National Social Work Code of Ethics: Rules and Enforcement

The National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics is the professional standards document that governs social work practice in the United States, setting out six core values and specific rules that practitioners must follow with clients, colleagues, employers, and the broader public.¹ First approved in 1960 and most recently revised in 2021, it tells social workers what is expected of them and gives clients a yardstick for evaluating the care they receive.

The Six Core Values

Every standard in the Code flows from six foundational values. They are not decorative. They are the lens through which each specific rule is read and each hard decision is weighed.

Service. Social workers put helping people in need ahead of self-interest and are encouraged to volunteer some portion of their skills without expectation of significant financial return.
Social justice. Practitioners pursue change on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed populations, with attention to poverty, unemployment, and discrimination.
Dignity and worth of the person. Clients are treated with respect regardless of individual differences, and their right to make their own choices is balanced against broader societal interests.
Importance of human relationships. The bond between worker and client is treated as a primary vehicle for change, and practitioners work to strengthen relationships within families, groups, and communities.
Integrity. Social workers act honestly and responsibly. The 2021 revision added that they “should take measures to care for themselves professionally and personally.”²
Competence. Practitioners work only within their areas of expertise and commit to ongoing professional development.

These values overlap in practice, and they sometimes pull against each other. A client’s right to self-determination may run into the worker’s duty to protect someone else. The Code does not resolve every tension cleanly; it expects professional judgment with all six values in view.

What the Code Requires in Client Work

Informed Consent and Self-Determination

Clients remain the primary decision-makers in their own lives. Standard 1.03 requires a social worker to use clear language to explain the purpose of services, the risks involved, relevant costs, reasonable alternatives, and the client’s right to refuse or withdraw consent at any time.³ If a client has trouble with the language used, the worker must arrange for an interpreter or give a detailed verbal explanation. If a client lacks capacity to consent, the worker seeks permission from an appropriate third party while still involving the client at whatever level they can participate.

Privacy and Confidentiality

Standard 1.07 is one of the longest provisions in the Code. The core rule is simple: social workers protect the confidentiality of all information obtained during professional service and do not solicit private information unless there is a compelling professional reason.³ Disclosure is permitted with valid consent from the client or someone legally authorized to act on the client’s behalf. Separate subsections address confidentiality in group and family counseling, disclosure to third-party payers, and electronic communications.

Conflicts of Interest and Dual Relationships

Standard 1.06 tells social workers to stay alert to conflicts of interest and not to exploit professional relationships for personal, religious, political, or business gain. Dual relationships, where a worker relates to a client in more than one capacity such as both professional and social or professional and business, are prohibited when there is a risk of exploitation or harm.³ When a dual relationship is truly unavoidable, the burden sits with the worker to set clear, culturally sensitive boundaries. If the conflict becomes unmanageable, the worker may need to end the professional relationship and refer the client elsewhere.

Sexual Conduct

Standard 1.09 is among the strictest provisions in the Code. Sexual activities or contact with current clients is categorically prohibited. The standard also instructs social workers not to engage in sexual relationships with former clients because of the potential for harm. If a worker claims extraordinary circumstances justify an exception for a former client, the worker bears the full burden of proving the former client was not exploited, coerced, or manipulated in any way.³ The prohibition extends to clients’ relatives and close associates, and was updated to cover inappropriate sexual communications through technology.⁴

When Confidentiality Must Be Broken

Confidentiality under Standard 1.07 is not absolute. The Code recognizes an exception when disclosure is “necessary to prevent serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or others.”³ Even then, the worker reveals only the minimum information necessary and, when feasible, informs the client first.

Two situations trigger the exception most often. Social workers are mandated reporters for suspected child abuse and neglect in every state, and failing to report is both a legal violation and a breach of the Code because “breaching confidentiality and breaking the law both constitute unethical behavior.”⁵ The duty to warn is the second: when a client makes a credible threat of serious harm against an identifiable person, most states require clinicians to take reasonable precautions, such as notifying the potential victim or contacting law enforcement. Specific requirements vary by state, and practitioners should know the rules in every jurisdiction where they work.

Technology and Digital Practice

The 2017 revision added technology-related language throughout the Code, and NASW also publishes separate Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice. Together, they address telehealth, electronic records, and social media.

When services are delivered through video, phone, email, or text, social workers must inform clients of the specific risks and limitations of electronic communication as part of the informed consent process.³ That includes how information will be gathered and stored, who will have access, how long it will be retained, and the risks of hacking, stolen devices, or messages sent to the wrong recipient.⁶

Social media creates its own boundary problems. Standard 1.06(e) prohibits using technology to communicate with clients for personal or non-work purposes, and Standard 1.06(f) warns that posting personal information on professional websites can create boundary confusion or harmful dual relationships.³ Keeping personal and professional digital lives separate is now an ethical expectation written into the Code.

