisions has been invaluable. His expertise and commitment have ensured that we build upon the strong foundation they established, while also making the necessary updates to address the evolving needs of our field. This bridge between past and present highlights the continuity and collective effort required to maintain and enhance the ethical standards of the human services profession. By acknowledging the contributions of those who came before us, we honor their legacy and reinforce the importance of continuous improvement and adaptation in our ethical guidelines. This historical perspective enriches our understanding and appreciation of the code’s development and underscores the significance of our current efforts to ensure it remains relevant and inclusive for all human services professionals.

EN: Originally, NOHS asked some members to devise a code. The process took a very long time, and I and [several other] graduate students went rogue and created our own code which NOHS largely adopted after several revisions. Thus, the original 1994 version of the code was a combination of my work with the graduate students and NOHS’s work on revising what we had sent them. At least, that is my recollection [2024 is the third version of the code].

KCS: What were some of the difficulties in updating the code, from your perspective, especially given the diverse landscape of human services professional work?

CW: Updating the ethics code presented several challenges, particularly given the diverse landscape of human services professional work. One of the primary difficulties was striking the right balance between being broad enough to encompass everyone in the field while also being concrete enough to maintain accountability and serve as a true guide for practitioners. The human services profession includes a wide range of roles, each with unique responsibilities, challenges, and ethical considerations. Crafting a code that addresses the needs of all these varied positions without becoming overly general was a significant challenge. We had to ensure that the code provided clear guidance and actionable pathways without delving too deeply into specific knowledge or skills, which could risk alienating some practitioners or becoming irrelevant to others. Another challenge was ensuring that the updated code remained practical and applicable in real-world situations. It was essential to create ethical standards that not only reflected the theoretical ideals of our profession but also provided tangible, actionable guidance that professionals could rely on in their daily work. Overall, the process required careful consideration, extensive feedback, and collaboration to develop a code that is both inclusive and specific enough to be effective.

EN: Inherent in the question, lies the code’s largest problem relative to developing and revising the code—the professional diversity of the NOHS membership. Because NOHS’s membership is extremely diverse, one must take into consideration whether the final version of a code is relevant to most of its constituency and yet not too broad to be unwieldly. For instance, although many of NOHS’s members have degrees in human services, there are also a number with degrees in counseling, social work, psychology, and related fields. The needs of these individuals will differ slightly. Similarly, if one is a licensed therapist, NOHS must decide if the code should be relevant for them also. In this current code, there was some discussion on how much to include on parameters for telehealth. On the one hand, all professionals use electronic communication in some capacity with some clients. On the other hand, telehealth is more of an issue for those who are licensed therapists as they must know the basics of ethical and legal issues related to that form of communication. In this current code, it was decided to have some very broad guidelines on telehealth, but to not focus on it to a large degree as those who are most concerned about telehealth would have this covered in related codes (e.g., ACA [2014], NASW [2021], APA [2017]).

KB: From my perspective and level of participation, I found that committee members agreed most of the time. We all recognized the need for enhancement in some areas, other areas needed fine-tuning, and some areas had lost relevancy. The main difficulty we faced was often related to wordsmithing and layout. Our perspectives differed on whether we should use the term professionals, practitioners, or both, and how to best create nationally recognized language that starts with our code and is then communicated through all aspects of the important work we do.

LM: There is always the need to balance the different aspects of the profession, knowing that there are practitioners with different levels of training and education as well as a different focus for each program. Respecting those differences without making the standards cumbersome or too wordy can be a challenge.

MM: It was challenging to ensure that a majority of committee members agreed on changes. When we first began the update in July 2023, there were only three of us contributing ideas. This was not sufficient. Once more members joined into the effort, then it was about finding balance between everyone’s individual perspectives and finding common ground for the overall field of human services.

SC: Some of the terms are difficult to include for everyone in every category.

KCS: What, if any, feedback from the profession or other input from beyond the committee was utilized in updating the code to your awareness?

CW: In updating the ethics code, we placed a high value on gathering and incorporating feedback from a wide range of sources within the profession. To ensure the revised code truly reflects the needs and perspectives of those it serves, we engaged in extensive conversations with our members, both at our annual conference and in the months that followed. We actively sought feedback from all of our members, inviting their input through surveys, forums, and direct communications. This inclusive approach allowed us to hear from individuals across various positions within the human services field, from front-line practitioners to administrators, educators, and students. Consultation with these diverse stakeholders was instrumental in shaping the updated code. Their insights helped us identify key areas for improvement and ensured that the revised standards are relevant, practical, and reflective of the broad spectrum of roles within our profession.

