Using the Revised CRCC Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors as a Tool in Resolving Ethical Issues

Decision-Making and the CRCC Code

“Resolving Ethical Issues” is the final section of the Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors (Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification [CRCC], 2023). This section has its historical beginning in the 1987 Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors (CRCC, 1987). At that time, the Code was operationalized via Cannons (aspirational standards that were thought to “reflect the fundamental spirit of caring respect which professionals share”) and Rules (which were enforceable and described as “exacting standards intended to provide guidance in specific circumstances” [CRCC, 1987, p. ii, as cited in Tarvydas & Cottone, 2000, p. 190]). Specific to ethical decision-making, Cannon 4, Professional Relationships, indicates, “Rehabilitation Counselors shall act with integrity in their relationships with colleagues, organizations, agencies, institutions, referral sources, and other professionals in order to provide clients with optimum benefits” (CRCC, 1987, p. ii, as cited in Tarvydas & Cottone, 2000, p. 190). Rule R.4.9 outlined the expectation for an informal resolution process, which would continue in future Code revisions, and R.4.10 provides basic guidance relating to expectations pertaining to a grievance process (CRCC, 1987). In short, this section provides direction regarding how certified rehabilitation counselors should use the information contained in the preceding sections of the Code when faced with an ethical dilemma.

Code revisions (CRCC, 2001) resulted in the debut of a “Resolving Ethical Issues” section. Using Rules R.4.9- and R.4.10-related content provided some framework to create section K.2. Suspected Violations along with the addition of K.1. Knowledge of the Standards and K.3. Cooperating with Ethics Committees (CRCC, 2001). The 2010 code revision process added an application of standards and, notably, the direction to use a decision-making model and introduced concepts such as consultation and guidance for situations where conflicts between ethics and law exist (CRCC, 2009b). The 2017 Code introduced a self-reporting expectation, indicating that counselors who have been sanctioned for violations of ethical codes by licensure certification, registry, or professional associations should immediately notify CRCC (2017). In addition, the 2017 Code revisions reintroduced the use of aspirational information within the introduction of each section prior to delineating the Enforceable Standards, a process akin to the original Cannons and Rules (CRCC, 2017).

Updates in Resolving Ethical Issues Section

Codes of ethics reflect a profession during a given period. As such, Codes need to be updated regularly. Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification commenced a Code revision process beginning in June 2021. A task force met and reviewed the Code (CRCC, 2017) relative to the need for updates secondary to changes in technology, societal norms, and professional practice guidelines. The task force reviewed multiple related Codes and competency standards (American Counseling Association [ACA], 2014; American Mental Health Counselors Association, 2020; Code of Professional Ethics for Certified Vocational Evaluation Specialists, Certified Work Adjustment Specialists, and Certified Career Assessment Associates (CRCC, 2009a); International Association of Rehabilitation Professionals, 2006; Multicultural Counseling and Social Justice Competencies [MSJCC] (Ratts et al., 2016); National Board for Certified Counselors, 2016), as well as some other secondary resources, including 2016 American Psychological Association Code of Ethics, 2020 American Board of Vocational Evaluators (ABVE) Code of Ethics, and the 2017 National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics. A draft of the proposed changes was sent out for public comment in April 2022. Comments were then integrated into a final draft, and the finalized Code went into effect on January 1, 2023.

For purposes of this article, note that the Resolving Ethical Issues, formerly Section L, is now Section M in the Revised Code (CRCC, 2023). The need for using an ethical decision-making model, particularly in situations where dilemmas result from competing interests, takes a prominent place within the Introduction to Section M. Concerning knowledge of related codes (M.1.b.), certified rehabilitation counselors are reminded that the CRCC (2023) Ethics Committee makes decisions pertaining to disciplinary action based upon the Enforceable Standards. When referencing decision-making models and skills (M.2.a.), counselors should consult the Glossary and the CRCC (2023) website for a listing of potential contemporary ethical decision-making models. Finally, a new subsection (M.3.e.—Coercion or Action Against Clients or Supervisees) has been added, directing certified rehabilitation counselors to avoid using their position of power to pressure clients or supervisees to participate in the counselor’s response process to the Ethics Committee (CRCC, 2023).

