Week 7

Ethical Standards for Human Services Professionals

National Organization for Human Services adopted 2024

Ethical Standards Subjects

Preamble Responsibility to the Public & Society

Responsibility to Clients Responsibility to Employers

Responsibility to Colleagues Responsibility to Self

Responsibility to the Profession Responsibility to Students

PREAMBLE

The field of human services is broadly defined, uniquely approaching the objective of meeting human needs through an interdisciplinary knowledge base, focusing on prevention as well as remediation of problems, and maintaining a commitment to improving the overall quality of life of service populations. The human services profession is one which promotes improved service delivery systems by addressing not only the quality of direct services, but also by seeking to improve accessibility, accountability, and coordination among professionals and agencies in service delivery.

Ethics Code Purpose:

The purpose of this ethics code is to establish a set of principles and standards to guide decision-making and conduct for all human services professionals. It serves to safeguard the well-being of clients, uphold the integrity of the profession, and foster trust and respect in all professional relationships. This code is designed to promote excellence in service delivery, ensure ethical practice in diverse social contexts, and address ethical dilemmas with professionalism and moral clarity. By adhering to this code, members commit to the highest standards of ethical behavior of their field which transcend legal requirements, foster enduring trust and respect, and advance the principles of human dignity, social justice, and responsible stewardship of the care placed in them by clients and society towards making profound contributions to their well-being.

Persons who use this code include members of the National Organization for Human Services, students in relevant academic degree programs, faculty in those same programs, researchers, administrators, practitioners, employers, supervisors, and others in community agencies who identify with the human services field (henceforth all are referred to throughout this code as human service professionals). The ethical standards are organized according to defined professional domains.

This ethics code emphasizes our unwavering commitment to ethical decision-making, a cornerstone of the human services profession. This commitment obliges all human service professionals to engage in continuous reflection, prioritize the welfare and rights of service recipients, and navigate complex ethical landscapes with diligence and moral clarity. It mandates the seeking of counsel and adherence to established ethical guidelines when confronting dilemmas, and ensures decisions are made with integrity and transparency.

RESPONSIBILITY TO CLIENTS

STANDARD 1 Human service professionals recognize and build on client and community strengths.

STANDARD 2 At the beginning of the helping relationship, human service professionals obtain informed consent for services from clients. Clients should be informed that they may withdraw consent at any time and can ask questions before agreeing to the services. Clients who are unable to give consent should have those who are legally responsible for them review an informed consent statement document and provide appropriate consent. In the case of mandated services, human service professionals explain to clients their right to consent, including limitations to confidentiality and privacy, and possible consequences from service refusal.

STANDARD 3 Human service professionals protect the client's right to privacy and confidentiality except when such confidentiality would cause serious harm to the client or others, when agency guidelines state otherwise, or under other stated conditions (e.g., local, state, or federal laws). Human service professionals inform clients of the limits of confidentiality prior to the onset of the helping relationship.

STANDARD 4 When a human service professional suspects a client's behavior may endanger themselves or others, they must take appropriate and professional actions to ensure safety, which may include consulting, seeking supervision, or, in accordance with state and federal laws, breaching confidentiality.

STANDARD 5 Human service professionals recognize the potential harm and impaired judgment resulting from dual or multiple relationships with clients. If such relationships cannot be avoided, professionals must assess whether to limit or forego the professional relationship and make appropriate referrals as needed.

STANDARD 6 Human service professionals must not engage in sexual or romantic relationships with current clients. In the case of former clients, their friends, or family, professionals must thoroughly assess any potential harm or exploitative dynamics before considering such relationships.

STANDARD 7 Human service professionals ensure that their values or biases are not imposed upon their clients.

STANDARD 8 Human service professionals are responsible for safeguarding the integrity, safety, and security of client records. Client information, whether in written or electronic form, can only be shared with other professionals with the client's prior written consent, unless required or allowed by law or during professional supervision.

STANDARD 9 When providing services through the use of technology, human service professionals take precautions to ensure and maintain confidentiality and comply with all relevant laws and requirements regarding storing, transmitting, and retrieving data. In addition, human service professionals ensure that

clients are aware of any issues and concerns related to confidentiality, service issues, and how technology might negatively or positively impact the helping relationship.

RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PUBLIC AND SOCIETY

STANDARD 10 Human service professionals are committed to delivering services equitably, ensuring inclusion and accessibility, and respective diversity by valuing and affirming differences in age, ethnicity, culture, race, ability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, language preference, religion, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, nationality, and other identities associated with historically marginalized groups.

STANDARD 11 Human service professionals are knowledgeable about their cultures and communities within which they practice. They are aware of diversity in society and its impact on the community as well as individuals within the community. They respect the cultures and beliefs of individuals and groups.

STANDARD 12 Human service professionals have a duty to be informed about relevant local, state, and federal laws. They bear the responsibility to advocate for amendments or changes in regulations and statutes when they conflict with the ethical standards and/or the rights of clients.

STANDARD 13 Human service professionals stay informed about current social issues as they affect clients and communities. If appropriate to the helping relationship, they share this information with clients, groups, and communities as part of their work.

STANDARD 14 Human service professionals are aware of social and political issues, comprehend their effects on clients, and recognize how the impact of such issues vary among individuals from diverse backgrounds.

STANDARD 15 Human service professionals must establish processes to identify client needs and assets, actively draw attention to them, and facilitate planning and advocacy at individual, community, and societal levels to address them.

STANDARD 16 Human service professionals advocate for social justice and seek to eliminate oppression. They raise awareness about systems of discrimination and inequity that affect historically minoritized and marginalized groups and advocate for systemic change to address these inequalities within their workplace, communities, and legislative systems.

STANDARD 17 Human service professionals accurately represent the effectiveness of their treatment programs, interventions, and techniques, substantiating claims with empirical data and/or sound theoretical inferences whenever feasible.

RESPONSIBILITY TO COLLEAGUES

STANDARD 18 Human service professionals avoid duplicating another professional's helping relationship with a client. With written permission from their client, human service professionals consult with other professionals who are assisting the client in a different type of relationship when it is in the best interest of the client to do so.

