Procedural Aspects of Creating and Evaluating the Code of Ethics for Social Work

Procedural Aspects of Creating and Evaluating the Code of Ethics for Social Work Social work is currently understood not only as a practical form of help for people in need, but also as one of the progressively developing scientific disciplines and helping professions (Mátel, Schavel et al., 2013). We can therefore understand it as an integrated discipline with three important pillars—professional practice, education, and research. Strieženec (1998, p. 345) even distinguishes up to six starting perspectives when defining social work, its subject matter, content, aims, tasks, categories, and methodology:

• social work as practical activity (historical perspective);
• social work as a scholarly field (theoretical perspective);
• social work as an autonomous profession (practical perspective);
• social work as an academic discipline (educational perspective);
• social work research (developmental perspective);
• the aims of social work and its developmental trends (integrative perspective).

Due to the integrated nature of the discipline, it is not appropriate to separate its components as independent entities, even if we can distinguish them analytically. For the purposes of this study we must emphasize at the outset that if we separate education and educators from practice, namely social workers, we would internally fracture a discipline that has for nearly a century struggled for independence and due recognition by other disciplines. Therefore, for this study we will not understand the term “social worker” only as persons directly working with social clients, but as everyone involved in building the profession of social work, including academic staff, educators at schools of social work, and social workers acting in different roles, functions, and positions.

In light of the international discussion about social work, it is increasingly considered a profession grounded in values. Core professional values and principles are most often formulated in a social work code of ethics.

The broader focus of this article is the creation of a code of ethics for social work in Slovakia. Our attention, however, is not on its substantive content, which we addressed in the monograph Etika sociálnej práce (2012) and other professional contributions. We wish to focus instead on the process of creating and evaluating the ethical code. Even if academics, ethics specialists, or social workers themselves provide excellent content, without clearly defined procedural rules and responsibilities, it is not possible to produce such a document. Practical experience in Slovakia confirms this. One of the most significant outcomes of the “1st Piešťany conference” on applied ethics in social work was a shared agreement among participants—both academics and practitioners—on the need to revise the 1997 Code of Ethics of Social Workers in the Slovak Republic. This code no longer meets the international social work ethics standards jointly declared by the International Federation of Social Workers and the International Association of Schools of Social Work in 2004, nor does it sufficiently reflect all relevant ethical aspects of this dynamically developing profession. Following a joint initiative by Andrej Mátel, the author of this paper, and Peter Brnula, a working group was formed at the beginning of 2011 with the goal of creating a new code of ethics for social work in Slovakia. We asked the Association of Educators in Social Work for the sponsorship of this commission; at that time, the chairperson of the association was Professor Milan Schavel. The first meeting of this group was held at the Department of Social Work, Faculty of Education, Comenius University in Bratislava(1) on February 28, 2011. Further meetings followed: 2) Nitra (Catholic University in Ružomberok, Nitra? actually UKF Nitra), March 27, 2011; 3) Danišovce (UPJŠ Košice workplace), April 24, 2011; 4) Sládkovičovo (University of Ss. Cyril and Methodius, Sládkovičovo), June 30, 2011 (there was, however, an insufficient number of commission members); 5) Trnava (TU in Trnava), February 2, 2012; 6) Ružomberok (Catholic University in Ružomberok), June 26–27, 2012—Banská Bystrica was agreed as the place for the next meeting (planned for November 2012, later January 2013). No further meeting took place. A commission member delegated to organize it stopped responding.

Since the goal of this working group was to reach broad consensus on the shape and content of the new ethical code of social work, work on it is rather complex. We believe that the key to continuing this start-up effort is not questions of the content of the code, but procedural deficits. These contributed to the fact that work on creating a new code of ethics for social work in Slovakia does not currently continue in practice. For this reason, the narrower focus of the study is on the procedural aspects of creating and evaluating the ethical code of social work. For this purpose, I consider an important theoretical conceptualization of the “process.”