Codes of Ethics and Principles, Morals, and Values

A professional code of ethics does not serve the same purpose as laws within any given jurisdiction. Ethical codes are meant to have flexibility as their development is often based on professionals’ experiences within a given field (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2016). As a method to resolve ethical dilemmas, traditionally, guidance was provided to use ethical judgment and personal values; however, Kitchener (1984) noted that professionals were not capable of solving dilemmas, given those parameters. Recognizing the potential concern for individual interpretations and value applications, Kitchener (1984) proposed ethical decision-making as a process based on previously derived concepts and ideologies. Even though addressing ethical dilemmas presents an opportunity to reflect upon moral principles, it is worth noting that “moral principles are neither absolute nor relative . . . and can be overturned only when there are strong ethical obligations” (Kitchener, 1984, p. 52).

As part of the decision-making process, Cottone and Tarvydas (2016) emphasize the need for rehabilitation counseling professionals to understand the core concepts of ethical principles and value imposition to effectively engage in a decision-making process. The ACA (2014) Code of Ethics, as well as the Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors (CRCC, 2023), outlines the professions’ principles that are grounded in the works of Beauchamp and Childress (1979), including autonomy, beneficent, nonmaleficence, and justice. Kitchener (1984) established the process of using a cognitive, linear model to counteract intuitive level thinking through the integration of Hare’s (1981) concept regarding levels of moral thinking and Beauchamp and Childress’ (1979) moral principles (as cited in Cottone & Claus, 2000; Cotton & Tarvydas, 2016). As Cottone and Tarvydas (2016) mentioned, Hare’s subsequent work expands on his initial work grounded in moral thinking with specific attention to the difference between absolute and utilitarian thinking, emphasizing the importance in decision-making and levels of moral reasoning, intuitive and critical (p. 60). In addition, work cited by Rest (1984) is often presented in the literature relevant to ethically moral behavior based on the works of moral development that also inform the development of Rest’s (1984) model aimed to analyze moral behavior through cognitive and moral development theory (as cited in Cottone & Claus, 2000; Cottone and Tarvydas, 2016).

Ethical Decision-Making

Across the various counseling disciplines (e.g., mental health, school, rehabilitation), counseling codes of ethics point to using a decision-making model as crucial to competent and ethical practices. Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification provides a decision-making overview for use when certified rehabilitation counselors encounter a dilemma. In providing this overview, CRCC notes this is not an endorsement; however, an example of a modified process developed by Corey et al. (2015) as a potential starting point for rehabilitation counseling professionals as they develop the necessary skills for ethical decision-making (as cited in CRCC, 2021). This overview includes the following steps: (a) recognizing a problem; (b) collaborating with the client to define the problem; (c) developing solutions with the client; (d) choosing a solution; (e) reviewing the process with the client and rechoose; (f) implementing and evaluating with the client; (g) continuing reflection (CRCC, 2021). It is noteworthy to mention that even though CRCC provides this guidance for an ethical decision-making process, there is no one superior method, and counselors should reflect upon their understanding of decision-making processes to implement a model that best fits their needs. There are many different decision-making models, and rehabilitation counselors can visit the CRCC website and the Glossary of the Code for some examples.

Various ethical decision-making models were reviewed to fully capture our exploration and findings in using the Code of Ethics as a tool in the decision-making process. This review focused on the role of ethical codes in each model, the ethical theories supporting the models, and the endorsement of the decision-making process. Counseling and counseling-related ethical decision-making models commonly point to the use of a professional code of ethics as a tool in the process of coming to a resolution of an ethical dilemma (Barnett & Johnson, 2015; Corey et al., 2015; Forester-Miller & Davis, 2016; Foster & Black, 2007; Frame & Williams, 2005; Garcia et al., 2003; Kitchener & Anderson, 2011; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016; Wheeler & Bertram, 2015). Of the decision-making models reviewed, varying guidelines were presented as steps to address ethical dilemmas. One of the more common steps as part of the decision-making process is the use of relevant codes of ethics as a step in the process (Barnett & Johnson, 2015; Corey et al., 2015; Cottone, 2001; Forester-Miller & Davis, 2016; Foster & Black, 2007; Garcia et al., 2003; Kitchener & Anderson, 2011; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016; Wheeler & Bertram, 2015).

