Abstract
Nine years after their introduction, the Australian Social Work Practice Standards are reviewed against the five purposes of codes of practice proposed by Banks (2006). The review concludes that the Standards contributed to heightened professional identity and accountability by defining the national education curriculum and by providing a mechanism for accountability. Their utility for service users is still to be determined.
The Australian Association of Social Workers (AASW) identified the need for practice standards to define good practice and facilitate accountability, and developed the Practice Standards for Social Workers: Achieving Outcomes (AASW, 2003). Their introduction was surrounded by controversy as to whether they would contribute to social work’s goals of empowerment and liberation or restrict social work to a narrow, prescribed set of rules. Nine years after their launch, the utility of the Australian Practice Standards (AASW, 2003) (referred to as the Standards) is reviewed against the five potential benefits of social work codes of practice defined by Banks (2006). Banks’s five key areas were selected because they provide a comprehensive framework for evaluating utility. Banks uses the umbrella term ‘codes of practice’ for practice standards and codes of ethics. This term will be used when the two are not differentiated.
This article argues that the Standards have contributed to defining social work’s identity and increasing accountability, especially as the national social work education curriculum is now based on the Standards. The Standards clarify for service users, employers, educators and all stakeholders, including the workers themselves, the minimal professional standards expected. At a broader level, the article also argues that service users’ rights are protected when social work practice is transparent and workers are accountable.
At the invitation of the AASW, the authors wrote the Standards in consultation with members and clients (Bland et al., 2006). While acknowledging that we are not impartial, this article presents evidence to support our assertion that the Standards are useful for the profession, especially as they define the national curriculum for Australian social work education. Evidence is presented from Australian Schools of Social Work field education programmes showing that the Standards are integral to field education programmes (Bland, 2011). We also adopt a reflective approach (Fook and Gardner, 2007), and examine the utility of the Standards using Banks’s five areas of utility for codes of practice (2006). However, systematic research still needs to be conducted into their use by practitioners and their impact on client outcomes. Despite these limitations, this article demonstrates that the Standards have made a positive contribution to the social work profession.
The Standards were based on the AASW Code of Ethics (1999) and are currently being reviewed through a consultation process following the launch of the updated AASW Code of Ethics (2010). The revised Standards will reflect the greater acknowledgement given to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Australians. The Standards used the International Federation of Social Workers’ definition of social work (2000) which promotes principles of human rights, social justice, social change, problem solving in human relationships and the empowerment and liberation of people to enhance their well-being. The Standards define the term ‘client’ as ‘individuals, groups, communities, organizations and societies, especially those who are neglected, vulnerable, disadvantaged or have exceptional needs’ (2003: 6). They specify minimum standards for social workers working in all contexts and address six areas of practice: Direct Practice, Service Management, Organizational Development and System Change, Policy, Research, and Education and Professional Development. These areas are not discrete; at any one time social workers may need to comply with standards from several of these areas. The Standards were developed by the AASW after consultations with clients, employers and association members (Bland et al., 2006).
Background – Australian welfare services
Australia’s human services system is a complex mix of government employees, contracted not-for-profit and for-profit agencies and private practitioners charging fee-for-services. The Australian Bureau of Statistics (2006, cited in Healey and Lonne, 2010) reported that 7942 respondents had a social work bachelor degree and worked in areas including ‘Welfare, Recreation and Community Arts Workers’, ‘Aged and Disabled Carers’, ‘Counsellors’, ‘Health and Welfare Services Managers’, ‘Contract, Program and Project Administrators’, ‘Intelligence and Policy Analysts’ and ‘Policy and Planning Managers’. While these data demonstrate the diversity of social work occupations, they do not provide an accurate profile of all graduates from the 26 Australian Schools of Social Work. Social workers are employed across a wide range of titles and many do not formally identify as social workers. However, it is known that many are in the health and mental health workforce (Bland et al., 2009).
In recent decades, professional social work activity has arguably become more complex and more constrained because Australian welfare services have been restructured through tendering and contracting. Our Australian experience supports Dominelli’s (1996) argument that moving to a market economy results in more fragmented welfare services, and social workers becoming de-professionalized and losing autonomy. The rise of managerialism appears to have contributed to these dynamics with agency managers, who have no specific discipline training, being responsible to governments for predetermined outcomes defined in time-limited contracts.