STANDARD 19 When human service professionals have a conflict with a colleague, they first seek out the colleague to manage the problem. If this effort fails, the professional then seeks the assistance of supervisors, consultants, or other professionals in efforts to address the conflict.

STANDARD 20 Human service professionals have a duty to respond appropriately to unethical behavior of colleagues. This generally means first discussing the issue directly with the colleague in question, unless there are extenuating circumstances, such as concerns about repercussions due to an existing power relationship. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached or extenuating circumstances exist, the professional should report the colleague's behavior to a supervisor. If the potential unethical behavior is seen as egregious, then the individual should report the behavior to the colleague’s professional association, credentialing board, police, and/or other administrators or boards, as appropriate.

STANDARD 21 Clients have a right to information discussed between their helper and other professionals, except when state or federal law notes otherwise. All information discussed among professionals should be kept confidential from all others, except when withholding information would lead to harm to clients, others, or communities.

RESPONSIBILITY TO EMPLOYERS

STANDARD 22 Human service professionals honor their commitments to employers to the fullest extent possible.

STANDARD 23 Human service professionals participate in efforts to establish and maintain employment conditions which are conducive to high quality client services. Whenever possible, they assist in evaluating the effectiveness of the agency through reliable and valid assessment measures.

STANDARD 24 When a conflict arises between fulfilling the responsibility to the employer and the responsibility to the client, human service professionals work with all involved to manage the conflict.

RESPONSIBILITY TO THE PROFESSION

STANDARD 25 Human service professionals seek the training, experience, education, and supervision necessary to ensure their effectiveness in working with culturally diverse individuals, families, and communities.

STANDARD 26 Human service professionals provide services only within their expertise and scope of practice, recognizing the limits to their knowledge and skills.

STANDARD 27 Human service professionals must accurately represent their qualifications, encompassing, but not limited to, their skills, education, credentials, training, and areas of expertise, to the client, colleagues, and members of the public. When any intentional or accidental misrepresentation is discovered, they must take immediate action to rectify the situation.

STANDARD 28 Human service professionals must pursue relevant consultation and supervision to guide their decision-making in the face of legal, ethical, or other complex dilemmas.

STANDARD 29 Human service professionals promote cooperation across related disciplines, aiming to enhance professional development and maximize the benefits of inter-professional collaboration for clients at all levels.

STANDARD 30 Human service professionals are committed to the continued development of the field. They promote professional association memberships, support research initiatives, foster educational advancement, advocate for appropriate legislative actions, and engage in other professional development activities.

STANDARD 31 Human service professionals continually seek out new and effective approaches to enhance their professional abilities and use techniques that are evidence-based. When practicing techniques that are experimental or new, they inform clients of the status of such techniques as well as the possible risks and gain client consent for their usage.

STANDARD 32 Human service professionals engage in research that upholds ethical standards, meets institutional standards, and maintains scientific integrity. Such research accounts for cross-cultural and diversity bias and is reported with transparency regarding its limitations.

STANDARD 33 Human service professionals exercise discretion in sharing personal information on social media, knowing that they reflect the profession of human services. They also reflect on how their public behavior might impact their personal reputation and the perception of their professional community.

RESPONSIBILITY TO SELF

STANDARD 34 Human service professionals maintain awareness of their own cultural and diverse backgrounds, beliefs, values, and biases. They recognize the potential impact of these factors on their relationships with others and commit to delivering culturally competent services to all clients.

STANDARD 35 Human service professionals are committed to their personal growth and well-being to ensure they provide the highest quality service to clients. Should they become aware of any physical, emotional, or psychological impediments to their ability to serve clients effectively, they direct clients to appropriate alternative services and seek measures for personal remediation of such impediments via consultation, treatment, or education.

STANDARD 36 Human service professionals are dedicated to lifelong learning, consistently seeking to enhance their knowledge and skills to better serve their clients.

RESPONSIBILITY TO STUDENTS

STANDARD 37 Human service educators develop and implement teaching methodologies that are culturally sensitive, using pedagogical approaches that recognize student’s diverse backgrounds and perspectives.

STANDARD 38 Human service educators commit to fostering equity and inclusion, actively employing measures to ensure educational accessibility for students of all abilities.

STANDARD 39 Human service educators uphold high standards of scholarship in their academic, pedagogical, and professional engagements. They remain abreast of developments in the field through active participation in professional associations, attendance at workshops and conferences, and engagement in both the review and conduct of research.

STANDARD 40 Human service educators recognize and acknowledge the contributions of students to their work including, but not limited to, case material, grants, workshops, research, publications, and other related activities.

STANDARD 41 Human service educators monitor students' field experiences to ensure the quality of the placement site, the supervisory experience, and that the educational outcomes align with the objectives of personal, professional, academic, career, and civic development of the student. When students experience potentially harmful situations during field placements, educators provide appropriate investigations and respond as necessary to safeguard the student.

STANDARD 42 Human service educators establish and uphold appropriate guidelines regarding student disclosure of sensitive or personal information. This involves providing students with advance notice of any activities requiring self-disclosure, offering students the option to opt-out of in-depth self-disclosure when reasonable, and ensuring that there are processes in place to discuss and debrief these activities.

STANDARD 43 Human service educators acknowledge the inherent power imbalance in their relationships with students and are committed to defining and upholding clear ethical and professional boundaries. This commitment includes avoiding any behavior that is demeaning, embarrassing, or exploitative. Human service educators are dedicated to treating all students with fairness and equity, actively working to eliminate discrimination in all forms, and ensuring a respectful and inclusive educational environment.

STANDARD 44 Human service educators ensure that students are familiar with, guided by, and held accountable to the ethical standards and policies established by their academic program or department, the specific guidelines outlined in the course syllabus by the instructor, the expectations of their advisors, and the Ethical Standards of Human Service Professionals.