KB: I personally talked with colleagues about the potential updates. I wanted them to be aware of the conversations we were having about the changes we were considering and get their opinions on any additional areas we should pay special attention to. Christian was involved with the NOHS board as well. I believe other committee members also consulted with people in their areas too.

KBL: The great benefit of collaborating with this fine group of eight human services professionals is that we were spread all over the map geographically and we each came with different worldviews within human services, as some of us are educators, some of us are practitioners, others licensed, and a few [are] scholars/practitioners working in various aspects of education. The Zoom room held a wealth of knowledge with those new to the group or new to NOHS bringing in a fresh perspective and those with the rich historical background of the creation of the ethics code.

LM: An announcement was made at the 2023 NOHS conference in Alexandria, VA regarding the planned update. At that time people were invited to express their interest in being part of the committee. I missed the initial meeting, so I’m not sure how the initial input was solicited, but I believe NOHS members other than just the committee members were invited to give input.

MM: We did review other ethical codes from NASW (2021), ACA (2014), and APA (2017) to compare what the current ethics code included and any gaps we might have. These other codes also reinforced ideas on what changes would be appropriate for the human services field.

SC: I offered the document to a professor… [and to my] department chair to give input.

KCS: From your perspective, what was the committee’s ultimate intention or hopes for the outcome of this update?

BM: To demonstrate to the human services professions that NOHS is committed to serving the whole field, while also ensuring we remain updated with best ethical practices.

CW: From my perspective, the committee’s ultimate intention for the outcome of this update was to create an ethics code that is inclusive, actionable, and reflective of the evolving landscape of the human services field. We aimed to develop a set of ethical standards that not only uphold the highest principles of integrity and accountability but also provide practical guidance that can be applied across the diverse roles and specializations within our profession. One of our primary goals was to ensure that the updated code encompasses the wide range of occupations and responsibilities under the human services umbrella. We wanted to create a framework that is broad enough to be relevant to all practitioners, yet specific enough to offer clear and concrete guidance. This balance was essential to ensure that the code is both comprehensive and useful in real-world scenarios. Additionally, we hoped to update the language of the code to better reflect contemporary values and societal changes. By doing so, we aimed to make the code more inclusive and relevant, acknowledging and respecting the diversity of both human services professionals and the communities we serve. Ultimately, our hope is that the revised ethics code will serve as a robust and reliable guide for all human services professionals, helping them navigate ethical dilemmas with confidence and integrity. We believe that these updates will strengthen the foundation of our profession and support the continued growth and development of human services as a field dedicated to enhancing individual and community well-being.

MM: To bring the human services field into equal footing with other helping professions such as counselors, social workers, case management roles, etc. To provide guidance to non-licensed human services professionals on ethical behavior and expectations for our profession.

KCS: Looking at the new code, what stands out to you as some of the most important updates and/or existing codes for the present era of working in human services and why?

CW: One of the most significant updates is the enhanced emphasis on inclusivity and diversity. The new code explicitly recognizes the importance of respecting and valuing the diverse backgrounds, identities, and experiences of both human services professionals and the communities we serve. This focus is crucial in today’s increasingly diverse society, ensuring that ethical guidelines promote equity, respect, and understanding across all interactions and services. Recognizing the interdisciplinary nature of human services, the new code highlights the importance of collaboration across different fields and specializations. This emphasis on teamwork and cooperative practice is vital for addressing complex social issues and delivering comprehensive support to individuals and communities. Additionally, an important existing code that has been reinforced is the focus on self-care and professional well-being. The updated code underscores the necessity for human services professionals to prioritize their own health and well-being to provide the best possible care to others. This recognition of self-care as an ethical obligation is particularly relevant in the current climate, where burnout and stress are significant concerns.

KB: An important update we implemented was how we approached the standards that are now listed in our code. In some sections of our previous code, we listed examples. We found this approach to be somewhat cumbersome to read and impossible to exhaustively cover all scenarios. Removing the lengthy list of examples on some codes and ensuring that our codes do not overlap improves readability. This is crucial as human services professionals navigate ethical dilemmas in their world. Given the challenging scenarios we encounter, I believe it is essential that our ethics code is clear and easy to read.