In comparison, a couple of the reviewed decision-making models note that the intent is to serve as a supplement to relevant codes of ethics by providing a critical lens through which to view the common morality of the profession and the codes of ethics (Frame & Williams, 2005; Hill et al., 1998). Within the context of ethics applied to counseling, Bernard Gert (2004) describes common morality as a moral system guiding most as they individually arrive at moral judgments. These moral systems provide rehabilitation counseling professionals with an intuitive compass serving as a guide for right and wrong while also considering how these systems aim to protect clients and other service recipients.

All the reviewed ethical decision-making models include consultation as an aspect of decision-making, many of which explicitly or implicitly suggest that the consultant “abide[s] by the code of ethics” (Forester-Miller & Davis, 2016, p. 3). The level of detail provided regarding the use of codes of ethics varies from model to model, one example being how Barnett and Johnson (2015) outline a three-step process for using the ACA Code of Ethics in decision-making. In addition, several of the reviewed ethical decision-making models consist of a cognitive, step-by-step process that concludes as the counselor makes a decision (Barnett & Johnson, 2015; Corey et al., 2015; Forester-Miller & Davis, 2016; Frame & Williams, 2005; Garcia et al., 2003; Hill et al., 1998; Kitchener & Anderson, 2011; Koocher & Keith-Spiegel, 2016; Wheeler & Bertram, 2015). This intensely robust theme of linear, cognitive methodology indicates the positionality of the ethical decision-making models within the counseling profession’s common morality.

The importance of ethical decision-making is highlighted throughout the Code of Professional Ethics for certified rehabilitation counselors and prominently within the Preamble and Scope of Practice for Rehabilitation Counselors. The Preamble provides thorough descriptions of the purpose of the Code, the values and principles that make up the foundation of rehabilitation counseling, CRCC’s commitment to cultural diversity, the structure of the code, how to apply the Code to practice, and a section on defining the profession. Ethical decision-making is a topic highlighted throughout the Preamble and the Code due to the essential nature of the topic to the practice of Rehabilitation Counseling.

CRCC Resources

Numerous resources exist to assist CRCs when encountering ethical issues in practice and are available on the CRCC website. Among these resources is an archived listing of advisory opinions dating back to 1996, all with a cross to the current version of the Code. These archived opinions are a reference for CRCs and other rehabilitation professionals to review and utilize counselor judgment to examine previously identified ethical dilemmas. Advisory opinions have been reviewed and rendered by the CRCC Ethics Committee. The Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors and other rehabilitation professionals can consult this resource when faced with related dilemmas to obtain additional insight or guidance toward the dilemma resolution.

Rehabilitation counselors may submit a formal request for an advisory opinion related to a general ethical question or clarification on a particular section of the Code should reviewing the archived advisory opinions not serve as sufficient. When faced with an ethical dilemma, rehabilitation counselors engage in their preferred decision-making model; however, requesting an advisory opinion may be appropriate in such situations if they fail to identify a preferred resolution path. Before seeking an advisory opinion from the CRCC Ethics Committee, rehabilitation counselors should seek consultation from supervisors and trusted colleagues. Advisory opinions should not replace the rehabilitation professional’s responsibility in consulting with peers or immediate supervisors or if there is a suspected violation of the Code. If this course of action does not resolve the ethical question, one can seek an advisory opinion from the CRCC Ethics Committee.

When requesting an advisory opinion, rehabilitation professionals are encouraged to navigate to the CRCC website and locate the ethics section. Within this section of the CRCC website, a section is reserved for related resources. “Advisory Opinions” is listed as one of the four options, and these advisory opinions are available for review. Once on the advisory opinions page, rehabilitation counselors can review past advisory opinions and find information about how to request an advisory opinion. It is noteworthy to mention that advisory opinions are not meant for reporting or navigating ethical violations; they are only intended for general educational purposes about the Code of Ethics. Advisory opinions are issued from CRCC after the Ethics Committee has met and thoroughly discussed the scenario, applied the relevant sections of the Code to the scenario, and drafted a response opinion.