Australian social workers have always been challenged to reconcile the demands from their employing agencies with their commitment to professional ethics and principles of social justice and client empowerment (Hugman, 1996). This conflict has been exacerbated in recent years with increased pressures to minimize costs (Asquith and Rice, 2005; Fook, 2002; Fook and Gardner, 2007; Ife, 2008; Lonne et al., 2004; Solondz, 1995). In particular, social workers on time-limited contracts are often reluctant to raise concerns and challenge service inequities. Similar tensions are reported in other Western countries (Banks, 2004; Hugman, 2005; Webb, 2006). Of particular concern is the finding that the contemporary workplace in many Western countries lacks support for, and is often hostile to, social workers (Healy and Meagher, 2004; Orme and Rennie, 2006).
Utility of the Practice Standards
Despite these constraints to social work practice, Banks (2006) argued that codes of practice can contribute to sound ethical social work practice in five key areas. These are: 1) contribute to ‘professional status’; 2) establish and maintain professional identity; 3) guide practitioners’ actions; 4) protect service users from malpractice or abuse; and 5) regulate the profession (2006: 97). These five areas are interlinked and are not discrete. This article uses Banks’s five areas to review the utility of the Standards. Similarly, Bland (2010) argues that professional standards address issues of accountability, identity, and education and training curriculum. He argues that there is limited evidence to support the claim that practice standards actually change the behaviour of practitioners, but good evidence for the identity and curriculum claims.
1. Contribute to ‘professional status’
Banks (2006) uses the term ‘professional status’ positively and without the pejorative connotation of self-serving elitism. She argues that social workers need status in the workplace to ensure social work principles are enacted, especially when the broader context and agency requirements compete with professional judgements and resources are limited.
Not everyone agrees that social workers use their professional status wisely to enhance client wellbeing. Five key themes were identified in the literature criticizing social workers for their lack of wisdom and consideration of clients. The first of these criticisms was that professionals are self-serving and elitist. Social workers have abused their power and authority by exploiting clients for personal gain through dishonesty and fraud, and by violating the prohibition against sexual activity (Strom-Gottried, 2000).
Second, codes of practice were seen as reflecting a Western emphasis on individualism and were not respectful of a more collective paradigm involving family and community, especially Indigenous communities. Briskman and Noble (1999: 63) argued that codes of practice impose ‘cultural imperialism’ on Indigenous Australians as well as being insensitive to issues of gender, sexuality, ethnicity, race, disability, aged and class. Gray and Fook (2004) described social work practice as a ‘service-oriented, professionalized, largely clinical, individualistic, Western invention’ (2004: 635). This perceived bias towards individualism is considered a fatal flaw which undermines the profession’s credibility. Viewed from these perspectives, codes of practice are antithetical to responsive and creative social work practice.
A third criticism was that social workers work in the interests of their employing agency rather than their clients, and codes of practice are an organizational risk management tool designed to protect the agency (Briskman and Noble, 1999; Webb, 2006). Further, agencies were seen to have a ‘relentless ‘‘top-down’’ routinization, proceduralization and standardization that robs social work of its art and treats practitioners as though they have no creative or innovative capabilities of their own’ (Gray, 2006: 361). Codes of practice were perceived to be a ‘rule book’ offering a technicist approach to practice narrowly prescribing behaviour. The rules minimize risk for the agency, blunt rather than reinforce individual moral responsibility, and do not take into account the complexity underlying personal problems and emotions involved (Freud and Krug, 2002; Webb, 2006).
A fourth criticism was that because social workers serve their employing agency, they are blind to, and unable to challenge, issues of social inequality and injustice (Asquith and Rice, 2005; Briskman and Noble, 1999). The fifth criticism was that the Australian Codes of Ethics 1999 provides ‘little or no guidance to social workers faced with [such] ethical dilemmas’ (Mendes, 2002: 157).