LM: Standard 2- adding the words, “At the beginning of the helping relationship…” I believe this is extremely important as it creates the understanding that seeking permission is an ongoing process that absolutely must begin at the very start of the helping relationship. Standard 4- changes in the wording of the first sentence. This change provides clarity that the human services professional must act to protect the safety of the individual(s). Standard 6- the addition of the initial sentence prohibiting sexual or romantic relationships with current clients. The 1996 standard was less specific and allowed more opportunity for a professional to claim they did not realize they had done anything inappropriate.

MM: I think the clarification around telehealth and virtual care is imperative in today’s present human services field. Also, the constant infiltration of social media in our world makes that an essential addition to the ethics code. This is to ensure human services professionals are reminded to be mindful and cautious with how they engage in social media because of their professional roles and responsibilities.

SC: standard 10 was a course [mainstay] and it has been clarified in a way that students, going forth, can have a clear understanding.

KCS: Given the pandemic impacts or changes to technology or the changing DEI/social justice landscape nationally, etc. what codes/updates stand out to you as being most important now and why in relation to what issues impacting the human services field?

CW: The enhanced emphasis on inclusivity and diversity in the updated code is critically important in the context of the ongoing national and global focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and social justice. With increasing awareness and activism around issues of race, gender, sexuality, and other forms of identity, it is vital that human services professionals are equipped to navigate these dynamics ethically. The updated code’s clear commitment to respecting and valuing diverse backgrounds helps ensure that professionals can provide equitable and culturally sensitive services, promoting social justice in their work. The pandemic has accelerated the adoption of digital tools and technology in human services, making the updated guidelines on technology and digital ethics particularly relevant. As many services moved online, issues such as digital confidentiality, data privacy, and ethical use of telehealth platforms became paramount. The new code’s specific guidance on these issues helps professionals manage these technologies responsibly, ensuring that client information remains secure and that services are delivered ethically in a digital environment.

EN: Obviously, COVID led us into a new era relative to the use of technology and this is reflected in the code to some degree. Multicultural and social justice issues continue to be a major focus of the work of the human services professional and its importance to the profession is acknowledged through increased focus on this critical area within the code.

KB: An updated code that stands out to me as being the most important is Standard 10. We revised this code to shift from simply listing potential outcomes where bias could occur, to highlighting the commitment to delivering all services equitably. This change outlines our dedication to impartiality in every aspect of our work. Our primary focus is our clients and/or students, and we should ensure they are able to receive the highest quality of services and education.

KBL: We recognized the importance of incorporating impactful wording related to social justice, DEI, and pandemic-induced changes. We also noted some redundancies that were not obvious at first glance, but the more we reviewed the code, the more the repetition stood out from one standard to the next.

LM: With the “Me Too” movement, it has become ever clearer that everyone needs to listen carefully to what others are saying regarding an intimate relationship. We do have a level of power over our clients and should never abuse that by initiating or going along with a proposed sexual relationship. Our purpose as human services professionals is to work for the betterment of our clients, and engaging in an intimate, sexual relationship with them is only pushing them into a weaker place.

KCS: Updates were made to the preamble and purpose section of the ethics code as well. Reflect on what stands out to you about the new versions. Why are these sections important for human services professionals?

BM: They demonstrate our commitment to the inclusivity of the organization.

CW: Reflecting on the updates to the preamble and purpose sections of the ethics code, several important elements stand out to me. These updates provide a more comprehensive and contemporary framework for the human services profession, aligning it with the current needs and values of our society. The preamble and purpose sections are vital because they establish the guiding principles and overarching values that inform the specific ethical standards in the code. They provide a philosophical and ethical framework that helps professionals understand the rationale behind the ethical standards. This foundational understanding is essential for professionals to apply the standards thoughtfully and consistently in diverse situations. The new preamble offers a broader and more inclusive definition of the field of human services. It highlights the interdisciplinary nature of the profession and emphasizes both prevention and remediation of problems. This comprehensive approach ensures that the code is relevant to all aspects of human services work, from direct client interaction to systemic improvements in service delivery. The updated purpose section underscores the importance of ethical decision-making as a cornerstone of the human services profession. It stresses the need for continuous reflection, prioritizing the welfare and rights of service recipients, and navigating ethical dilemmas with diligence and moral clarity. This focus on ethical decision-making is essential for maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of the profession.