We will not treat the concept of process as axiomatic, although at first glance it may appear terminologically clear. Process usually denotes a procedure (work, creation), which in etymological terms is linked to the Latin verb procedo, procedere—to proceed, to continue, but also to unfold, emerge, come forward, appear. In its original Latin meaning, the term includes the following components:

• the intention is activity, not a state (for example, sailing a ship, not merely the ship staying in port), so the status quo is left through that activity; therefore the intent is to act, or to undertake a series of actions, as a progression;
• the activity is goal-directed, linked to achieving a previously set goal (it is not random activity). This goal is always set by a specific person, group of people, institution, or organization, which again is composed of people (e.g., the ship owner sets the sailing goal). A prerequisite is personal or delegated competence for the activity (the captain may set the goal if delegated by the owner; the helmsman cannot, even if he knows the sea best along which the ship will sail);
• the individual steps of the activity are logically and systematically arranged so that each step follows the previous one (not arbitrary jumps); there must always be forward progression;
• the establishment of the actor (agent) of the activity, which may be a person, group of persons, institution, or even an object (for example, a machine in a manufacturing process, a ship in a voyage). It is determined who or what carries out the procedure. As with the goal-setting, delegated or own competence is also a prerequisite here (one cannot sail another person’s ship without the owner’s consent or delegation, otherwise it is an unauthorized voyage).

The process can be defined as the goal-oriented systematic procedure of a designated subject or object. In any systematic human activity, after a goal is set, the process is subsequently defined as the way to proceed, which forms the fundamental methodological basis for a specific activity. We can distinguish three basic stages (steps) of any process: 1. establishing the process (first in the mental sphere, then possibly recorded or written down); 2. implementation of the process (the activity itself); 3. completion of the process (the predetermined goal has been reached and the result is identifiable). Optionally, we can also add a fourth point, which is evaluation (assessment), whether of the process itself or of the long-term usability of the achieved result. In essence, evaluation is itself another process, whose aim is a backward-looking (anamnetic) view toward the original process or a forward-looking (catamnetic) view toward long-term use of the process outcome (product). Evaluation can also be an integral part of the process itself, if it is directly defined in the goal.

Applying this theoretical concept of process to the creation of a new code of ethics for social work in Slovakia and to its evaluation as an integral component of that process, we can state the following:

• There is a clearly defined goal of activity, which is the creation of a new code of ethics for social work in the Slovak Republic. The members of the working ethics group themselves defined this goal, based on repeated input from educators in social work and the social workers themselves.
• The process activity is the work of the working ethics group and its individual members in fulfilling the set goal.
• The starting point is the existence of the outdated Code of Ethics of Social Workers in the Slovak Republic from 1997, created by an association that is currently not showing any real activity and has lost membership in IFSW.
• During the work of the ethics group, there was an interruption from June 2012 onward because the announced follow-up meeting has not yet taken place. The commission member responsible for organizational coordination ceased communication as of November 5, 2012. Commission members did not exert sufficient pressure to ensure the meeting was held.
• From the beginning of its activity, the working group requested delegation of competence from the Association of Educators in Social Work represented by its chair.

To identify the key procedural aspects of creating and evaluating the ethical code of social work, we conducted research with the purpose of identifying good practices in the creation or revision process from the perspective of international and national ethical codes of this profession.

Metodological Introduction of the Research

The research objective is to identify the processual aspects of creating and evaluating international and national ethical codes of social work. A qualitative research strategy was used. The main research method is document analysis using hermeneutic methods, especially structural, content, and pragmatic analysis. Among core research methods, induction and comparison were used.

In document analysis, especially in content analysis, a key decision concerns the selection of documents. Given the topic and goals of the research, the study addresses international and national ethical codes of social work and of social workers. In selecting documents, the author considered the following criteria, in this order: a) relevance and originality of documents—priority was given to codes with international influence (both recent ethical documents of IFSW) and pioneering works with a long tradition (especially the American and Australian ethical code); b) current validity—historically older documents that have been replaced or updated by newer ones were excluded, except for the “International Code of Ethics”; c) language accessibility—only documents available in English, Slovak, Czech, Russian, German, Italian, and Hebrew were selected; d) public accessibility of the document—documents selected from materials available online, except Slovak ones; e) cultural proximity—documents were selected that are historically and culturally close to Slovakia over the last 70 years (especially the Czech and Russian ethical codes); f) broader diversity of the research sample due to multicultural plurality, with a higher proportion of European countries (5/2) compared to non-European ones.

Because the documents we examined are relatively young historically, the selection of hermeneutic methods was narrowed to those based mainly on a synchronic approach, with one exception: the international code of ethics. In that case, two documents from 1994 and 2004 were used, so a diachronic approach was also taken into account. This is because some national ethical codes still rely on the older 1994 document.