In addition to information and procedures for advisory opinions, the CRCC website provides information regarding the grievance process as another option for rehabilitation counselors when confronted with an ethical dilemma. Filing a grievance becomes necessary when an individual believes that a CRC has violated one or more of the ethical codes in the CRCC Professional Code of Ethics. Similar to requesting an advisory opinion, there are a plethora of resources under the Ethics section of the CRCC website, including information about the grievance process. When filing a grievance, it is recommended that an individual review the guidelines and procedures for processing a complaint (CRCC, 2021). Within the confines of these guidelines and procedures, the necessary documents to file a grievance can be found. This form and other supporting documentation must be filled out completely and emailed to the CRCC office. When filing a grievance, the complainant must be specific about the section(s) of the Code that has been violated and provide evidence that supports the claim(s) of Code violation(s). Once the CRCC Ethics Committee receives the grievance, all submitted documentation is reviewed to determine if more information is needed. After reviewing and discussing the information, the committee then decides if a violation occurred and the appropriate action to take.

Addressing Suspected Violations

The Code is listed and accessible to all counselors. Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (2023) states that “Individual Enforceable Standards are not meant to be interpreted in isolation. Instead, Enforceable Standards should be interpreted as a body, with each Enforceable Standard interpreted in conjunction with other, related standards throughout the Code” (Preamble). There remains a need to ensure standards are enforced once reported and assessed. Modeling integrity and upholding standards are two opportunities to strengthen the CRC community. There may be hesitancy to report a suspected violation due to fear of retaliation, concerns over accuracy, or lack of knowledge regarding the reporting/grievance process. In such cases, as mentioned above, an individual can consult with CRCC for an advisory opinion for further consultation. Ethics committee members are active CRCs who comprehensively review all scenarios received. Ethics committee members serve 3-year terms. Two new members are selected each year using a competitive selection process to balance the committee relative to professional practice settings, geographic locale, and multiple categories regarding intersectionality.

Anyone with verifiable reason to believe that a certified individual has violated the code may report a complaint. The committee will accept completed written and signed complaints with any supporting documents that will help with additional details of the case. Next, the ethics committee will review and offer an opportunity for the certificant to respond in writing. After receiving the response from the certificant, Committee members will examine in detail all relevant supporting documents. Finally, the committee will provide a plan of action, including determining the necessity for any sanctions, including establishing if a hearing is necessary.

There are several potential outcomes: a letter of instruction, provisional suspension, sanctions, reprimand, probation, suspension of certification, and revocation. Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification adheres to an ethical decision-making model, including consultation, informal resolution, and resolving ethical violations. In all, ensuring the accuracy of reports and enforcing standards remain the core of ethical responsibility. Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification seeks to maintain its integrity by ongoing revisions of codes, equitable practices, and ensuring CRCs provide high-quality service.

Applying the Code to Ethical Decision-Making

The practice of rehabilitation counseling requires practitioners to make decisions that affect consumers and their families as well as the communities in which they live. It is necessary to make ethically sound decisions backed by good clinical judgment, as Codes of Ethics are designed to serve as broad guidelines and do not include every potential situation a professional might encounter (Cottone & Tarvydas, 2016). When exploring an ethical issue in practice, one of the first places a CRC should go for guidance is the CRCC Code of Ethics. Section M.1.a. Knowledge of the Code indicates CRCs have an ethical obligation to be familiar with the Code and know how to apply the guidance contained in the Code to ethical situations (CRCC, 2023). Section M provides information and guidance on using the Code as a resource and applying it to ethical dilemmas in rehabilitation counseling practice. When faced with an ethical dilemma, CRCs should use multiple perspectives to resolve the situation.