Professional Self-Care

The 2021 revisions pulled self-care into the Code’s purpose statement rather than leaving it as an afterthought: “Professional self-care is paramount for competent and ethical social work practice. Professional demands, challenging workplace climates, and exposure to trauma warrant that social workers maintain personal and professional health, safety, and integrity.”² The same revision calls on organizations, agencies, and schools to support social workers’ well-being. Impaired practitioners are more likely to make poor clinical decisions, cross boundaries, and harm clients, so self-care is framed as a professional obligation tied to competence rather than a personal luxury.

The 2021 revisions also overhauled Standard 1.05 on cultural competence, requiring practitioners to “take action against oppression, racism, discrimination, and inequities” and to “acknowledge personal privilege.”²

Responsibilities to Colleagues

Standard 2.10 addresses what to do when a colleague acts unethically. Social workers are expected to take adequate measures to discourage, prevent, expose, and correct unethical conduct. The preferred first step is to discuss the concern directly with the colleague when that conversation is likely to be productive. If direct conversation fails or is inappropriate, the worker reports through formal channels such as the NASW National Ethics Committee or a state licensing board.⁷

How the Code Is Enforced

NASW Review vs. State Licensing Boards

A common point of confusion: an NASW ethics complaint and a state licensing board complaint are separate systems with different authority. NASW can only review the conduct of its own members.⁸ If a social worker is not an NASW member, NASW has no jurisdiction. When violations are found, NASW sanctions are limited to actions affecting membership and professional reputation: censure, mandatory supervision, required education or personal therapy, suspended membership, restricted practice recommendations, refunding fees to the client, employer notification, and notification of the state licensing board. NASW cannot suspend or revoke a license.⁹

State licensing boards regulate all licensed social workers regardless of NASW membership. They can issue reprimand letters, impose supervised probation, limit the types of practice a worker can perform, and suspend or revoke a license entirely.⁹ A disciplinary action on a license also affects mobility between states. If you have been harmed by a social worker, you can file with both NASW and the state board at the same time, and the two processes run independently.

Filing a Complaint With NASW

The formal mechanism is the Request for Professional Review (RPR), available through the NASW website. The NASW Office of Ethics and Professional Review (OEPR) will assign a consultant to help you complete the RPR and the required Confidentiality Pledge form on request.¹⁰ The form requires the social worker’s full name, the dates of the alleged violations, and a summary of one to three pages describing the conduct.¹¹ Each allegation should be tied to a specific section of the Code. Supporting documents like emails, intake forms, or billing records strengthen the complaint.

There is a one-year time limit from the date of the alleged violation to the date NASW receives the RPR. If the conduct happened more than 12 months but less than 24 months ago, you must complete a separate Time Limits Waiver form. Allegations involving conduct older than two years will not be accepted.¹⁰ Missing these windows is one of the most common reasons complaints are never heard.

You submit the completed RPR and supporting documents by email to the OEPR with “RPR for Review” in the subject line. The OEPR responds within 14 business days. A preliminary review by the National Ethics Committee determines whether the complaint meets basic criteria, including whether the social worker was an NASW member at the time of the alleged misconduct. Most cases that clear intake are referred to mediation; formal hearings are typically reserved for more serious violations or situations where mediation is unsuccessful or inappropriate. Neither party may appeal the Intake Subcommittee’s decision to accept or reject an RPR, or to close a case.¹⁰ In cases involving public notification sanctions, NASW may notify state licensing boards, employers, and the public through publications like Social Work Advocates magazine.¹² If you believe the misconduct warrants stronger action than NASW can impose, a parallel complaint with the state licensing board is the path to potential license suspension or revocation.

1
National Association of Social Workers. Code of Ethics History
2
National Association of Social Workers. Highlighted Revisions to the Code of Ethics
3
National Association of Social Workers. Social Workers’ Ethical Responsibilities to Clients
4
National Association of Social Workers. NASW Ethical Standard of the Month – Sexual Relationships
5
National Association of Social Workers. Law Note: Social Workers and Child Abuse Reporting
6
National Association of Social Workers. Standards for Technology in Social Work Practice
7
National Association of Social Workers. Social Workers’ Ethical Responsibilities to Colleagues – Section: 2.10 Unethical Conduct of Colleagues
8
National Association of Social Workers. Professional Review – Ethics
9
Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics. Licensing Complaints: Experiences of Social Workers
10
National Association of Social Workers. How To File a Complaint
11
National Association of Social Workers. NASW Request for Professional Review
12
National Association of Social Workers. Sanctions in Force