Given the data collection methods, the qualitative research collected data through publicly available documents whose carriers are electronic publications available on the internet. Based on the above criteria, 16 documents were selected: two of them have the character of international ethical codes (IFSW 1994 and 2004) and 14 have the character of national ethical codes—10 European and 4 non-European. Specifically these are: 1. International Code of Ethics /IFSW (1994)/ 2. International Code of Ethics IFSW /IASSW (2004)/ 3. Portuguese Code of Ethics /APSS (2007)/ 4. American Code of Ethics /NASW (2008)/ 5. Canadian Code of Ethics /CASW (2005)/ 6. Australian Code of Ethics /AASW (2010)/ 7. Israeli Code of Ethics /(SWI (2007)/ 8. Swedish Code of Ethics /ASSR (1997)/ 9. British Code of Ethics /BASW (2012)/ 10. German Code of Ethics /DBSH (1997)/ 11. Swiss Code of Ethics /BPSA (2010)/ 12. Italian Code of Ethics /CN (2009)/ 13. Russian Code of Ethics /ССОПиР (2003)/ 14. Romanian Code of Ethics /CNASR (2007)/ 15. Czech Code of Ethics /SSP ČR (2006)/ 16. Slovak Code of Ethics /ASP SR (1997)/

Given the data management between procedural aspects of creating and evaluating a code of ethics, we classify the following three categories(2):

• Institutional sponsorship—an institution, organization, or association that creates the code, or its components (ethics commissions), and ensures its regular evaluation.
• Sources—explicitly or implicitly identified external sources (international documents, the international ethical code, other national ethical codes) used in the creation or evaluation process (along with identification of national specificities and own ethical concepts).
• Binding force and sanctions—derived from the institutional coverage of the code as well as institutional anchoring of the profession of social work in a given country.

Research Findings

INTERNATIONAL ETHICAL CODE. International and supra-national associations of individual professions attempt to formulate core ethical principles and values into the form of an international ethical code. In social work, this role is fulfilled by the International Federation of Social Workers,(3) which covers national social work associations around the world. In education and ethics it closely cooperates with the International Association of Schools of Social Work.(4) IFSW has a special ethics commission (Ethics Commission) and the office of the Permanent Committee on Ethics. The current internationally recognized ethical code for social work is the joint IFSW/IASSW document Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles (Ethics in Social Work – Statement of Principles), adopted in 2004. In terms of sources, this document explicitly refers to international human rights declarations and conventions, namely:

• the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
• the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights;
• the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights;
• the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination;
• the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women;
• the Convention on the Rights of the Child;
• Convention 169 of the International Labour Organization on Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries.

The document is of a recommendatory character for IFSW and IASSW member organizations. It does not focus specifically on control and sanctions. National member organizations of IFSW and IASSW are responsible for developing and periodically updating their own ethical codes or ethical guidelines so that they correspond to the principles of IFSW/IASSW. National organizations also have responsibility for informing social workers and schools of social work about these codes and guidelines. Social workers should act in line with the ethical code or with the guidelines valid in their country.

An older IFSW document is the 1994 code, which in practice consisted of two documents: the International Declaration of Ethical Principles of Social Work and the International Ethical Standards for Social Workers. In terms of sources, it explicitly refers to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UN, 1948) and other international conventions derived from this declaration. The document is recommendatory for IFSW member organizations and therefore does not focus specifically on control and sanctions.

PORTUGUESE ETHICAL CODE (Código de Ética, APSS 2007). It was adopted by Associação dos Profissionais de Serviço Social in 2007. It is a code identical to IFSW/IASSW (2004). The Portuguese code represents an alternative in which the national association of social work identifies with the values, principles, and responsibilities of the international code and adopts them as its national code.

AMERICAN ETHICAL CODE (Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers, NASW 2008). Its proponent is the National Association of Social Workers. Historically, NASW has played a pioneering role not only in social work as an autonomous profession and scientific activity, but also in professional ethics in social work. It published its first code of ethics in 1960, consisting of 14 proclamations. This code was subsequently revised (1967, 1977, 1979, 1990, 1993). The current wording of the present NASW code comes from 1996. It has since been revised twice, in 1999 and 2008. Because of ethical issues in the profession, NASW has established a special office, the Office of Ethics and Professional Review. It is responsible for monitoring compliance with professional ethics, provides consultations to members in professional ethics, and especially to those sanctioned for violations of ethical principles. It also administers the process of evaluation and revision of the code. An example is the 1994 code revision, carried out in three phases. The first phase consisted of reviewing literature on ethics in social work and applied ethics in helping professions generally to identify key concepts and issues that could form part of a new code. In light of the previous code, concepts that could be retained were identified, as well as areas that should be added as new. The second phase ran in parallel with the first, when all NASW members and other social work organizations were invited to participate in drafting the new code through their suggestions and comments. In the third phase the commission carried out extensive revisional edits based on feedback from experts who reviewed the document. In 1996, the final version was submitted first to regional NASW representatives for assessment and feedback and eventually to the NASW national assembly, which approved it in August 1996 with effect from January 1997. This code has since been revised twice, in 1999 and 2008. Sources are not specifically listed in the code. The code is binding for all social workers and social work students regardless of position, field of practice, or clients served. NASW established a formal procedure for assessing ethical complaints filed against its members (NASW Procedures for Professional Review, 2012). The code encourages social workers to cooperate in its implementation, to participate in internal NASW assessment procedures, and to comply with disciplinary rules and sanctions. The code itself does not lay out a sanctioning system; this is in the competence of the dedicated office.