As a first action step, CRCs should identify a model of ethical decision-making to guide their decision(s), as discussed in the previous section. Once a model is identified, CRCs should follow the appropriate steps and document the actions taken at each step. The Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors should consult the relevant sections of the Code to see what guidance is provided related to their ethical dilemma. The Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors should also seek consultation from a trusted mentor, supervisor, or coworker. If appropriate to the issue, CRCs can also seek an advisory opinion from CRCC related to the ethical dilemma. Tarvydas and Johnston (2018) recommend using principle and virtue ethics when making an ethical decision. Rehabilitation counselors who make decisions from a principle ethics perspective focus on aspects of ethical decision-making that are objective and rational. In contrast, those who make decisions from a virtue ethics perspective consider the values and principles of the individual counselor in the decision-making process (Tarvydas & Johnston, 2018). Combining virtue ethics and principle ethics perspectives may allow a CRC to become more multiculturally competent and perform better in diverse settings with various client populations.

Case Study Overview

The CRCC upholds ethical standards for certified rehabilitation counselors (CRCs) to adhere to in their professional practices. Ethical considerations are the core of maintaining integrity as a certified rehabilitation counselor. There is a responsibility to make sound decisions in practice. The continuous update to the ethical code seeks to advance the field further and ensure best practices for individuals served. Previous sections of this article highlight the historical evolution of the Code regarding decision-making, ethical decision-making models, and some resources available from CRCC regarding decision-making. This section examines Section M’s utility via a case study and application to Resolving Ethical Issues (CRCC, 2023). Section M provides an overview of resolving ethical issues, including M.1. Knowledge of Ethical Standards and the Law; M.2. Addressing Suspected Violations; and M.3. Conduct in Addressing Ethical Issues. Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification’s ethical principles guide decision-making for professional practices and uphold CRCC standards. Furthermore, this section will examine potential ethical violations in a case study.

There are continuing challenges in determining outcomes while considering ethics, morals, laws, and maintaining informed decisions (Forester-Miller & Davis, 2016). This section will outline potential ethical dilemmas and identify potential violations and resolutions. The Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors are responsible for remaining abreast of changes to the code of ethics, ongoing revisions to ensure best practices, and enforcing the standard. Counselors stay well informed of updates by reviewing code, attending professional conferences, and participating in targeted training/briefings related to updates.

Case Study Example: Professor Z

Professor Z is a 46-year-old, cisgender, heterosexual, White male who has been a CRC for 11 years. Professor Z has worked as an adjunct professor for the past 7 years. Full time, he serves as a certified rehabilitation counselor at an agency in a small rural town. Recently, CRCC received an allegation of a code violation from a student named Kate, stating that Professor Z shared some identifiable information about one of his clients during one of his classes. Kate described the characteristics and information that Professor Z shared with the class to link information to the client. Specifically, it was reported that a redacted evaluation report was used in class as part of an exercise; however, Kate was still able to identify the personal information of her best friend and immediately felt uncomfortable. Kate is concerned that others may know it is her friend. Also, the student expressed being uncomfortable with remaining in the class for the remainder of the semester.

Knowledge of ethical standards and the law

When navigating an ethical dilemma, CRCs must reflect on their values and judgments to determine their role in decision-making. As Kitchener (1984) notes, “not all value judgments are equally valid,” and therefore, implementing an ethical decision-making model supplements an individual’s interpretation or application of values or moral principles (p. 44, as cited in Cottone & Tarvydas, 2016). Hence, it is essential to remain knowledgeable about the ethical principles governing behavior. Knowledge of other professional codes helps recognize potential violations and explore how we enforce those violations (Forester-Miller & Davis, 2016). The Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors must comply with federal, state, and local laws and maintain the CRC standard when there are conflicts between ethics and laws (CRCC, 2023, Section M.1.c.)

In this case, Professor Z potentially violated several ethical codes: B.1.a—Respect for privacy; B.1.b—Respect for confidentiality; E.1.d—Avoiding harm; and I.5.i—Use of case examples. Professor Z serves in dual roles as a professor and counselor; therefore, he has ethical responsibilities as a counselor and a professor. As a CRC, there is an expectation that he will uphold the CRCC Codes of Professional Ethics in both positions. In addition, the violations may cause potential harm to the client; therefore, there is a need for further examination by the ethics committees with review from the complainant and respondent.