While the limitations of codes of practice, especially their bias towards individualism in Western countries, are widely acknowledged (Congress and McAuliffe, 2006), there are strong counter arguments to the above criticisms. Contrary to the view that social workers are self-serving when they gain status, many writers argued that social workers need decision-making power to promote their clients’ interests and social justice (Bowles, 2006; Dominelli, 1996; Hasenfeld, 1987; Healy and Meagher, 2004). Further, it was argued that codes of practice are useful in countering the restrictions imposed by employing agencies which can disempower clients. Professional status is seen as positive when social workers are accountable and do not become self-serving (Banks, 2006).
Although codes of practice have limitations, the Standards have proved useful in a number of fields of practice to assist social workers in gaining the necessary status to implement social work goals. Relatively minor adaptations were made for the Standards for School Social Workers (AASW, 2008a) to define social work’s role within schools, assert social workers’ identity and gain credibility. An adaptation was also used within corrections, although this is not publicly available. They also informed the Practice Standards for Mental Health Social Workers (AASW, 2008b), which were used to establish credibility with the national government and gain financial rebates for social workers. Beyond the Australian context, there are international conversations about the status and focus of the social work profession in the Asia Pacific regions, where social work is still a developing profession. There are anecdotal reports that the Australian Standards and Code of Ethics have been utilized as points of reference as new professional associations and education institutes develop and define their roles in the new human service systems, promoting human rights and social justice.
2. Establish and maintain professional identity
There are convincing arguments for social work having a strong professional identity. At an individual level, codes of practice are important to encourage social workers to question injustices which become ingrained and barely visible, even to the workers themselves (Hasenfeld, 1987). A professional, skilled workforce is needed to defend the interests of service users, especially when managerial-based organizations do not promote social justice and social work values (Healy and Meagher, 2004; Hugman, 1996). A strong social work profession with recognized legitimacy can advocate for social justice at both a policy and individual level (Beddoe and Duke, 2009).
Codes of practice are important for the social work profession in establishing its identity because social workers practice in a wide diversity of roles and settings (Bowles, 2005). They can be used to counter work-based practices contrary to social work principles when workers ‘are expected to deal with more issues in less time with fewer resources, or to focus on one issue in isolation when it is clearly affected by others’ (Gardner, 2006: 10). For example, a hospital might want to discharge a patient to ‘clear a bed’, putting the person at risk; or a residential service might restrict residents’ self-determination for expediency reasons.
At a policy level the Standards have contributed to social work’s identity in Australia by providing the foundation and structure for the Australian Social Work Education and Accreditation Standards (AASW, 2008a). These standards define the national social work curriculum in all Schools of Social Work, and schools are assessed against these standards when they seek accreditation and reaccreditation every five years. The Education and Accreditation Standards provide a uniform framework for assessment based on key principles, while allowing for regional differences in their implementation. The impact on professional identity of a Standards driven curriculum will increase over time as more graduates trained using the Standards enter the workforce.
There is growing anecdotal evidence that social workers are using the Standards in negotiations with their managers to demand resources and social work supervision to provide quality services. It is known that health social workers have used the Standards to define their job descriptions (Giles, 2009). However, systematic research is needed to determine the extent to which these examples are occurring.
3. Guide practitioners’ actions
Defining expectations
It is essential that all stakeholders have a clear understanding of what can be expected of social workers to guide practice and provide accountability measures (Banks, 2006).
In addressing this statement the Standards define expectations by outlining what social workers are expected to accomplish. In each of the six areas of practice – Direct Practice, Service Management, Organizational Development and System Change, Policy, Research, and Education and Professional Development – they stipulate: an objective stated as an outcome; a summary of the key aspects and concepts relating to that area of practice; outcome standards for each of the key aspects of practice; and indicators of minimum expected performance outcomes. The Standards do not prescribe actions and they are not a ‘rule book’ to be followed unthinkingly. Instead, they require social workers to take into account all relevant contextual factors including laws, government policies, funding arrangements, organizational context and culture, while using discretion and professional judgement to determine appropriate action. Social work knowledge is defined broadly and includes understanding of: . . . local, national and international levels . . . social, political, economic, historical, cultural and ecological systems. The processes, facilitators and constraints to change . . . dimensions of power and disadvantage, and the influence of class, gender, age, intellectual and physical ability, heterosexism, race and ethnicity . . . empowering and non-oppressive practice. (AASW, 2003: Practice Knowledge and Skills)
Meeting the needs of clients
Bowles used examples of poor practice, such as confidentiality not being upheld and tragic outcomes resulting, to argue that codes of practice are needed to meet clients’ needs (2006, citing Harries, 1996).