Copyright © 2024 National Organization for Human Services. All rights reserved. Note: This document may be reproduced in its entirety without permission for non-commercial purposes only. Any reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, or commercial use of this document, or any part thereof, without prior written permission is strictly prohibited.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95260 © 2017 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

Received 06/15/15 Revised 01/23/16

Accepted 02/15/16 DOI: 10.1002/jcad.12140

Ethical Guidelines for Mass Trauma and Complex Humanitarian Emergencies Vilia M. Tarvydas, Lisa Lopez Levers, and Peter R. Teahen

Issues pertaining to trauma, especially mass trauma and complex humanitarian emergencies, are explored through the lens of ethical counseling guidelines. In mass trauma, particular attention must be paid to the experiences of both survivors and counselors to enhance understanding of ethical best practices and to emphasize the importance of contextual factors in framing effective responses to trauma and humanitarian crises. Recommendations regarding ethical guidelines for counseling practice, clinical involvement, and training are offered.

Keywords: trauma/crisis counseling, ethical and legal issues, mass trauma, complex humanitarian emergencies

Vilia M. Tarvydas and Peter R. Teahen, Rehabilitation and Counselor Education Department, University of Iowa; Lisa Lopez Le- vers, Department of Counseling, Psychology and Special Education, Duquesne University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Vilia M. Tarvydas, Rehabilitation and Counselor Education Department, University of Iowa, N338 Lindquist Center, Iowa City, IA 52242-1529 (e-mail: [email protected]).

Systematic response to a variety of traumatic events, includ- ing individual trauma, mass trauma or disaster, and complex humanitarian emergencies, is a relatively recent phenomenon. The definition of trauma can vary, and every traumatic event is unique in its circumstances and impact on people and their communities. This article focuses on guidelines for appropri- ate counselor ethical response in extreme circumstances of mass trauma and complex humanitarian emergencies. The negative consequences that are inherent in situations involv- ing mass trauma make the application of counseling ethical best practices much more difficult (Levers, 2012b; Tarvydas & Ng, 2012).

Trauma commonly involves actual or threatened death or serious physical or psychological injury to the individual or to others. However, the latest version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (American Psychiatric Association, 2013) emphasizes the variability of responses to trauma, from person to person. During political strife or military fighting, innocent populations often are unwillingly involved. Challenges may increase when disaster occurs or when large groups are displaced and need assistance. The delivery of aid can be compromised, and relief workers may be put in harm’s way (Mathieu, 2012; Watts & Horne, 1994). Such events are termed complex humanitarian emergencies (CHEs) or mass traumas (Brennan & Nandy 2001).

Simply put, CHEs refer to deep social crises in which large numbers of people die from war, displacement, disease, and hunger; mass trauma may include CHEs along with large- scale catastrophe, disaster, any type of community violence, and terrorism (Klugman, 1999). Because of the close inter- relatedness of these phenomena, the term mass trauma is

used in this article but also is intended to encompass CHEs, disasters, and related trauma. Within complex and multilevel contextual situations, such as those just described, individual counselors seek to provide ethical care to victims in often difficult and challenging circumstances. Professional ethical standards in counseling and related professions traditionally have addressed more mainstream types of practice; however, these standards have not directly addressed the types of high-stakes dilemmas that may emerge in CHE-specialized practices. Both the formative elements and the solutions to these ethical problems for individuals are linked intimately to the specific social systems and hierarchies from which they emerge (Levers, 2012a, 2012b), making traditional forms of ethical analysis (Tarvydas & Ng, 2012) and counseling standards insufficient (Webber & Mascari, 2009).

We conducted a content analysis of four practice-relevant professional codes of ethics: American Counseling Asso- ciation (ACA; 2014), American Psychological Association (APA; 2010), Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Cer- tification (CRCC; 2010), and National Association of Social Workers (2008). We searched for and counted the singular and plural forms of the following terms most related to the ethical discussion at hand: trauma, crisis, emergency, and disaster. While a full analysis is beyond the scope of this article, in brief, the terms had perfunctory mention only 17 times across all four codes. Considering the ubiquitous nature of trauma, crisis, emergency, and disaster in the presentation of client problems to helping professionals, we found the lacuna of these terms in major codes of ethics to be a reflection of an important gap in ethical orientation to professional practice. Across all the codes, specific mention of the terms tended to

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95 261

Ethics and Mass Trauma

be merely cursory (e.g., “not to withhold client records in an emergency,” “call supervisors to assist with handling crises”) rather than substantive. For this reason, we consulted relevant best-practice documents (e.g., APA, 2008; American Red Cross [ARC], 2012; Green Cross Academy of Traumatology [GCAT], 2015; Inter-Agency Standing Committee, 2007; Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration [SAMHSA], 2013, 2014a, 2014b; Tarvydas, 2012; Tarvydas & Ng, 2012) and concluded that the lack of substantive men- tion of key aspects of trauma, crisis, emergency, and disaster in the major codes of ethics is representative of an absence of sufficient understanding of an important category of cli- ent suffering and resilience. We explore relevant issues to illuminate the ethical complexities of mass trauma work and the need for aligned ethical guidelines. In this article, we (a) identify specific ethical issues and obligations that pertain to mass trauma survivors, (b) describe the current state of ethical guidelines related to trauma counseling ethics in counseling and related professional organizations, (c) recommend ethical practice guidelines, and (d) identify professional implications.

Unique Ethical Context Mass trauma counseling should be understood as a unique and emerging specialty field (Cook, Newman, & New Haven Trauma Competency Group, 2014; Lopes Cardoso et al., 2012; Saleh, 1996). Ethical practice in mass trauma counseling is ex- traordinarily intense in the demands that it places on counselors, and this intensity influences counselors’ ethical considerations and responses. Although it is beyond the scope of this article to flesh out a job description and a full set of responsibilities, such work entails specific existential burdens for counselors as individuals, typically requiring counselors to (a) work under chaotic and difficult hardship conditions; (b) cope with ex- treme physical and emotional demands related to safety risks, extreme weather, widespread damage, and lack of utilities; (c) use nontraditional or indigenous approaches; and (d) attend to the physical and emotional well-being of survivors (SAMHSA, 2014b). Thus, mental health responders serve in conditions that are difficult at best, and mass trauma work requires use of systemic ethical analysis and response skills beyond those of typical practitioners in more traditional settings (Smith, 2005; Trippany, White Kress, & Wilcoxon, 2004).