KB: The preamble and purpose sections of our code are important as they define who we are, why we are here, and what we plan to do moving forward. We are oftentimes asked, “what’s human services?” These sections signify our work and its vital piece towards supporting society while also answering a common question when asked to describe our line of work.

LM: Shortening the preamble not only makes it clearer and more concise, but also increases the chances that it will be read and understood. The inclusion of the purpose, defining that these are guidelines, is very significant. New practitioners are looking for information to help guide them and need to know that the standards are not rules or laws but serve as guides. We all can benefit from the reminders provided in the purpose as to how to use the ethical standards and the preamble allows us to better understand why we even have the standards.

SC: It is more inclusive to [everyone].

KCS: How important is it for human service professionals to follow an ethical decision-making process, rooted in the new ethics code?

CW: It is critically important for human service professionals to follow an ethical decision-making process grounded in the new ethics code. While the code itself does not prescribe a specific decision-making model, it provides a comprehensive set of ethical standards that guide professionals in their practice. By adhering to these standards, professionals demonstrate their commitment to ethical conduct, fostering trust and respect from clients, colleagues, and the broader community. This commitment is fundamental to maintaining the integrity of the human services profession. The revisions to the ethics code emphasizes the importance of social justice, diversity, and inclusivity. By following the ethical standards, professionals are better equipped to address issues of inequality and discrimination, advocating for the rights and needs of marginalized and underserved populations. This commitment to social justice is essential for creating a more equitable and inclusive society. Furthermore, the ethical standards promote accountability within the profession. They require professionals to reflect on their actions, seek guidance when necessary, and adhere to established ethical principles. This accountability ensures that professionals are responsible for their decisions and actions, fostering a culture of transparency and ethical excellence.

EN: It is critical to have an ethical decision-making process, and it is also critical to have an updated ethics code for the reasons previously noted. The code provides important content, and the ethical decision-making models provide the process.

KB: Following our ethical decision-making process is vital to our practice, whether we are in the field, in the classroom, or progressing in our professional development. Rooting our decision-making process in the new ethics code allows us to standardize some of our work, continue to establish our sense of accountability to the field, and work towards continuous improvement in our practices.

KBL: I think it is highly important for human services professionals to adhere to an ethical code, specifically the NOHS code of ethics so that they are fluent in how to react to instances and circumstances unique to our populations served and how we deliver services.

LM: We all need to remember that without a decision-making model, we are going to make decisions based on our emotions, values, and the pressure of the moment. Using an ethical decision-making model that utilizes the ethical standards provides the framework that will guide us to make stronger, more ethical decisions that are going to consider the individuals and situations concerned versus simply reflecting our own opinions.

MM: I think it is important for the overall advancement of our field. Clients we serve will often be from a vulnerable population with a power dynamic to the professionals’ benefit, at times. Ensuring ethical practice is critical to protecting the individuals we are trusted to serve.

KCS: How do you hope our profession will use this new code going forward?

BM: I hope the field of crisis intervention will use this code moving forward as it continues to grow and find its place within the mental health realm…ensuring that interventionists follow our ethics code will ensure they provide services in a responsible and ethical manner proving best for all parties.

CW: I hope that our profession will use the ethics code as a foundational guide to uphold and enhance ethical standards across all roles within the human services field. This code is designed to be a comprehensive resource for professionals, educators, students, scholars, and other stakeholders, providing clear guidance on ethical behavior and decision-making in diverse contexts. I envision that human service practitioners will use the ethics code to navigate the complexities of their daily work with greater clarity and confidence. By adhering to the ethical standards, practitioners can ensure they are providing the highest quality of care and support to their clients, prioritizing their welfare, rights, and dignity. The code serves as a reference point for making informed decisions, addressing ethical dilemmas, and maintaining professional integrity in all interactions. Leaders and administrators play a crucial role in shaping the culture and policies of their organizations. I hope they will use the ethics code to set clear expectations for ethical behavior within their teams, fostering an environment of accountability, transparency, and respect. By integrating the ethical standards into organizational policies and practices, leaders can promote a culture of ethical excellence and support their staff in upholding these values. As future professionals, students are at a critical stage in their development. I hope educators will incorporate the ethics code into their curricula, using it as a teaching tool to instill strong ethical principles in their students. By engaging with the code early in their education, students can develop a deep understanding of the ethical standards and learn how to apply them in real-world scenarios. This foundation will prepare them to enter the field as ethically minded and responsible practitioners. Scholars and researchers contribute to the advancement of knowledge and best practices in the human services field. I hope they will use the ethics code to guide their research and scholarship, ensuring that their work is conducted with integrity, respect for participants, and a commitment to social justice. By aligning their research practices with the ethical standards, scholars can contribute to the ethical evolution of the profession and provide valuable insights that enhance practice and policy. The ethics code serves as a testament to our profession’s commitment to ethical excellence. I hope that all stakeholders, including employers, supervisors, and community members, will recognize and support the ethical standards outlined in the code. By doing so, we can collectively promote a more ethical and inclusive human services field, ultimately benefiting the individuals and communities we serve.