To address this concern, client outcomes resulting from the Standards still need to be researched. At this stage it can only be said that practitioners are directed to meet the ‘needs of clients’ (Objective 1), and to acknowledge and respect ‘. . . the strengths and capacities of the client’ (Standard 1.3). They are also directed to challenge injustice in social systems when necessary (Objective 3). Drawing attention to the impact of broader structural factors is necessary to overcome the tendency to focus on the immediate needs of clients facing emergencies, rather than addressing issues that contribute to the problems or undermine human rights (Healy, 2008).
Guiding pre-graduation actions: Field education
A telephone survey of all field education programmes across Australian Schools of Social Work was conducted, questioning the extent to which the Standards inform field education programmes and student assessment (Bland, 2011). Data were sought from field education staff and from course outlines. Seventeen of the 26 Schools participated, giving a response rate of 65 percent.
Summary of results:
Integrating field education with foundation subjects. All Schools reported that field education subjects built on knowledge and skills defined by the Standards which had been introduced in pre-placement subjects. The sequencing and structure of learning for students was important as it integrated theory and practice so that the students could understand the connections between foundation knowledge and the practice of social work as defined in the Standards.
A beginning resource for students and field educators. All Schools made the Standards available to students and field educators as a resource prior to placement. Most Schools gave students and field educators a hard copy of both the Standards and the Code of Ethics, and some Schools included a copy of the Standards in their field education manuals. Two Schools included detailed information about the Standards and their use in their field educator training.
As a basis for learning goals. All Schools required students to base their placement learning goals on the Standards. Templates typically required students to set at least one personal learning goal in each of the six practice areas listed in the Standards, as well as demonstrate competence in specific standards. One School required students to write about the relevance of the Standards to the agency in which they were placed.
As a basis for evaluating performance. Students’ performance was rated against the Standards. Schools typically set modest requirements for the first placement and more challenging requirements for the second. Some Schools described a process of students and educators separately rating student performance on each of the Standards. All Schools reported that the Standards were used as a focus for review of student performance when the university liaison person visited the student and field educator.
The consistency of response among the Schools demonstrates that the Standards are incorporated into the curriculum, as required by the AASW (2008a) Education and Accreditation Standards. There was evidence that Schools and field educators appreciated that the Standards are a learning tool which is not to be used in a mechanical manner. Two Schools reported that learning goals based on the Standards could become mechanistic and overly bureaucratic, and stressed the need to focus on broader aspects of student learning instead of just ‘ticking off’ specific Standards.
A baseline for research
Governments and funding bodies increasingly require ‘evidence’ to formulate social policies and set priorities. However, defining evidence and determining its utility in social work is hotly contested. A sceptical view was taken by Pugh (2005), who saw evidence-based practice as part of a wider political agenda to regulate professions. Other authors supported the use of qualitative and quantitative evidence when it is available; however, they argued that in complex everyday practice clear evidence is rarely available (Mullen and Bacon, 2006; Munson, 2006; Proctor and Rosen, 2006; Renouf and Bland, 2005; Roberts and Yeager, 2006). Another group of authors supported evidence-based practice as long as it includes the worker’s reflections and qualitative information addressing the complex array of psychological and social factors which cannot be quantified (Fook, 2004). Proctor and Rosen (2006), who are strong supporters of evidence-based practice, want the profession to be proactive in collating qualitative and quantitative data because it is essential to demonstrate professional effectiveness in contemporary workplaces.
The impact of the Standards on studying effectiveness still needs to be ascertained. However, they support the use of evidence when it is available (Standard 5.4). Further, as with all codes of practice, they play an important role in providing a baseline for empirical studies (Howard and Jenson, 1999).