Counselors who work in mass trauma practice must ad- dress the myriad clinical and ethical challenges that would affect any complex counseling practice. Beyond that, situational complexities mean that mass trauma counselors routinely are in situations that involve competing interests as well as intersecting and disparate social systems, cultures, and interpretations of social justice—in essence, broader social contexts than typically form the boundaries involved in professional practice in more settled community-based settings (Hoffman & Kruczek, 2011). Some ethical issues

arise from situational operations and resource limitations that restrict the manner in which counselors and all re- sponders can conduct their work. It also is commonplace that political considerations at local, regional, state, and national levels, as well as media and communications enti- ties, become involved in shaping the situation and exerting pressures on the responders.

Counselors who deploy internationally and work in CHEs face unique challenges typically not found in domestic disasters. The unstable political, social, or economic ac- tivities that can exist in a CHE or mass trauma can create an environment of high security risks for counselors and relief workers (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies [IFRC], 2013; Stoddard, Harmer, & Huges, 2012). Aid workers, once considered quasi-neutral parties, have witnessed a significant growth in violence directed at them over the past few years (IFRC, 2013; Stod- dard et al., 2012). Counselors may be targeted for violence for various reasons, including being punished for actions considered “helping the opposition”; being terrorized to convince them to abandon operations; being robbed for their vehicles, possessions, money, or other items; being kidnapped for ransom or coercion or attacked in an effort to further destabilize conditions; or being caught in the crossfire because they provide aid in conditions that are precarious (IFRC, 2013; Stoddard, Harmer, & Ryou, 2014).

Ethical mass trauma responses occur in broader and particular social-practice contexts that are beyond those typically addressed in core professional ethical standards that govern more typical practices (IFRC, 2013; Stoddard et al., 2012, 2014). In mass trauma counseling, counselors often must confront clinical, interprofessional, institutional, and public policy forces that may have marked effects on their ethical judgments and boundaries. Mass trauma practice calls upon practitioners to solve complex ethical dilemmas, with multiple and diverse stakeholders, in chaotic circumstances that may strain the ethical decision-making capacity of practitioners. Such situations often go beyond those envisioned by traditional professional standards, that is, those that are delimited by more typical agency-bounded and relatively well-defined systems.

Recovery may not be successful unless attention is given to ethical responsibilities related to both the individual and col- lective trauma experienced in mass trauma (Lopes Cardoso et al., 2012). In his classic study of the Buffalo Creek, West Vir- ginia flood of 1972, sociologist Kai Erikson (1994) described two types of trauma, individual and collective, that occur jointly and continuously in most mass traumas. Mental health services must take both types of trauma into consideration in addressing community needs. Individual trauma is defined as a “blow to the psyche that breaks through one’s defenses so suddenly and with such brutal force that one cannot react to it effectively” (p. 233). Collective trauma is “a blow to the basic

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95262

Tarvydas, Levers, & Teahen

tissues of social life that damages the bonds attaching people together and impairs the prevailing sense of community” (p. 233); it is often less visible to clinicians trained to work with individuals. Identifying and addressing collective trauma in mental health programs is essential, particularly when working with African American, Native American Indian/ First Nation, Latino, and some Asian American populations, with whom historical or transgenerational trauma has been an existing and unresolved issue, and for whom the experi- ence of current trauma may exacerbate or compound their experience of historical trauma (Hyatt-Burkhart & Levers, 2012; Levers, 2012b).

Another potential source of stress for mass trauma coun- selors may be the sense of humanitarian responsibility. Some individuals who have witnessed the experiences of those who survive mass trauma have a profound realization of the existential privilege most citizens and counselors have in not witnessing human trauma. The commendable, empathic impulse to respond to this sense of responsibility is powerful and motivates counselors to work in the area of mass trauma and CHE care. Paradoxically, this drive also can constitute a substantial risk factor that may predispose such counselors to be blind to some serious aspects of ethical risk in their work, especially prominent when counselors responding to mass traumas do not have prior experience, do not have adequate preincident training, or have not carefully evaluated their own motivations for undertaking this type of work (Trippany et al., 2004; Valent, 2002).

Current Ethical Standards Despite the complexity of counseling in mass trauma prac- tice, there is limited specific attention to the application of ethical standards in the helping professions during extreme trauma conditions. Generally, disaster relief agencies such as the ARC, the IFRC, the National Organization for Victim Assistance, and the GCAT rely on eligibility criteria requiring professionals to possess independent practice level licensure for mental health professionals. They characteristically note that responders are expected to adhere to the ethical stan- dards of the licensures that they hold and the professions of which they are members. This requirement respects the credentialing and educational systems already in place in the professions, placing an additional onus on the professional credentialing bodies to provide proper standards and ethical knowledge and skills training that would allow the profes- sional to be prepared adequately to practice ethically under these conditions. To this point, the codes of ethics of the core mental health professional organizations such as ACA (2014), APA (2010), CRCC (2010), and the National Association of Social Workers (2008) have not provided specific standards that directly address various types of mass trauma. However, APA (2008) issued a statement on the role of psychologists in international emergencies that largely affirmed the Inter-

Agency Standing Committee’s (2007) Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings, emphasizing the duty of psychologists to work within the boundaries of professional competencies as outlined in the APA (2010) ethics code.

Beyond admonishing responders to adhere to their profes- sional organizations’ codes of ethics, the major disaster relief agencies attempt to establish codes of conduct and provide some basic orientation to ethical conduct under disaster and crisis conditions. For example, GCAT (2015) requires adherence to the standards for traumatology and also has established self-care guidelines (GCAT, 2008). One of the most widely known such efforts in the United States is the disaster mental health (DMH) fundamentals training, which is required training for DMH counselors by the Red Cross. In providing an orientation to the DMH mission, values, and assumptions, a brief section of the manual emphasizes several ethical standards aimed at preserving public interest and maintaining the well-being of the client (ARC, 2012).