KB: I hope our profession is excited about the changes and how the code can better serve us in our daily operations. These revisions are to address current challenges we face, provide us with clearer guidance, and enhance our abilities at navigating ethical dilemmas. Aligning our practices with the updated code can hold our profession to a higher standard and ultimately positively impact the clients we all serve. Additionally, we are all aware how our profession is ever-changing. An updated code only reinforces our commitment to continuous improvement in our practices.

KBL: As a program chair of a university overseeing the revision and development of all courses in their human services programs, my plan is to integrate the ethics code into as many courses as possible. If we are not leading human services students to their respective, specific ethics code early and often in their educational journey then we are doing them a disservice.

LM: I think ensuring that students are familiar with the new code is especially important as they are the future of the field and need to know how best to work in it ethically.

MM: I hope it is a reference point and guide for human services professionals. I see it utilized organically in [social work] courses, as well as graduate level human services courses, I teach. I hope it is incorporated into professional conferences and training for human services professionals.

KCS: What are some products or ideas that you are hoping to see grow out of these new codes, related to how we can put them into practice or that have already been implemented since the publication of the new code?

CW: I am hopeful that the revisions to the code will inspire a range of products and initiatives designed to help human services professionals put its principles into practice. Specifically, I envision NOHS making it a priority to offer regular trainings and professional development opportunities where the ethics code can come to life and its application can be explored in depth. Here are some concrete examples:

Regular trainings and professional development: I would like to see NOHS offer regular workshops and training sessions both at our annual conference and throughout the year. These sessions would provide valuable opportunities for professionals to engage with the code, understand its nuances, and discuss real-world applications. By incorporating interactive elements such as case studies and role-playing scenarios, these trainings can help professionals develop the skills needed to navigate ethical dilemmas effectively.

Ethical advising and support: Another initiative I hope to see is the establishment of a dedicated advisory committee within NOHS to help members address ethical dilemmas. This service could offer consultations where professionals can seek guidance on challenging situations, ensuring they have the support needed to make informed and ethically sound decisions. Having access to experienced advisors can reinforce the practical application of the code and foster a culture of ethical excellence within the profession.

Engagement with the Human Services Today magazine: The magazine is an excellent platform to facilitate ongoing understanding and discussion of the new ethics code. I would love to see regular articles and case examples in the magazine that highlight how the code can be applied in various contexts. By sharing stories and insights from the field, we can provide practical illustrations of the code in action, helping to deepen professionals’ understanding and appreciation of its relevance.

Conference presentations and panel discussions: In addition to workshops, I hope to see a strong focus on ethics in conference presentations and panel discussions. These sessions can bring together experts and practitioners to discuss the latest developments, challenges, and best practices related to ethical conduct in human services. By fostering a dialogue around these important issues, we can create a dynamic and engaged community committed to upholding the highest ethical standards.

EN: The code provides the framework to conduct research on ethical decision-making, ethical knowledge, ethical violations, and more.

KB: [My department] has integrated the revised code into our internship manual. We closely adhere to our ethics code and emphasize its importance to our students. Even during our summer months, we have already informed our first cohort coming through with the new code about the updates and to familiarize with it. The NOHS ethics code serves as a teaching tool across our curriculum. We will address the updated code in our classrooms and equip students with ways to apply our ethical principles into their daily practices.

KBL: I think trainings and workshops would be an excellent move. In fact, I embed the ethics code into almost every course I develop for my university and students would benefit from a virtual asynchronous training option that they could complete at their own pace.