The professor blurred lines in teaching by using a client as an example and not adequately redacting identifiable client information. The following will explore the potential violations and application of the code. It is acknowledged that professors frequently use personal experiences as part of their course material or teaching tools; however, this professor utilized a teaching tool that did not correctly remove identifiable information, and the details were clear enough for students to identify the client. A case study or a sample evaluation report is an acceptable illustration as a teaching tool; however, the professor is responsible for removing any specifics that will potentially identify the client. According to B.1.a, the counselor ensures that client privacy is always protected. In this scenario, the professor did not properly redact information resulting in shared personal information that did not benefit the client’s process, directly violating the Code of Ethics, specifically, the ethical principle of nonmaleficence: To do no harm to others and Section E.5.d—The professional responsibility to avoid harm.

This professor also violates B.1.b—respect for confidentiality; notably, CRCs should not share client information without consent. In this case, the professor shared a sample evaluation report and utilized client details as a teachable opportunity; without obtaining consent from the client or disclosing that consent was obtained prior to sharing this information. Kate could recognize the information presented in the sample case report because it was not properly redacted and identified that this report was of her best friend. In addition to violating client privacy and confidentiality, this professor models distrust in the counseling profession and violates integrity as a professional. At this point, it is unclear if Professor Z spoke with the client with regard to presenting the evaluation as an example in the classroom; Section I.5.i states that the use of case-related information is permissible for teaching purposes only if the client has reviewed the material and the material removes identifying information. Based on Kate’s reaction to the presentation of the case example, it is likely that Professor Z did not review this material with the client prior to using it in a course lecture. The question remains whether this was intentional or unintentional; regardless of the intent, sharing details has potentially caused the client harm and created an environment of distrust in the classroom. According to multiple sections in the Code of Professional Ethics for certified rehabilitation counselors, CRCs must ensure clients’ welfare across various roles and responsibilities and stay abreast of any changes (CRCC, 2023; Glosoff & Cottone, 2010).

In addition to the consequences presented to Professor Z concerning his ethical violations, Kate is also affected by this process. She has an opportunity to engage in a decision-making process. Like Professor Z, Kate is involved in multiple relationships: she is a student and a friend; therefore, she needs to consider the consequences of her decision concerning the potential impact on both relationships. When considering the impact of Professor Z and the significance of his Code violation, Kate is presented with multiple options, including applying the Code of Ethics, requesting an advisory opinion, consulting with another professional, or filing a grievance. Kate is also presented with the option to engage in the informal resolution process with Professor Z to resolve the issue; however, she should consider the impact this might have on her role as a student.

In addition, Kate is faced with the decision to inform her friend of the disclosure of information within a classroom setting. When considering this decision, Kate must consider the potential harm or betrayal her friend might experience. Given this situation, the friend might experience harm from her counselor sharing personal information without consenting her, but also might feel betrayed if she founds out and Kate does not inform her of this incident. Kate is currently faced with making a decision that involves the “lesser evil.” As she attempts to navigate these dilemmas, it is advantageous for Kate to consult with the Code of Professional Ethics and apply a decision-making model to aid her in this process. Much like Kate’s experience, CRCs must consider the impact of all individuals involved when making decisions.

Case Study Example: Katherine

Elizabeth, a 24-year-old female, recently passed her certified rehabilitation counselor’s exam. She has a master’s degree in rehabilitation counseling and secured her first job at a nonprofit organization that provides employment services for individuals with disabilities. Elizabeth completes a few months of training and orientation with her director and other staff members, and she spends a significant amount of her time developing relationships with her clients. Her main job with this organization is to provide career counseling to military veterans seeking employment. One day, while she was meeting with a client, he started making inappropriate sexual comments to Elizabeth, and she immediately felt uncomfortable working with this client. In addition to these comments, he frequently sent her personal messages on her social media pages and friend requests from various accounts or platforms.