4. Protect service users from malpractice or abuse
While no code of practice can guarantee that malpractice or abuse will not occur, the Standards are a tool to hold workers and agencies accountable. The Standards define acceptable social work practice and provide a benchmark for determining unacceptable practice. This is important because clients are often disempowered and vulnerable. The Standards place an obligation on social workers to protect service users from organizational or other abuse, and to support them in appealing against inadequate services when they occur (Standard 3.3; Standard 3.9).
This AASW Ethics Committee uses the Standards and the Code of Ethics to assess complaints against workers, and publicly exclude them if they are found to be in breach. However, the practical implications are limited. Social work is not a registered profession in Australia and someone excluded by the AASW can still work as a social worker if an employer will accept them. Being banned by the AASW has relatively minor consequences compared to being banned in countries such as New Zealand, where a breach of standards can lead to exclusion from employment (Beddoe and Duke, 2009). Nevertheless, the Standards and the Code of Ethics play an essential role in determining acceptable practice and regulating the profession, even though disciplinary measures are limited. We argue that clients’ vulnerability would increase if no codes of practice existed.
5. Regulation of the profession
In contrast to social work in the United Kingdom, the United States and New Zealand, Australian social work is not a registered or licensed profession (Healy and Lonne, 2010), despite repeated and current efforts for this to occur. Australian governments have refused applications for registration for social work and some other professions. Consequently, anyone in Australia can call themselves a social worker. An employer wanting a qualified social worker stipulates ‘Eligible to be a member of the AASW’. This eligibility is a de facto form of registration, and the success of the AASW in the regulation of its members has been an argument used by successive governments to deny official registration. This self-regulation does not extend to social workers who choose not to join the AASW. Consequently, the AASW has limited authority over the total social work workforce. Despite this limitation, the AASW has approximately 6000 members and many employers value the commitment to codes of practice that membership entails, including the commitment to ongoing professional education.
The AASW uses the Standards to regulate the profession by defining admittance standards for local graduates through the accredited Schools of Social Work, to assess overseas applicants, and to assess possible breaches of acceptable behaviour.
A question of relevance
Australian studies show conflicting findings regarding the use of codes of practice to inform practice. Asquith and Cheers (2001) reported that practitioners used their own moral framework to make decisions, rather than referring to a code of practice. They reported that the AASW Code of Ethics was only used in 12 percent of situations, and notably only one-third of the decisions conformed to the AASW Code of Ethics. Congress and McAuliffe (2006) found that social workers preferred to consult a supervisor than read a research paper or a code of practice. However, Lonne et al. (2004) reported that Australian workers relied heavily on the AASW Code of Ethics when faced with ethical dilemmas.
Codes of practice will be irrelevant if they are not used, and we know that busy practitioners rarely read them. However, to determine their utility, in-depth investigations into their role in shaping practitioners’ moral frameworks and supervisors’ expectations need to be undertaken. It remains to be seen if future generations of Australian social workers, whose education is now founded on the Standards, will use codes of practice more explicitly, especially when they are likely to face increasing demands to justify their practice.
Conclusion
This article contributes to broad social work knowledge because it demonstrates that codes of practice contribute positively to professional practice. Specifically, it has shown that the Standards have contributed to positive professional status; maintaining professional identity; guiding practitioners’ actions; protecting service users from malpractice or abuse; and contributing to the regulation of the profession. Evidence from student field education highlights the important role the Standards have in shaping social work education, which can be expected to permeate across social work practice in the years to come. Through their contribution to the national social work curriculum they are guiding current and future generations of social workers by defining principles, objectives and expected outcomes. Detailed research is needed to determine the full utility and limitations of the Standards, especially with regard to client outcomes.
Codes of practice provide only one element in an ongoing process of development and review of strategies to meet clients’ needs. No code of practice can fully address all needs in a complex and evolving social environment; however, they provide guidance for direct practice with individuals, families and communities, and they direct social workers to respond to social injustice. The Standards direct social workers to take social action ‘as far as possible’, while giving discretion to interpret action within specific contexts. While the utility of codes of practice is a contested area and deserves ongoing debate and research, it is asserted that: Social workers still need to be prepared to challenge agency policies and practices and to view themselves as more than just employees doing a job. Professional codes of ethics, along with education and training, obviously have a role to play in this. (Banks, 2006: 101)
Footnotes
Funding
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.