Advanced human services professional practitioners are bound by laws (e.g., Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964), by the NOHS code of ethics, and by organizational policies and procedures that promote ethical behavior and cultural sensitivity. Practitioners may encounter challenges when the laws, code of ethics, and organizational policies and procedures conflict. For example, suppose a service user asks the practitioner to pray with them at an intake assessment because they are experiencing stress. The practitioner reluctantly agrees to pray to avoid exacerbating the service user’s stress, even though the organization’s policy prohibits discussing religion. Leaders created the policy to prevent practitioners from trying to convert service users to their religion. The practitioner’s supervisor ultimately decides to terminate the practitioner for violating the policy. Did the supervisor make the right decision? How might these and other violations be better addressed?
explore a human services organization’s policies and procedures to determine how ethics training is addressed in relation to maintaining appropriate boundaries and cultural sensitivity. You will also use the NOHS code of ethics to evaluate the organization’s response to violations of policies and procedures.
• Identify a local human services organization with which you are familiar. This could be an organization in which you currently work or have previously worked, an organization in which a friend or family member works, or an organization that is well-known in your community.
• Go to the organization’s website and find the policies and procedures. Read the policies and procedures, paying particular attention to how the organization addresses ethics training in relation to maintaining appropriate boundaries and cultural sensitivity. In addition, consider the following questions:
o Are there professionals who come from the same cultural groups served?
o Are professionals given training on self-reflection in order to be aware of potential bias or imposing their own values?
o Are alternative healing practices needed and implemented?
o How do the cultures in this community view mental health?
Supervisor's Rationale (Policy Justification): Termination upholds Organizational Policy and minimizes the agency's risk of liability related to religious coercion. The policy, however, is flawed because it fails to distinguish between the practitioner imposing their beliefs and the practitioner responding to a client's spiritual need.
How Violations Might Be Better Addressed
Instead of immediate termination, which is punitive and costly, the organization should employ a Progressive and Educational Disciplinary Model for boundary issues that lack malicious intent:
Mandatory Clinical Supervision/Consultation: For a first-time, low-risk violation, the supervisor should hold an immediate reflective debriefing session. They would analyze the ethical principles at play and role-play alternative, policy-compliant responses (e.g., "I cannot pray with you due to clinic policy, but I hear how important your faith is. How about we spend a minute in silence, and then I can connect you with our chaplain or a faith-based support referral?").
Written Warning and Targeted Training: If the practitioner repeats the violation, a written warning should be issued, coupled with mandatory Cultural Competence and Boundary Setting training focused specifically on navigating spiritual and religious requests in a secular setting.
Policy Amendment: The organization should review and revise the policy to explicitly address client-initiated spiritual needs, providing practitioners with approved, structured, and non-coercive methods of response that maintain professional boundaries (e.g., validating the client’s spirituality, offering referrals, or incorporating faith-based language into coping skills as requested).
Evaluation of a Hypothetical Human Services Organization
The Harmony Community Health Clinic (HCHC) is a well-known non-profit serving a community with a large, recently arrived immigrant population (e.g., East African and Central American) and a high poverty rate.
Sample Answer
The previous response provided a detailed analysis of the ethical dilemma and offered a hypothetical policy review. Since I cannot access real-time or proprietary organizational policies, I will consolidate and refine that information here by using a Hypothetical Human Services Organization, the "Harmony Community Health Clinic (HCHC)," to directly address all parts of your prompt.
Analysis of the Supervisor's Decision
The supervisor's decision to terminate the practitioner for praying with a client was ethically questionable and likely too severe, though it was technically permissible under a rigid organizational policy.
Ethical Conflict and Flawed Policy
Practitioner's Intent (Ethical Justification): The practitioner was acting to mitigate the client's immediate distress, aligning with the NOHS Ethical Standard 3 (Act in the Best Interest of the Client) and Standard 2 (Fostering Client Self-Determination) by honoring a client-initiated coping mechanism. Their action was not proselytizing (which the policy aimed to prevent) but supportive and client-centered.