The provision of more elaborated and useful ethical stan- dards for practitioners is one of the major responsibilities of the helping professions’ organizations and credentialing bodies. This obligation can serve to improve the quality of ethical practice for clients and provide useful guidance to practitioners in the most difficult practice circumstances. In recent years, the professions have placed increasing emphasis on the knowledge and application of suitable ethical decision- making models to provide a sound basis for the application of ethical judgment and standards in addressing unusual or difficult circumstances. This step provides a strong underpin- ning for practitioner ethical practice but does not diminish the need for more specified and exacting consideration of issues that are likely to arise in high-stakes ethical practices such as those represented in mass trauma and CHE response settings. Sommers-Flanagan (2007) recommended that, particularly in crisis work, it is imperative to use an ethical decision- making model because of the direct and immediate clinical ramifications for the decisions reached. She recommended using Tarvydas’s (2012) Integrative Model of Ethical Deci- sion Making because it incorporates elements from a number of models, as well as the model’s constructivist orientation and incorporation of the many contextual factors present in trauma and crisis work. Specific ethical considerations should be addressed through the creation of ethical best practice guidelines, as proposed next.

Recommended Ethical Practices and Standards

In mass trauma practice, the nature of counselors’ activities and responsibilities is different and perhaps more challenging than that of counselors in more settled service settings. Mass trauma counseling is unique in a number of specific ways. Counselors

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95 263

Ethics and Mass Trauma

are working under chaotic and difficult conditions, may have physical and stamina demands placed on them, and need to use nontraditional professional approaches in nontraditional conditions of various settings and locations; moreover, the actual conditions of the victims themselves may be extreme (Halpern & Tramontin, 2007; SAMHSA, 2013, 2014a, 2014b). Thus, caution must be taken to avoid or diminish instances of vicarious or secondary trauma, that is, introjections in which counselors vicariously experience the distress of their trauma- tized clients concerning the current disaster situation (Jankoski, 2012; Teahen, 2011; Trippany et al., 2004).

The challenges in the field are substantial and situation- ally changeable; at the same time, the guidance afforded in the literature concerning ethical principles and practices and the specific professional standards of counseling and related professions are insufficient to provide targeted assistance to practitioners. The need exists for specific ethical guidelines to enhance ethical practice in CHE and mass trauma response. In contrast to ethical standards, which are included within a mandatory code of ethics that has been adopted by and is enforceable on the members of a professional group, ethical guidelines are used to provide added expert suggestions or best practices to enhance and amplify practitioner interpreta- tions of the basic ethical standards.

Ethical guidelines are aspirational and provide more spe- cific ideas about ethical best practices that are tailored to the specialized practice experienced in that area. As such, although they may not be mandatory standards for counselors, these guidelines can provide substantial assistance in understanding how the core ethical principles and standards may “look” as they are applied to a particular set of practice circumstances. In the following section, we present ethical guidelines for mass trauma counseling practice and summarize some of the more critical points from the literature, professional standards (e.g., ACA, 2014; CRCC, 2010), and our clinical experiences as seasoned responders. The guidelines are intended to provide more specific ethical suggestions to counselors who work with mass trauma; they also aim to engender further discussion in the counseling profession about the issues raised by actual practice in this important area of counselor functioning. These guide- lines are select ethical directives, specific to unique aspects of mass trauma practice, and are not intended to be exhaustive; they are derived from and aimed at supplementing and eluci- dating the content of the ACA Code of Ethics (ACA, 2014). A substantial amount of the material included in the guidelines provided below is adapted from the 2014 ACA Code of Ethics, and this source is specifically acknowledged.

Mass Trauma Counseling Guidelines Counselors who provide services to clients in situations of mass trauma, whether they are volunteer counselors with a relief agency or employed by agencies and response entities, must abide by the mandatory professional code of ethics of

their counseling organizations and licensure boards. Coun- selors also should understand that advanced ethical knowl- edge and skill must be cultivated to meet the unpredictable and often highly complex ethical challenges represented in trauma work (Cook et al., 2014; Levers, 2012b). Specifically, counselors should understand the obligations dictated by the core ethical principles of autonomy, justice, beneficence, nonmaleficence, fidelity, and veracity, as weighted and ana- lyzed through the process of principle analysis; understand and apply a specific, credible ethical decision-making model to the process of selecting an ethical course of action when responding to mass trauma situations; and be aware that seek- ing consultation or supervision is an important part of ethical decision making. The following guidelines are presented as aspirational statements of more specific mass-trauma-related obligations. These basic tenets of ethical behavior are reflected in the following mass trauma counseling guidelines that are recommended in this article.

A. Definition of client and primary responsibility Because mass trauma care frequently is provided in

nontraditional and even chaotic conditions outside of normal agency contexts, counselors clarify that their primary responsibility is to respect the dignity and promote the welfare of clients, who are defined as the survivors of the trauma event(s) and their families (Levers & Buck, 2012). Mass trauma victims include persons directly and indirectly affected by the event. Additionally, counselors’ duty for promotion of wel- fare extends to the trauma responders and their family members (ARC, 2012).

B. Refraining from diagnosis Counselors providing services in the initial stages of

mass trauma refrain from premature diagnosis of the survivor, recognizing the risks of overpathologizing reactions or prematurely diagnosing normal reactions to severely abnormal circumstances (ARC, 2012). Coun- selors provide assistance, support, or referral for those who are experiencing the most extreme reactions and support strength-based interventions that emphasize resilient trauma responses (Saul, 2013).

C. Confidentiality and consent for services Counselors may be required to offer services in chaotic,

public, or semipublic situations that make provision of strictly private or confidential conditions impossible. Interactions in the field may not be structured and oc- cur on demand. Where counselors are not able to offer proper conditions and adhere to full requirements for confidentiality and consent, they can, at a minimum, honor the need for as much confidentiality and consent as possible by taking such measures as (a) identifying themselves clearly as a mental health professional, (b) providing a practical and abbreviated form of informed consent, (c) looking for and using as private a space as

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95264

Tarvydas, Levers, & Teahen

possible given the available surroundings, and (d) em- phasizing and modeling keeping survivor information confidential with other workers and staff (Tarvydas & Ng, 2012, p. 523).