CANADIAN ETHICAL CODE (CASW 2005). The author is the Canadian Association of Social Workers. The current version of the Canadian code dates from 2005. In practice it consists of two documents: Code of Ethics, which deals mainly with key values and principles in social work, and the practical Guidelines for Ethical Practice. Its update process ran in three phases from 2002. Phase 1 was critical appraisal of literature, in which important professional and bioethical literature was studied and evaluated, and a report on key concepts and issues was produced. Phase 2 included review and comparative analysis of the 1994 IFSW code, as well as national ethical codes of the UK, Australia, and the USA. There was also analysis of major ethical codes of individual Canadian provinces and territories. Phase 3 consisted of draft versions and subsequent consultations about the wording of the CASW code and the Guide to Ethical Practice. The Canadian code adopted some parts from the American NASW code and in certain articles also draws on the Australian AASW code. The text states explicitly that the code is consistent with the IFSW international ethical codes (1994, 2004). In its preamble, it refers to human rights enshrined in Canadian laws as well as international human rights conventions established and declared within the UN. Because in Canada responsibility for social work is legislatively vested in individual provinces and territories,(5) the code has a mainly recommendatory character; in case of violation it encourages contacting relevant authorities in the respective province or territory.

AUSTRALIAN ETHICAL CODE (AASW 2010). The current AASW Code of Ethics was adopted in 2010 by the Australian Association of Social Workers, the professional association of social workers in Australia. It is a substantial revision of the 2002 code. Responsibility for its redevelopment lay with the Code of Ethics Review Committee in cooperation with two international experts—Professor Sarah Banks (Durham University, UK) and Professor Richard Hugman (Ethics Committee of IFSW). The text states directly that the code is open to revision. Within AASW, a dedicated office—the National Ethics & Practice Standards Officer in Melbourne—provides ethics consultations.

In terms of sources, it draws on the IFSW/IASSW 2004 international ethical code, and the NASW code influenced some formulations. The code is binding for all social workers who are members of this association and for students of social work. The text itself lists the basic principles for the review and assessment process of complaints of unethical conduct by social workers. Complaints about such conduct may be filed by anyone, including clients, colleagues, and employers. One attachment to the code is a scheme called the Complaints Management Process. A key part of this process is the National Ethics Office and the National Ethics Panel. A separate document, AASW By-Laws on Ethics (2013), deals more broadly with the entire process.

ISRAELI ETHICAL CODE (Code of Professional Ethics of Social Workers in Israel, קוד האתיקה של איגוד עובדים הסוציאליים בישראל, SWI 2007) was adopted by the Union of Social Workers in Israel in 2007. The first code in Israel was formulated in the 1970s when the profession of social work was being established. A major change occurred in 1996 with the adoption of the Social Workers Act. Social work then became legislatively regulated. (Karpel, 2008). Sources are not listed in the code. In 1999, so-called Ethics Regulations were published in Israel, with legal binding force; disciplinary measures are taken for breaches. With respect to ethical conduct of professional social workers in Israel, the binding document is precisely the aforementioned Social Workers Act. The ethical code explicitly refers to this act. It formulates concrete disciplinary processes and sanctions resulting from unethical conduct, including warnings, reprimands, fines, suspension of registration for up to five years, or deletion from the register.

BRITISH ETHICAL CODE (The Code of Ethics for Social Work, BASW 2012). It was adopted by the British Association of Social Workers, which is the sole professional association of social workers in Great Britain. It is a revised code from 2002 (previously 1975), formulated by the national professional association. Within BASW, the Policy, Ethics and Human Rights Committee is responsible for evaluation and revision of the code. In terms of sources, the current BASW code refers to the international ethical code. The code is binding for BASW members, but there is no possibility of sanctioning unethical conduct. For social workers working independently in private practice, a separate document addresses specific principles of ethical practice (as a complement to Part 3 of the code). In Britain, social work activity is also regulated by the state through the semi-autonomous General Social Care Council in England. In addition to the BASW ethical code, there are also “codes of practice” for social care workers employed in social services (Code of Practice for Social Care Workers, 2010) and for their employers (Code of Practice for Employers of Social Care Workers, 2010).

