NASW Code of Ethics: Core Values, Client Duties, and Violations

The NASW Code of Ethics is the professional conduct standard that governs social workers in the United States, built around six core values and dozens of specific standards covering client relationships, colleagues, workplaces, personal conduct, technology, and the profession’s role in society. It is published by the National Association of Social Workers and was most recently revised in 2021 to strengthen guidance on professional self-care and cultural awareness.¹ NASW itself has no power to stop anyone from practicing, but state licensing boards routinely incorporate these standards into their own rules, so a violation can put a license at risk even when the practitioner is not an NASW member.

The Six Core Values

Every standard in the code traces back to one of six values, each paired with a broader ethical principle:¹

Service — helping others takes priority over self-interest, and practitioners are expected to volunteer some portion of their skills without financial return.
Social justice — practitioners challenge inequality and advocate for marginalized communities.
Dignity and worth of the person — respectful treatment that accounts for cultural differences and supports self-determination.
Importance of human relationships — connections between people are the primary engine for positive change.
Integrity — acting honestly and taking responsibility within organizations and communities.
Competence — practicing only in areas where you have adequate training, and continuing to develop professional knowledge.

When a licensing board reviews a complaint, the question is usually whether the conduct honored these values in practice.

Responsibilities to Clients

Section 1 is the most detailed in the code and covers more than a dozen standards. The overarching rule under Standard 1.01 is that the client’s well-being comes first, though obligations to the broader public can override that loyalty in limited situations, such as a legal duty to report child abuse or a client’s threat to harm themselves or another person.²

Informed Consent and Self-Determination

Before services begin, Standard 1.03 requires practitioners to explain in clear language the purpose of the work, the risks, any limits imposed by insurance or third-party payers, costs, reasonable alternatives, the client’s right to refuse or withdraw consent, and the time frame the consent covers. Consent is not a one-time checkbox and should be revisited whenever the nature of services changes.²

Standard 1.02 protects a client’s right to make their own decisions. That right is not absolute. A social worker can limit self-determination when, in their professional judgment, a client’s actions pose a serious, foreseeable, and imminent risk to themselves or others. All three parts of that threshold have to be met; a vague worry about a client’s choices does not clear it.²

Cultural Awareness and Confidentiality

Standard 1.05 requires practitioners to understand and respect the cultural backgrounds of the people they serve, including language, economic circumstances, and mental or physical ability.³ The duty extends to electronic service delivery: a practitioner has to assess whether technology itself creates barriers.

Confidentiality under Standard 1.07 follows a minimum-necessary rule. When disclosure is legally required or needed to prevent serious and imminent harm, social workers should reveal only the information directly relevant to the purpose and nothing more.² Many states also impose a legal duty to warn identifiable potential victims of threatened violence, which can create difficult judgment calls about how much to share.

Dual Relationships and Sexual Contact

Standard 1.06 addresses conflicts of interest and dual relationships, where a social worker relates to a client in more than one capacity. The code does not ban every dual relationship, because some are unavoidable in small communities or specialized settings. When a dual relationship risks exploitation or harm, the social worker must set clear boundaries or end the professional relationship with a proper referral.²

Standard 1.09 draws the hardest line in the code. Sexual contact with a current client is prohibited under all circumstances, consensual or not. The prohibition extends to former clients. If a practitioner claims extraordinary circumstances justified a sexual relationship with a former client, the full burden falls on them to prove the client was not exploited, coerced, or manipulated.² In practice, this violation almost always results in license revocation and frequently triggers civil liability.

Fees, Referrals, and Termination

Fees under Standard 1.13 must be fair, reasonable, and appropriate for the services performed, with consideration for the client’s ability to pay. Bartering is discouraged and allowed only in narrow circumstances where it is an accepted local practice, entered at the client’s initiative, and clearly not harmful. Standard 1.16 flatly prohibits paying or receiving payment for client referrals when the referring social worker provides no professional service.²

Ending the professional relationship carries its own requirements. Practitioners must take reasonable steps to avoid abandoning clients who still need help. Services should not be withdrawn abruptly except in unusual circumstances, and even then the practitioner must try to minimize harm and arrange continuation of care. Termination for nonpayment is permitted only when the financial terms were clearly disclosed upfront, the client is not in imminent danger, and the consequences have been discussed. A social worker may never terminate services in order to pursue a social, financial, or sexual relationship with a client.²

Responsibilities to Colleagues

Section 2 (Standards 2.01 through 2.10) sets expectations for how practitioners treat peers and members of other disciplines. The baseline is respect and the avoidance of unwarranted negative criticism, and confidentiality extends to information shared in professional consultations unless a legal obligation requires disclosure.⁴

When a colleague’s personal problems, substance use, or mental health difficulties impair safe practice, other practitioners have an active duty to intervene. Unethical conduct by a colleague must be addressed through established procedures, which may include reporting to regulatory bodies.

Responsibilities in Practice Settings

Section 3 (Standards 3.01 through 3.10) governs conduct inside organizations, agencies, and supervisory relationships. Supervisors must provide competent oversight and avoid exploitative dual relationships with supervisees. Performance evaluations should rest on clear, disclosed criteria.⁵

Client records must be stored securely and kept for the period required by applicable law. HIPAA requires at least six years for electronic health records, but the NASW Insurance Trust recommends retaining clinical records indefinitely, because malpractice statutes of limitations often run from the moment the injured party first realizes harm occurred, which can be decades later.⁶ Billing must accurately reflect services provided and follow the fee structure disclosed during informed consent. When agency policy conflicts with ethical standards, the practitioner has to work toward a resolution that upholds their professional obligations.