D. Client autonomy 1. Avoiding long-term harm. Counselors take mea-

sures that enable clients to exercise the highest de- gree of self-determination possible. They are aware that a common reaction of clients to mass trauma is an initial reaction of feeling a lack of control over their circumstances. However, counselors avoid assuming unnecessary responsibility for clients’ decisions or speaking on clients’ behalf to avoid long-term harm through prolonging or deepening clients’ sense of dependency and vulnerability (GCAT, 2008).

2. Supported decision making and providing informed choice. Counselors seek to assist clients in rees- tablishing a sense of control through facilitating or assisting in the clients’ decision-making processes. Where it is necessary, counselors provide limited assistance to support decision making through such measures as providing assistance to address practi- cal needs (e.g., helping to locate family members), ensuring accurate and timely information and resources, taking sufficient time to process the information, offering support and encouragement, and facilitating a proper environment to allow for consideration of the decision. These conditions are provided to allow clients maximal opportunity to regain their ability to respond and to engage in informed decision making and consent (ACA, 2014; ARC, 2012; GCAT, 2008).

E. Managing and maintaining boundaries in noncounsel- ing relationships

1. Counselor–victim or counselor–survivor relation- ships. Counselors are aware that victims and survi- vors of mass trauma events are highly susceptible to fraud, exploitation, and emotional vulnerability. The nature of the trauma situation often involves unusually intense physical and emotional experi- ences and environments without any traditional contextual structures to reinforce professional–cli- ent boundaries. Because of these vulnerabilities, and the extreme nature of the counselor–client power differential, counselors who provide mass trauma and CHE services must avoid romantic or other intimate relationships with victims (ACA, 2014). They also should avoid such relationships with other disaster responders during the period of deployment. Additionally, counselors need to be intentional and vigilant in their restraint concern- ing potential boundary issues related to secondary

traumatization; this is a difficult and delicate aspect of the boundary issues involved with the cost of caring (Jankoski, 2012).

2. Relationships with media and other nonresponder figures. Journalistic coverage of news-making mass traumas and involvement of government authorities and dignitaries are common and potentially con- structive activities. However, counselors must be sensitive to and cautious of engaging with media and other public figures in a manner that could sen- sationalize an already emotionally charged situation in ways that might negatively affect survivors (ARC, 2012). This is of special concern if the request is to identify an affected person or persons, thus violating confidentiality and subjecting vulnerable survivors to public exposure that the survivors may regret at a later time. As far as conditions permit, counselors protect survivors’ confidentiality and assure that proper survivor consent to any contact with media or public authorities or dignitaries is obtained, thus preserving survivors’ dignity and choice during such interactions.

F. Time-limited services and continuum of care 1. Time limitations and services. Counselors are aware

of the time limitations and resource constraints that govern the scope of the services they may provide to clients. They adjust the scope and type of services accordingly and provide accurate information to clients regarding the scope, duration, and nature of care they will be providing (GCAT, 2008).

2. Transition to continued care. Counselors understand that initial mass trauma mental health counseling ser- vices are short term by nature and focused on initially establishing the basic security and emotional stability of their clients (SAMHSA, 2013, 2014b). They do not promise or engage clients in types of counseling interventions that cannot reasonably be provided under these constraints. They assist clients in identifying their ongoing counseling needs and transition their clients from short-term crisis care to long-term supports and services as needed. They provide information to clients about the stages and long-term nature of mass trauma recovery and possible individual challenges confronting their clients (GCAT, 2008). They provide realistic referral and transition services to respond to clients’ ongoing individualized needs for counseling and recovery services.

G. Professional competence 1. Specialty practice. Knowing the personal, existen-

tial, and competence issues related to mass trauma work, counselors recognize that this is a specialty area of practice and seek to prepare themselves for this practice through appropriate predeployment

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95 265

Ethics and Mass Trauma

or preservice education, training, and supervised experience (ARC, 2012). Even in crisis care, coun- selors do not provide services outside their scopes of practice, unless conditions fit those described in Standard G.2.

2. Emergency care and limited competency. Coun- selors cannot control the conditions to which they may be required to respond. If the counselor has not been prepared adequately for these circumstances, the counselor may provide emergency care where no other care is available and will do so until the incident has concluded or more skilled providers become available (American Psychiatric Associa- tion, 2013). Counselors will work to the utmost capacity of their applicable skills and training, seek consultation from more experienced responders where available, and take care to do no harm.

3. Multicultural competency. Given that various types of mass trauma events may disproportionately af- fect the most vulnerable segments of populations, counselors gain knowledge, personal awareness, sensitivity, dispositions, and skills pertinent to the specific environments in which they work (CRCC, 2010). They consider factors that may be unique to the culture of the survivors so as to offer effective and ethical services (ACA, 2014). They actively involve and consult with persons from the host com- munities in which they serve to guide and inform their interventions and to advocate for the needs of vulnerable client-survivors using culturally appro- priate resources and mechanisms (GCAT, 2008).

4. Advocacy. Counselors who provide mass trauma services are aware of the vulnerability of their client-survivors and the potential of additional traumatization (GCAT, 2008). They recognize the potential for increased severity of emotional injuries if they are further retraumatized or injured through deprivation of necessary resources or conditions by the actions (or inactions) of others in the response environment. Mass trauma care involves allocation of frequently scarce services and resources that requires complex systems judg- ments regarding their distribution (ACA, 2014). The challenge of fair distribution to those with similar degrees of need and perceived fairness is a core challenge for the overall response effort. This is especially the case when logistical problems, scarcity, and the tendency to place blame on the part of affected survivors are natural emotional aspects of reacting to the trauma.

a. Client-survivor self-advocacy. Counselors provide clients with appropriate information to facilitate their self-advocacy actions whenever

possible. Counselors work with clients to help clients understand their rights and responsibili- ties, speak for themselves, and make decisions. When appropriate, and with the consent of clients, counselors act as advocates on behalf of client-survivors at the appropriate local, regional, and national levels.

b. Advocacy competence. Counselors acquire advocacy experience and competency (ACA, 2014), as well as knowledge of the specific trauma-response systems in which they work in order to be effective in assisting their client- victims in their advocacy efforts.

c. Scientific bases for treatment. Counselors do not pressure clients into engaging in unreliable or unproven treatments that are not grounded in theory or do not have an empirical or scientific foundation or for which there is substantial evi- dence that suggests harm may result (ARC, 2012).