SWEDISH ETHICAL CODE (Etik i socialt arbete, ASSR 2006). It was adopted by Akademikerförbundet SSR in 2006 (formerly 1997). No sources are listed in it. It is binding for members of the National Council of Social Workers and for those who provide services voluntarily. Modes of control and sanctioning are not specified in the text.

SWISS ETHICAL CODE (Berufskodex der Professionellen Sozialer Arbeit Schweiz, AS 2010). It was adopted by AvenirSozial, Professionelle Soziale Arbeit Schweiz, and is a revision of the previous 2006 code. It was preceded by three years of work by experts and professional experts in which the central starting point was criticism of the current code and discussion of relevant professional literature. After publication of the draft in autumn 2009, the new code was organized by a subcommission of the Professional Ethics Commission(6) at AvenirSocial and was fully approved in June 2010. The Swiss code refers to sources such as the IFSW/IASSW (2004) international code, the international documents listed in that code, and specifically European documents of the Council of Europe—the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950/1953) and the European Social Charter (1961/1996/1999)—as well as the Swiss federal constitution. The document is binding for members of AvenirSocial. Within it operates the Kommission für Berufsethik, which carries out consultative activities and also handles input from members, clients, and social work clients. Its competence is advisory. Ethical failures are considered directly with those concerned by the presidency of AvenirSocial on the basis of the commission’s referrals.

GERMAN ETHICAL CODE (Berufsethische Prinzipien des DBSH, DBSH 1997). It was adopted by the German professional chamber of social workers, Deutscher Berufsverband für Soziale Arbeit, in 1997, following the 1994 IFSW document. Today this document presents the DBSH together with the IFSW/IASSW (2004) international code as a joint document. It contains general rules for professional conduct for members of DBSH, for whom it is binding. The text directly mentions a commission that is responsible for maintaining these principles, as well as revising and updating them.

ITALIAN ETHICAL CODE (Codice deontologico dell’Assistente Sociale, CN 2009). It was created by the Ordine Assistenti Sociali, a state institution responsible for the regulation of social work in Italy, operating since 1993. Its competence includes the creation and evaluation of the social work deontological code. Sources are not listed in the code. The text directly states that social workers must know, respect, and disseminate the code’s principles. The code is binding in nature, with institutional responsibility resting with the Consiglio Nazionale dell’Ordine. In Italy, registration of social workers is mandatory; without it, practicing is illegal.

ROMANIAN ETHICAL CODE (Codul deontologic all profesiei de asistent social, CNASR 2008) was adopted by the National College of Romanian Social Workers (CNASR) in 2007, with effect from 2008. It is a professional nonprofit organization whose task is to control and supervise social work practice according to law (in Romania, Law No. 466/2004 on the Statute of the Social Worker recognized social work as an independent profession and field of practice). No sources are listed in the code. The Romanian ethical code is binding for members of the National College of Social Workers in Romania and is a legal document with precise procedural instructions in case of violation. A key body is the Ethics Professional Commission of the College.

RUSSIAN ETHICAL CODE (Кодекс этики социального работника и социального педагога, CСОПиР 2003). It was approved by the public nonprofit organization Союз социальных педагогов и социальных работников in 2003 for its members, which is a member organization of IFSW. The document refers to the IFSW 1994 international ethical code and international documents. Explicitly mentioned are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965), the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (1976), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). In its drafting, consideration was given to then-existing national ethical codes in Australia, Great Britain, Denmark, Lithuania, Poland, the USA, and Finland. The document is binding for members of ССОПиР. Neither the degree of binding force nor mechanisms for control and sanctions in case of violation are specified.

CZECH ETHICAL CODE (Etický kodex sociálních pracovníků České republiky, SSP ČR 2006). It was adopted by the Society of Social Workers of the Czech Republic, which is a member organization of IFSW. It is not a professional association, but a voluntary professional organization bringing together members who actively participate in the development of social work and the professional quality of social work in practice. The code refers to documents relevant to social work practice, specifically international documents including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN Human Rights Charter, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and national laws—Constitution and the Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms. The international ethical code IFSW / IASSW 2004 and its previous 1994 version had the main influence on drafting the code. SSP ČR is a voluntary organization, and therefore the binding force of the ethical code in the Czech Republic is not enforceable. The code thus has recommendatory character.