Responsibilities as a Professional

Section 4 (Standards 4.01 through 4.08) addresses individual conduct and reputation. Competence under Standard 4.01 means accepting responsibilities only when you have the skills or a concrete plan to acquire them, and staying current with professional literature.⁷

Standard 4.02 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, marital status, political belief, religion, immigration status, or mental or physical ability. That list is broader than many practitioners realize, reaching political belief and immigration status alongside more commonly cited categories.

Standard 4.03 holds that private conduct should not interfere with professional ability. Dishonesty, fraud, and deception are major violations under Standard 4.04 that can trigger state board discipline. Standard 4.05 puts the burden squarely on the practitioner when personal difficulties begin to impair judgment: seek consultation, adjust the workload, or stop practicing until fit to serve clients safely.⁷

Technology, Telehealth, and AI

The 2021 revision reflects how much modern practice happens through screens. Standard 1.06 now explicitly warns practitioners against using technology to communicate with clients for personal reasons, and against posting personal information on professional websites or social media that can create boundary confusion and harm.²

For telehealth, NASW guidance recommends that informed consent cover the risks of remote delivery, confidentiality exceptions in a digital environment, what happens during technical difficulties, how service interruptions will be handled, and emergency procedures. Many states require a signed telemental health consent form, and some make it a condition of Medicaid reimbursement. Written consent for remote services is a best practice even where not legally required.⁸

NASW has not created a separate AI ethics code. Practitioners are expected to apply the existing Code of Ethics to AI-related decisions. The main concerns are algorithmic bias that could reinforce inequality, protection of client data when AI tools expose information to third-party vendors, and over-reliance on automated outputs at the expense of professional judgment. Social workers using AI tools should vet vendors, minimize personal identifiers in any data shared, and ensure HIPAA compliance.⁹

Responsibilities to the Profession and Society

Sections 5 and 6 look past individual client relationships. Practitioners are expected to contribute to the profession’s knowledge base and participate in evaluation and research. Research with human subjects requires informed consent, including specific consent for any electronic technology used in the research process.¹⁰

Section 6 asks social workers to promote the general welfare and advocate for living conditions that respect basic human rights, including participation in shaping social policies so the voices of vulnerable communities reach the legislative process. Advocacy on systemic problems like poverty and discrimination is framed as a professional obligation, not optional volunteer work.

How Violations Are Handled

A point that catches many people off guard: NASW’s professional review process applies only to NASW members, and NASW cannot prohibit anyone from practicing social work. If the practitioner is not a member, the only avenue for formal accountability is the state licensing board, which has the authority to suspend or revoke a license. The first step in filing an NASW complaint is confirming membership by contacting the Office of Ethics and Professional Review with the person’s name, location, and the date of the alleged violation.¹¹

NASW generally reviews only alleged violations that occurred within the past 12 months, measured from when it receives the formal complaint. Conduct between one and two years old requires a Time Limits Waiver. Anything older than two years will not be accepted. All parties must sign a confidentiality pledge, and a breach can void the case.¹¹

If the review finds a violation, outcomes fall into two groups. Corrective actions include mandatory training or consultation, supervisor notification, private censure, restitution to a harmed party, or corrections to a client’s case record. Sanctions include suspension or expulsion from NASW membership, revocation of NASW-issued credentials such as the ACSW designation, publication of findings in NASW media, notification to state licensing boards, and notification to the practitioner’s malpractice insurer.¹²

That last item is where NASW’s internal process gains real teeth. NASW itself cannot take away the ability to practice, but it can hand findings to a board that can. State boards conduct their own investigations and impose sanctions ranging from reprimand letters to permanent license revocation.

NASW Review vs. State Licensing Board

If you are weighing whether to file a complaint, the two tracks are not mutually exclusive. You can file with both. NASW reviews complaints against its own members and can issue organizational sanctions, but it has no legal enforcement power. State licensing boards have jurisdiction over any licensed social worker regardless of NASW membership and can impose legally binding consequences, including supervised practice periods, suspension, and permanent revocation.

In many cases the state licensing board is the more impactful route, especially if the practitioner is not an NASW member. State boards typically review alleged violations of the state’s licensing laws, which often incorporate NASW ethical standards by reference. If immediate client safety is at stake, the state board is the body with authority to act.

1
National Association of Social Workers. NASW Code of Ethics
2
National Association of Social Workers. Social Workers’ Ethical Responsibilities to Clients
3
National Association of Social Workers. Cultural Awareness and Social Diversity
4
National Association of Social Workers. Social Workers’ Ethical Responsibilities to Colleagues
5
National Association of Social Workers. Social Workers’ Ethical Responsibilities in Practice Settings
6
NASW Assurance Services. Client Records: Keep or Toss?
7
National Association of Social Workers. Social Workers’ Ethical Responsibilities as Professionals
8
National Association of Social Workers. Telemental Health: Legal Considerations for Social Workers
9
National Association of Social Workers. AI and Social Work
10
National Association of Social Workers. Evaluation and Research
11
National Association of Social Workers. How To File a Complaint
12
National Association of Social Workers. NASW Procedures for Professional Review