H. Counselor impairment, wellness, and competence Trauma counselors are aware that mass trauma work

can take a physical and emotional toll on counselors and may compromise both their own and their re- sponse team’s ability to maintain wellness and provide professional service (Rudick, 2012). They monitor themselves for signs of impairment from their own physical, mental, or emotional problems and refrain from offering or providing professional services when impaired. They seek consultation and supervision and are aware that full proactive disclosure of difficulties in supervision is a critical aspect of counselor self-care (Jankoski, 2012). Prior to engaging in mass trauma counseling, counselors develop a personalized self- care plan and actively pursue its self-help activities during predeployment, deployment, and postdeploy- ment phases (GCAT, 2015).

I. Organizational structure 1. Knowledge of command and response structure. Mass

trauma counselors “should be deployed to assist in a disaster event only at the invitation of a local organiza- tion so that they are organized in collaboration with others for the well-being of the affected people and country” (Jordan, 2010, p. 193). Counselors inform themselves of the nature of the command structure, policies, and practices of local agencies and authori- ties in the affected area, as well as those of the specific relief agency that has deployed the counselors. “They should follow guidelines set by government officials of the disaster-affected community/region” (Jordan, 2010, p. 193).

2. Questionable conditions. Mass trauma counsel- ors alert their supervisors to conditions or inap- propriate policies or practices that potentially

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95266

Tarvydas, Levers, & Teahen

may be disruptive or damaging to their clients or that may limit the effectiveness of the services provided. In those instances where they are criti- cal of policies, they attempt to effect changes in such policies or procedures through constructive action within the organization (GCAT, 2015). However, they remain aware of actions taken by agencies and act as advocates for clients who cannot advocate for themselves to improve the quality and effectiveness of services provided to clients.

Implications The counseling profession has both the opportunity and obligation to improve the capabilities of counselors to provide effective and ethical trauma counseling in both individual and mass trauma circumstances. On the basis of the ethical concerns raised in this article, the profession of counseling should institute several changes to better prepare counselors to perform optimally in increasingly common trauma and mass trauma contexts. The following actions are recommended.

First, professional organizations such as ACA should incorpo- rate enhanced and specific ethical standards that would provide better guidance to all practitioners regarding their obligations to their trauma clients. The standards presented in this article would provide significant guidance to this development. These standards should not be considered specialty standards, but rather part of the general ethical standards for all types of counselors, because it cannot be predicted when counselors will be faced with trauma-related demands.

Second, the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) should add more specific standards that counselors-in-training should be provided specific education on the ethical standards in trauma work and that ethical decision-making models be both taught and applied to these specific contexts. CACREP (2015) Standards already require basic education in trauma, crisis, and disaster counseling. However, these requirements are general and do not include any specific requirement to incorporate ethical applications to these areas.

Third, counselor educators should actively seek out trauma counseling settings and experiences for both community learning and sustained clinical placement experiences that would allow students to practice the application of ethical analysis to actual trauma-related situations.

Finally, counseling researchers should actively pursue research that specifically investigates the evidence for ap- plication of particular counseling interventions, providing positive counseling outcomes for trauma survivors, and that identifies any potential harms that may result from particular interventions or approaches.

Conclusion Mass trauma counselors must have adequate preparation to respond ethically in the face of unique and environmentally challenging circumstances. Counselors should be mindful of this basic truth about the ethical challenges of mass trauma counseling: “The chaos of crisis obscures accountability” (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2008, p. 266). The ethical standards of most professions and trauma-re- sponse organizations do not provide explicit guidance in the application of broad ethical standards to mass trauma, disas- ter, and care. Thus, we proposed guidelines for ethical best practices of mass trauma counselors. These guidelines were informed by practical knowledge of mass trauma counseling, existing general ethical standards in counseling, and concepts of the relevant ethical decision-making models that were adapted to actual application in unique situations in the field.

References American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA code of ethics.

Alexandria, VA: Author. American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical

manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Arlington, VA: Author. American Psychological Association. (2008). APA statement on the

role of psychologists in international emergencies. Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychological Association. (2010). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of conduct. Washington, DC: Author.

American Red Cross. (2012). Disaster mental health handbook: Disaster services. Washington, DC: Author.

Brennan, R. J., & Nandy, R. (2001). Complex humanitarian emer- gencies: A major global health challenge. Emergency Medicine, 13, 147–156.

Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification. (2010). Code of professional ethics for rehabilitation counselors. Schaumberg, IL: Author.

Cook, J. M., Newman, E., & New Haven Trauma Competency Group. (2014). A consensus statement on trauma mental health: The New Haven Competency Conference process and major findings. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 6, 300–307. doi:10.1037/a0036747

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2015). CACREP 2016 standards. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Erikson, K. T. (1994). A new species of trouble: Explorations in disaster, trauma, and community. New York, NY: Norton.

Green Cross Academy of Traumatology. (2008). Certification standards for certified traumatologist. Retrieved from http:// www.greencross.org/assets/certified-traumatologist-certification- standards.pdf

Green Cross Academy of Traumatology. (2015). Standards of self- care guidelines. Retrieved from http://home.cogeco.ca/~cmc/ Standards_of_Self_Care.pdf

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95 267

Ethics and Mass Trauma

Halpern, J., & Tramontin, M. (2007). Disaster mental health: Theory and practice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Brooks Cole.

Hoffman, M. A., & Kruczek, T. (2011). A bioecological model of mass trauma: Individual, community, and societal effects. The Counseling Psychologist, 39, 1087–1127.

Hyatt-Burkhart, D., & Levers, L. L. (2012). Historical contexts of trauma. In L. L. Levers (Ed.), Counseling survivors of trauma: Theories and interventions (pp. 23–46). New York, NY: Springer.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee. (2007). IASC guidelines for mental health and psychosocial support in emergency settings. Geneva, Switzerland: Author. Retrieved from http://www.who. int/mental_health/emergencies/9781424334445/en/

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2013, July). Security unit appeal 2013 mid-year report. Re- trieved from http://www.ifrc.org/docs/Appeals/13/Security%20 Unit%202013%20Midyear%20Report.pdf

Jankoski, J. A. (2012). Vicarious traumatization. In L. L. Levers (Ed.), Counseling survivors of trauma: Theories and interven- tions (pp. 540–553). New York, NY: Springer.