SLOVAK ETHICAL CODE /ASPS (1997)/. The Code of Ethics of Social Workers in the Slovak Republic was adopted by the Association of Social Workers in the Slovak Republic in 1997. ASPS was established in 1993 as a non-governmental organization with the purpose of bringing together social workers in Slovakia. The document refers to the international ethical code (at that time the IFSW 1994 document) and in general terms also to “other internationally recognized norms.” Because this is a document of the civic association ASPS, which is a voluntary association of social workers rather than a corporative institution, it is recommendatory. There is no control or sanctioning mechanism for breaches of ethical principles.

Analysis and Discussion

In terms of the process of creating a national ethical code of social work, the Portuguese Associação dos Profissionais de Serviço Social chose the simplest and fastest path by adopting the IFSW (2004) document as its national ethical code. A deficit, however, is the absence of national specificities of social work, which are precisely encouraged for identification by IFSW.

The fundamental institutional starting point in creating a national ethical code is the existence of a national organization (association) representing social workers in that country. Within it, there is usually some organizational unit securing the ethics area within the national association, whose mandate is more clearly defined and usually includes the sphere of creating and evaluating the profession’s ethical code. Such an organizational unit may be a single ethics commission (NASW, BASW) or consist of two bodies (e.g., IFSW, AASW, AS):

• A permanent ethics commission that is also a dedicated office (with its own office);
• A review (sub)commission, consisting of experts in professional ethics in the given association, but which may also invite international experts ad hoc (e.g., AASW).

For compliance with the ethical code by individual social workers, with possibility of sanctions, responsibility lies either with the national association—represented by leadership or an ethics commission (e.g., CNASR)—or with a dedicated independent office (NASW, CASW, SWI, BASW). Given the status of some national associations, a code may have only recommendatory character (SSP ČR, ASPS). The strongest binding force belongs to codes that are part of the legislation of a country (e.g., CNASR, CN).

The ethics commission (permanent or review) has delegated authority for creating or evaluating the ethical code. The entity that delegated this authority is always (the national social work association). As a rule, there is no considered variant in which such an institution would be absent. The Slovak situation appears to be a systemic deviation in this respect.

The process of a commission’s activity in creating and evaluating a national ethical code is usually standardized in the following steps:

1. The form of the national ethical code is usually substantially influenced by the current international code, and there are four possible variants: a) adopting this code as the national ethical code (e.g., APSS); b) combining two documents, where the international ethical code is one and the national ethical code is the other (DBSH); c) explicitly using the international ethical code as the principal source, adapting content and sometimes even form in the national code (e.g., CASW; AASW; BASW; AS); d) implicitly incorporating ethical principles from the international ethical code into the national code (e.g., NASW).

2. The ethics commission identifies key sources that will serve as starting points in creating the new code (other national ethical codes, international and national documents). It then analyzes the latest scientific and professional literature in ethics, especially applied ethics in social work.

3. For revision of an older code or drafting of a newer one, two variants can serve as starting points: a) the earlier form of the ethical code; b) the first working draft prepared by the ethics commission.

4. Public professional engagement is introduced into the consultation process, especially social workers (association members), schools of social work, and institutions involved in social work activities in the country. Comments are sent to the ethics commission.

5. After evaluating and incorporating relevant comments, a final working version of the new (renewed) ethical code is formed. This is usually also made available for public comment.

6. The final decision on approval of the new (revised) ethical code is made by the national association’s general assembly, which may incorporate final comments. The ethical code is finally approved by the general assembly.

An ethical code formed this way has no specific authors, and members of the working commission are rarely known publicly. It is a collective work of the whole professional association.

Since Slovakia still lacks a functioning national association of social workers, this is a systemic deficit. This absence is currently being addressed by the Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs and Family in cooperation with a working group of representatives from schools of social work through a draft law on social work and conditions for the exercise of social work.(7) This draft already presents several innovative steps to improve institutional conditions of social work practice, such as establishing a chamber of social workers, continuing education for social workers, and others. As far as the chamber is concerned, membership is proposed to be voluntary. Among the chamber’s proposed tasks is also issuing positions on ethical questions related to professional practice. Organizational competence is to be carried by the “Professional Council of the Chamber.” Its first task under the draft law is to issue an ethical code of the profession, which, after approval by the chamber’s assembly, is binding for chamber members. In such a situation, a paradoxical outcome may arise whereby a code is created that is binding for chamber members, while membership in the chamber itself is not binding.