LM: I think offering…a column on the website or in the newsletter to offer ethical dilemmas and potential solutions would be helpful. I think offering some workshops online beyond the national conference could be good for students too.

MM: We are planning a presentation on self-care (Standard 35) for the NOHS annual conference in November 2024. I think an ethics panel is also planned for the NOHS annual conference to discuss the changes to the ethics code and allow for [professionals] to seek clarification or ask any questions of the ethics committee members on the panel.

KCS: Given that some NOHS members and human service professionals are also members of other fields that also have competing ethics codes, what advice might you have for such professionals and any issues or challenges arising from dueling codes?

BM: I recently went on a mission to identify all the ethics codes I fall under- 13 total, 12 of which are human services specific. These range from mental health topics, to firefighting, to emergency medical services, to emergency management. I think a good rule of thumb is when acting on behalf of a specific agency or organization, to follow their ethical code. If acting on behalf of yourself or an organization that does not have one, or there are gaps in the code [you follow], ours is always here to be current and relevant for our professionals.

CW: First and foremost, professionals should adhere to the code that most closely aligns with their primary professional roles and identity. This means if their main role is in counseling, they should prioritize the counseling ethical code, whereas if their main role is in human services, the NOHS code should take precedence. Adhering to the primary code that aligns with their professional identity ensures consistency and clarity in their ethical decision-making. But I believe that instances of conflict between different codes should be relatively rare. We have carefully considered how various professions address overlapping roles in their ethical standards while developing the NOHS code. This consideration helps ensure that our code is compatible with the principles and values upheld by other professions.

For professionals facing potential conflicts between codes, I offer the following advice:

Understand the codes thoroughly: Professionals should take the time to thoroughly understand the ethical codes of all the professions to which they belong. This includes recognizing the core principles, values, and specific guidelines of each code. A deep understanding will help in identifying commonalities and differences.

Seek common ground: Often, ethical codes from different professions share common principles such as respect for client autonomy, confidentiality, and promoting well-being. Professionals should focus on these shared values to guide their practice and decision-making.

Consult and collaborate: When faced with a potential conflict, professionals should not hesitate to consult with colleagues, supervisors, or ethics committees from the relevant fields. Collaborative discussions can provide diverse perspectives and help in finding a resolution that aligns with multiple ethical standards.

Prioritize client welfare: In cases where conflicts between codes arise, professionals should prioritize actions that best serve the welfare and rights of their clients. Client well-being is a common cornerstone across all ethical codes, and making decisions that benefit clients can help navigate conflicting guidelines.

Document and reflect: Professionals should document their decision-making processes, including the rationale behind their choices when dealing with ethical dilemmas involving multiple codes. Reflecting on these decisions can provide insights for future situations and demonstrate accountability.

Ongoing education: Engaging in continuous education and training on ethical issues can help professionals stay informed about best practices and evolving standards in their fields. This proactive approach ensures that they are well-prepared to handle ethical challenges.

KB: My advice would be to have the mindset that our codes are here to help us, not hurt us. If you find dueling aspects in the codes, take the time to explore those differences, discuss them with a supervisor or colleague, and make informed decisions. The NOHS ethics code complements other codes in many ways. Use the code to guide you, prompt further questions, seek support when you are curious, and challenge it when necessary. Even though our ethical standards have been recently updated, the work is ongoing. I personally see the ethics code as the road to our services, and there may be bumps, curves, or roadblocks along the way. Our code remains a continuous work in progress as our services evolve to meet our clients’ needs. It is important for us to recognize that this evolving process is meant to support us, and we should anticipate that changes will continue to occur as our services do.

LM: In our department’s ethics class, we utilize different codes of ethics, stressing the NOHS code and encouraging students to look at all of them to see the similarities and differences. They are encouraged also to look at different situations and determine if a different ethical code might give additional guidance that would assist them in making the best decision. As a licensed professional counselor who uses the NOHS and ACA codes of ethics, I encourage my supervisees who are seeking licensure…to have one ethical code that is the primary, but to use others as additional guidance.

MM: From what I learned reviewing the different codes of ethics…they are all complementary in most if not all ways. They are meant to guide our practice in helping professions, to best serve our clients and our own professional practices. If a human services professional also holds a license from another field, I would recommend referencing both the NOHS code of ethics and the ethical code that is connected to their license.