Jordan, K. (2010). General standards for disaster crisis counselors. In J. Webber & J. B. Mascari (Eds.), Terrorism, trauma, and tragedies: A counselor’s guide to preparing and responding (pp. 193–196). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Klugman, J. (1999). Policies to prevent complex humanitarian emergencies: Lessons learned from experience (Policy Brief 2). Helsinki, Finland: United Nations University/World Institute for Development Economics Research.

Levers, L. L. (2012a). Disability issues and the role of rehabilitation counselors in a global context. In D. R. Maki & V. M. Tarvydas (Eds.), The professional practice of rehabilitation counseling: Formative perspective and features (pp. 163–188). New York, NY: Springer.

Levers, L. L. (2012b). An introduction to counseling survivors of trauma: Beginning to understanding the context of trauma. In L. L. Levers (Ed.), Trauma counseling: Theories and interven- tions (pp. 1–22). New York, NY: Springer.

Levers, L. L., & Buck, R. P. (2012). Contextual issues of community- based violence and of crisis and disaster in institutional settings. In L. L. Levers (Ed.), Counseling survivors of trauma: Theories and interventions (pp. 317–334). New York: Springer.

Lopes Cardoso, B., Crawford, C. G., Eriksson, C., Zhu, J., Sabin, M., Ager, A., . . . Simon, W. (2012). Psychological distress, de- pression, anxiety, and burnout among international humanitarian aid workers: A longitudinal study. PLoS ONE, 7(9), e44948. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044948

Mathieu, F. (2012). Compassion fatigue workbook: Creative tools for transforming compassion fatigue and vicarious traumatization. Florence, KY: Routledge.

National Association of Social Workers. (2008). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. Washington, DC: Author.

Rudick, C. D. (2012). Therapist self-care: Being a healing counselor rather than a wounded healer. In L. L. Rudman (Ed.), Counseling survivors of trauma: Theories and interventions (pp. 554–568). New York, NY: Springer.

Saleh, M. A. (1996). Disasters and crises: Challenges to mental health counseling in the twenty-first century. Education, 116, 519–528.

Saul, J. (2013). Collective trauma, collective healing: Promoting community resilience in the aftermath of disaster. Florence, KY: Taylor & Francis.

Smith, H. (2005). The American Red Cross: How to be part of the solution, rather than part of the problem. In J. Webber, D. D. Bass, & R. Yep (Eds.), Terrorism, trauma, and tragedies: A counselor’s guide for preparing and responding (pp. 37–38). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2007). Ethical considerations in crisis and humanitarian interventions. Ethics & Behavior, 17, 187–202. doi:10.1080/10508420701378123

Sommers-Flanagan, R., & Sommers-Flanagan, J. (2008). Advanced ethical considerations in the use of evidenced-based practices and crisis/humanitarian work. In G. R. Walz, J. C. Bluer, & R. K. Yep (Eds.), Compelling counseling interventions (pp. 259–269). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Stoddard, A., Harmer, A., & Huges, M. (2012, December). Host states and their impact on security for humanitarian op- eration (Aid Worker Security Report). Retrieved from http:// aidworkersecurity.org/sites/default/files/AidWorkerSecurity- Report2012.pdf

Stoddard, A., Harmer, A., & Ryou, K. (2014, December). Unsafe passage: Road attacks and their impact on humanitarian op- erations (Aid Worker Security Report). Retrieved from https:// aidworkersecurity.org/sites/default/files/Aid%20Worker%20 Security%20Report%202014.pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2013). Disaster planning handbook for behavioral health treat- ment programs (Technical Assistance Publication Series 34). Retrieved from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/content/SMA13- 4779/SMA13-4779.pdf

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014a). SAMHSA’s concept of trauma and guidance for a trau- ma-informed approach (HHS Publication No. SMA 14-4884). Retrieved from http://store.samhsa.gov/product/SAMHSA-s- Concept-of-Trauma-and-Guidance-for-a-Trauma-Informed- Approach/SMA14-4884

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014b). Trauma-informed care in behavioral health services (Treatment Improvement Protocol Series 57, HHS Publication No. SMA 14-4816). Retrieved from http://store.samhsa.gov/shin/ content/SMA14-4816/SMA14-4816.pdf

Tarvydas, V. M. (2012). Ethics and ethical decision making. In D. R. Maki & V. M. Tarvydas (Eds.), The professional practice of rehabilitation counseling (pp. 339–370). New York, NY: Springer.

Tarvydas, V. M., & Ng, H. K. Y. (2012). Ethical perspectives on trauma work. In L. L. Levers (Ed.), Trauma counseling: Theo- ries and interventions. (pp. 521–539). New York, NY: Springer.

Teahen, P. R. (2011). Mass fatalities: Managing the community response. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ July 2017 ■ Volume 95268

Tarvydas, Levers, & Teahen

Trippany, R. L., White Kress, V. E., & Wilcoxon, S. A. (2004). Preventing vicarious trauma: What counselors should know when working with trauma survivors. Journal of Counseling & Development, 82, 31–37. doi:10.1002/j.1556-6678.2004. tb00283.x

Valent, P. (2002). Diagnosis and treatment of helper stresses, traumas and illnesses. In C. R. Figley (Ed.), Treating compassion fatigue (pp. 17–37). Hove, England: Brunner-Routledge.

Watts, R., & Horne, D. D. L. (1994). Coping with trauma: The vic- tim and the helper. Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: Australian Academic Press.

Webber, J. M., & Mascari, J. B. (2009). Critical issues in imple- menting the new CACREP standards for disaster, trauma, and crisis counseling. In G. R. Walz, J. C. Bleuer, & R. K. Yep (Eds.), Compelling counseling interventions: VISTAS 2009 (pp. 125–138). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Copyright of Journal of Counseling & Development is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Copyright of Journal of Counseling & Development (John Wiley & Sons, Inc.) is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.