The legislative process is not completed, and the chamber is not yet established. In this situation, should representatives of social work wait for the law to be implemented? How long will this process take? Several months, years?—Regardless of this process, it is possible for the ethics commission’s work at SVSP to continue. As in the international IASSW framework, schools of social work are also responsible for ethical reflection on this discipline, including its deontological grounding. The intention of members of the working ethics commission remains to create a “meta-level” ethical code of social work, which can be the basic starting point for “codes of practice” (codes of ethics of social workers, guides to ethical practice, etc.), as is the case in several countries.

Conclusion

Three years ago, social workers, represented mainly by ethics experts, set a sailing course whose destination was the creation of a new code of ethics for social work. The port from which one must depart are older concepts of social work professional ethics, represented by the Code of Ethics of Social Workers in the Slovak Republic. A small boat was built for this purpose, namely the working ethics group. Its crew sought authorization to sail from co-owners, namely the Association of Educators in Social Work. The second co-owner (the national association of social workers) was unknown at the time. The boat set out toward its destination. However, the crew did not sufficiently define concrete competencies and roles on board (captain, first mate, helmsman, chief mate/engineer, etc.). During the voyage the ship stopped and remained stuck in mid-route to its destination. At this stage, finding a culprit is not the most important matter; responsibility for the voyage belonged to the entire crew. More important is to continue the begun voyage and bring the ship to its destination. One can always learn from errors made during navigation. As the owners of the vessel have undergone significant personnel changes (a new chairperson and new board members of the association were elected), we consider it necessary to confirm the mandate and re-delegate the commission’s competency to the working ethics group in writing, including designation of a responsible leader. It is necessary to create a transparent organizational structure for this commission with clearly defined managerial and organizational competencies. After that, the voyage can continue. The established code of ethics of social work will form an important platform also for creating a code of practice, that is, the social workers’ ethical code.

An indispensable condition of the whole process is an ethos of cooperation and the ability to collaborate effectively toward a common goal. This must be more important than the individual views and ambitions of individual participants in the process. In terms of the goal, it does not matter who creates the ethical code concept (these people usually remain anonymous at the end of the process), but that its shape corresponds on one hand to the latest trends in professional ethics and on the other hand consistently reflects national specificities. We may say that without this ethos it is not possible to achieve any jointly formulated goal that requires the participation of multiple members of the same organization.

Authors: doc. PhDr. Andrej Mátel, PhD., PhDr. Mária Hardy, PhD. The paper was presented at the conference Applied Ethics in Social Work 2 (Piešťany, 16–17 October 2013) List of Bibliographic References