KCS: There are seven sections of the new code (responsibility to clients, to public and society, to colleagues, to employers, to the profession, to self, and to students). Do each of these sections have equal value or do any hold more significance?

CW: While all seven sections of the new ethics code are equally important, their relevance may vary depending on the role of the individual professional. Each section provides crucial guidance for different aspects of professional conduct, and their significance can shift based on the context in which a professional operates. As a counselor and educator, I find that different sections of the code become more prominent depending on which role I am fulfilling at a given time. For instance, when I am engaging in therapy with a client, the sections on responsibility to clients and to self are paramount. My primary focus is on the well-being, confidentiality, and autonomy of the client, as well as maintaining my own professional integrity and self-care to provide the best possible service. In contrast, when I am wearing my educator hat and working with students or engaging in research, the sections on responsibility to students and to the profession become more significant. Here, my concern is not only with imparting knowledge and fostering the development of future professionals but also with upholding research integrity, academic honesty, and ethical scholarship. Ensuring that students understand and apply ethical principles in their work is critical to their professional growth and the advancement of the field.

Similarly, for professionals in administrative or leadership roles, the sections on responsibility to employers and to colleagues might take precedence. They need to navigate organizational dynamics, foster a supportive work environment, and ensure that ethical standards are maintained across their teams and institutions. For those involved in public policy or community outreach, the responsibility to public and society section becomes particularly relevant as they work to advocate for social justice, equity, and community well-being.

In my opinion, the value of each section of the code is situational and role dependent. No single section holds more intrinsic value than another; instead, their importance is contextual, ensuring that all aspects of professional conduct are covered comprehensively. This flexible approach allows the ethics code to be applicable and practical for the diverse roles within the human services field, guiding professionals to act ethically and responsibly in various scenarios. By recognizing the situational prominence of different sections, we can better appreciate the holistic nature of the ethics code and its capacity to support ethical decision-making across all facets of human services practice. This adaptability ensures that professionals are well-equipped to uphold ethical standards regardless of their specific role or context.

Conclusion

Christian Williams summed up the committee’s revision process and our intentions for the future use and development of the ethics code well. Her final statement, reflecting on take-aways for human services professionals from the updated code, focused on the importance of day-to-day professionals who will use this code in maintaining and transforming ethical best practices for the human services field now and into the future.

CW: I want human services professionals to know that while we made significant efforts to bridge gaps and update the ethics code, it should be considered a living and breathing document. Our goal was to create a code that reflects the current landscape of our profession and addresses contemporary ethical challenges. However, we acknowledge that we may have missed some aspects or that times may change, necessitating further revisions. The process of updating the code involved extensive consultations, feedback from members, and careful consideration of how similar professions address overlapping roles in their ethical standards. Despite these efforts, we understand that the dynamic nature of human services means that new ethical issues and challenges will inevitably arise. Therefore, we always welcome feedback and questions from professionals in the field. NOHS is committed to continually reviewing and refining the ethics code to ensure it remains relevant, comprehensive, and practical. Your insights and experiences [as human services professionals] are invaluable in this ongoing process. By sharing your feedback, you help us ensure that the code evolves to meet the needs of all human services professionals and the communities we serve. In essence, we see the ethics code as a collaborative effort, shaped by the collective wisdom and experience of our community. We encourage you to engage with the code, reflect on its application in your practice, and communicate with us about any areas that need further attention or improvement. Together, we can uphold the highest standards of ethical conduct and advance the field of human services.

Author Information

Kevin C. Snow, Counseling and Human Services Department, Old Dominion University; Christian E. Williams, Department of Health and Human Services, Assumption University and President, National Organization for Human Services; Ed Neukrug, Counseling and Human Services Department, Old Dominion University; Kristin Barker, Department of Human Services, Purdue University-Fort Wayne; Kristin Ballard, University of Arizona Global Campus; Braxton A. Morrison, National Organization for Human Services; Leslie C.M. McClane, Department of Social Work and Human Services, Kennesaw State University; Meghan N. Morgan, Department of Social Work, Cappella University and U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs; Stephanie Collins, Metropolitan State University of Denver.

Correspondence

Dr. Kevin C. Snow, Assistant Professor of Human Services, Counseling & Human Services Department, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, Virginia, United States. Ksnow@odu.edu