Elizabeth requested a meeting with her supervisor, Katherine, to determine what she should do and requested that this case either be transferred or that this individual be removed from services. Katherine then asked Elizabeth why she was not accepting the friend requests from this client—Elizabeth reported that this was against the CRCC Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors. Katherine then informed Elizabeth that being friends with clients on social media was standard practice in the organization, especially if the clients made the initial request. Therefore, abiding by this specific code of professional ethics was not necessary. As she continues into her position, Elizabeth notices additional concerns, such as staff maintaining personal relationships with clients outside of the workplace and using personal email/phones to communicate with clients. Elizabeth is unsure what to do at this point because her current organization is not abiding by the CRCC Code of Professional Ethics; however, as a CRC, she knows that she needs to follow these guidelines even if they are against her company’s policies.

This case potentially violates numerous sections of the Code of Professional Ethics for Rehabilitation Counselors, including A.4.g. Extending professional boundaries; I.1.a. Client welfare; and K.4.a. Professional electronic presence. In addition, Elizabeth is faced with a decision to not only address the violations of her supervisor but also ensure that she is not violating ethical codes. Section F.1.b—Negative employment conditions—states she has an ethical obligation to inform her employer of these violations or voluntarily terminate her position with the company. Katherine maintains the role of CRC and supervisor working for an employer that does not follow the guidance of the CRCC Code of Professional Ethics. As a CRC, it is her professional responsibility to protect the welfare of clients served through this organization. As a supervisor, it is also her responsibility to ensure that her supervisees receive proper training to support clients in this capacity.

Based on the information presented in this case study, Katherine likely violates A.4.g. Extending professional boundaries, as she notes that within the organization, it is a practice to engage in relationships with clients outside of the workplace to foster the therapeutic relationship. The CRCC Code of Professional Ethics notes that CRCs should only extend relationship boundaries if proper consent is obtained and the extension of boundaries is either time limited or context specific (CRCC, 2023). However, this is not the case within this organization, and unfortunately, no additional information is provided regarding the nature of these relationships (e.g., friendship and sexual) or the potential risks. Katherine also serves as a supervisor and therefore has the professional responsibility to ensure that her supervisees protect the welfare of the clients within the organization. Therefore, she potentially violates Section I.1.a. Client welfare, as she provides guidance to her supervisees to disregard guidance on therapeutic relationships presented in the CRCC Code of Professional Ethics. Finally, Katherine violates section K.4.a. Professional electronic presence, as her staff members are utilizing their social media accounts to engage with clients rather than developing separate professional accounts.

Elizabeth is faced with the decision of how she should confront these ethical violations. At this time, she has the opportunity to utilize a more informal process of speaking with Katherine directly; however, it seems as though because this is company policy and Katherine seems to encourage these types of interactions with clients, it might be best to seek formal options. To address these violations, through a formal process, Elizabeth could request an advisory opinion or file a grievance. If she requested an advisory opinion, she would receive additional guidance regarding this situation, which might also lead to a decision Elizabeth will need to make to avoid her own ethical violation. Should Elizabeth file a grievance with the CRCC Ethics Committee, her supervisor, Katherine, will be contacted by the Committee regarding her actions and her organizations policies, and the Committee will make a decision relating to which sections, if any based upon the evidence, have been violated as well as sanctions based upon their fact finding process.

Conclusion

The CRCC Code of Professional Ethics is a tool to support Rehabilitation Counseling professionals when addressing ethical dilemmas. Since the 2001 version of the Code, CRCC has included a section pertaining to ethical decision-making and addressing ethical dilemmas. Research on the implementation of ethical decision-making models has emerged and is delineated from concepts relative to morals, values, and ethical principles. This research, in addition to a review of ethical codes from other counseling disciplines and prominent ethical violations from rehabilitation professionals, continues to inform the Code revision process. In January 2023, a new version of the Code will be released. It will be necessary for rehabilitation counseling professionals to have knowledge of the significant changes and how to implement those changes within practice. Content presented throughout this article serves as supplemental information to aid professionals in navigating some of the changes and guides how to implement some of the changes relevant to ethical decision-making.