[1] Akademikerförbundet SSR. 2006. Etik i socialt arbete. Stockholm: ASSR, 2006. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [2] Associação dos Profissionais de Serviço Social. 2007. Código de Ética. Lisboa: APROSS, 2007. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [3] Australian Association of Social Workers. 2010. Code of Ethics. 3rd Ed. Canberra: AASW, 2010. 55 pp. ISBN 978-0-9808661-0-0. 2002. Code of Ethics. 2nd Ed., Canberra: AASW, 2002. 33 pp. ISBN 0-909255-32-6. [4] Australian Association of Social Workers. 2013. By Laws on Ethics. (Revised 2013). Canberra: AASW, 2013. ISBN 978-0-9808661-8-6. [5] Avenirsocial. 2010. Berufskodex der Professionellen Sozialer Arbeit Schweiz. Bern: AvenirSozial, 2010. 16 pp. [6] BANKS, S. 2006. Ethics and Values in Social Work. 3rd Ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006. 218 pp. ISBN 978-1-4039-9420-2. [7] British Association of Social Workers 2012. The Code of Ethics for Social Work. Birmingham: BASW, 2012. 20 pp. [8] Canadian Association of Social Workers. 2005. Code of Ethics. Ottawa: CASW, 2005. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [9] Canadian Association of Social Workers. 2005. Guidelines for Ethical Practice. Ottawa: CASW, 2005. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [10] Consiglio nazionale. 2009. Codice deontologico dell’Assistente Sociale. Roma: CN, 2009. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [11] Deutscher Berufsverband für Soziale Arbeit. 1997. Berufsethische Prinzipien des DBSH. Göttingen: DBSH, 1997. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [12] Charita České republiky. 2009. Kodex Charity Česká republika. Olomouc: Arcidiecézní charita, 2009. 16 pp. [13] International Federation of Social Workers. 1994. The Ethics of Social Work: Principles and Standards. Geneva: IFSW, 1994. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [14] International Federation of Social Workers – International Association of Schools of Social Work. 2004. Ethics in Social Work: Statement of Principles. Geneva: IFSW, 2004. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [15] KARPEL M. 2008. Law, Social Work and Professionalism: Israeli Social Workers' Attitudes Towards the 1996 Social Workers Act. In: The Journal of Social Welfare & Family Law, 30.1 (2008), p. 3–16. [16] KOPŘIVA, K. 2006. Lidský vztah jako součást profese. 5. vyd. Praha: Portál, 2006. 147 pp. ISBN 80-7367-181-6. [17] MÁTEL, A. et al. 2012. Etika sociálnej práce. 2. doplnené a aktualizované vydanie. Bratislava: VŠ ZaSP sv. Alžbety, 2012. 264 pp. ISBN 978-80-8132-045-3. [18] MÁTEL, A. – SCHAVEL, M. et al. 2013. Teória a metódy sociálnej práce I. Bratislava: SPRSP, 2013. ISBN 978-80-971445-1-7. [19] MPSVaR SR. 2013. Návrh zákona o sociálnej práci a o podmienkach výkonu sociálnej práce. Bratislava: MPSVaR, 2013. [online 2013-10-10]. Available online: . [20] National Association of Social Workers. 2008. Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington: NASW, 2008. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [21] National Association of Social Workers. 2012. NASW Procedures for Professional review. 5th ed. Washington: NASW, 2012. 65 pp. ISBN 0-87101-358-1. [22] Ordine Assistenti sociali. 2009. Codice deontologico dell’Assistente Sociale. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [23] Parlamentul României. 2008. Codul deontologic all profesiei de asistent social. In Moniturul Oficial al României. Partea I. Nr. 173/6.III.2008. ISSN 1453-4495, pp. 11–15. [24] Союз социальных педагогов и социальных работников. 2003. Кодекс этики социального работника и социального педагога. Moskva, 2003. 20 pp. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [25] Společnosti sociálních pracovníků České republiky. 2006. Etický kodex sociálních pracovníků České republiky. Praha: SSP ČR, 2006. [online 2013-03-07]. Available online: . [26] STRIEŽENEC, Š. 1998. Súčasný stav sociálnej práce na Slovensku a jej tendencie. In TOKÁROVÁ, A. (ed.). Sociálna práca – ľudské práva – vzdelávanie dospelých. Prešov: FF PU v Prešove, pp. 345–353. ISBN 80-8885-49-3.

(1) Participants in this meeting were Peter Brnula (UK Bratislava), Andrej Mátel, Tibor Roman (both VŠZaSP sv. Alžbety Bratislava), Jana Levická (TU v Trnave), Zuzana Mališková (UKF Nitra), Branislav Malík (VŠ in Sládkovičovo), Alžbeta Brozmanová Gregorová (UMB Banská Bystrica). The chairman of the Association of Educators in Social Work, Milan Schavel, was also present. Tatiana Matulayová (PU in Prešov), Irena Kamanová and Alena Novotná (KU v Ružomberku), Katarína Levická (TU v Trnave), Eva Žiaková (UPJŠ Košice), Beáta Balogová (PU in Prešov), and Miroslav Tvrdoň (UKF Nitra) also confirmed interest in participating in the meetings. (2) In addition to these, we can include in the processual aspects a precisely defined schedule, an internal structure of the document, to which we will not refer in greater detail here. (3) The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW) is a global federation of national social work organizations in 90 countries and represents over 750,000 social workers. It was founded in Paris in 1928 at the 1st International Social Work Conference. Alica Masaryková was among its founders. It took its present form in 1956. Its headquarters are in Bern, Switzerland. Slovakia currently has no organization that is an active and full member of IFSW (in the past, such a member was the Association of Social Workers in the Slovak Republic, but it lost its membership). (4) The International Association of Schools of Social Work (IASSW) is an international community of schools and educators of social work that supports improving the quality of education, training, and research in social work theory and practice, social services administration, and social policy development. It was founded, like IFSW, in Paris in 1928 at the 1st International Social Work Conference. IASSW represents 2,000 schools of social work with around 500,000 students. (5) Canada is a federation of ten provinces and three territories. (6) The document also names the authors: Susanne Beck, Anita Diethelm, Marijke Kerssies, Olivies Grand, Beat Schmocker. (7) The starting point is the Programme Declaration of the Government of the Slovak Republic for 2012–2016 (May 2012): “The Government will create conditions for professional regulation of social work practice.”