COURSE CODE BCO 316 COURSE NAME INDSTRIAL MARKETING Marketing Pla.docx

COURSE CODE BCO 316 COURSE NAME: INDSTRIAL
MARKETING Marketing Plan I Task brief & rubrics
Task
· This is an individual task.
· The task focuses on areas studied to date, requiring you to
show knowledge and application in the parts stated.
· You should upload a single, correctly formatted document
which may also include any relevant tables and diagrams
During week 3 a particular industrial product will be assigned
to you. You have to develop a marketing plan for your product
including (but not exclusively) the following points (10 points
each)
1. Description of the product
2. Classification of the product
3. Main uses of the product
4. Differentiation Strategy (Value Proposition)
5. Macrosegmentation
6. Microsegmentation
7. Main decision makers in the purchasing process of the
product
8. Approach strategy towards customers
9. Critical discussion about the convenience of working with
Key Accounts approach
10. Any other factor you consider key for the your marketing
plan
Formalities:
· Wordcount: 2.000 words
· Cover, Table of Contents, References and Appendix are
excluded from the total wordcount.
· Font: Arial 12,5 pts.
· Text alignment: Justified.
· Harvard style in-text citations and bibliography

It assesses the following learning outcomes:
1. Have an in-depth understanding of B2B market opportunities.
2. Identify and differentiate between the different and unique
challenges of business markets
3. Apply and analyze the different B2Bsystems and processes
4. Have a systematic understanding of how theoretical concepts
can be applied in business markets.
5. Critically appreciate B2B marketing strategy assessments and
developments.
6. Apply and assess the tools for B2Bmarketing strategy
development and implementation
Submission: – Via Moodle (Turnitin). Week 6 November 13thth
by 23.59 CEST
Weight: This task is a 40 % of your total grade for this subject.
Rubrics
Learning Descriptors
Fail Below 60%
Marginal Fail 60-69%
Fair 70-79 %
Good 80-89%
Exceptional 90-100%
Purpose & Understanding
KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING
15%
Very poor coverage of central purpose, goals, research
questions or arguments with little relevant information evident.
Virtually no evidence of understanding or focus.
Minimal understanding of purpose of the study; factual errors
evident. Gaps in knowledge and superficial understanding. A

few lines of relevant material.
Reasonable understanding and clearly identifies the purpose,
goals, research questions or argument.
Reflect partial achievement of learning outcomes.
A sound grasp of, and clearly identifies, the purpose, goals,
research questions or argument. Some wider study beyond the
classroom content shown.
Effectively describes and explains the central purpose,
arguments, research questions, or goals of the project;
explanation is focused, detailed and compelling. Recognition of
alternative forms of evidence beyond that supplied in the
classroom.
Content
KNOWLEDGE & UNDERSTANDING
15%
Content is unclear, inaccurate and/or incomplete. Brief and
irrelevant. Descriptive. Only personal views offered.
Unsubstantiated and does not support the purpose, argument or
goals of the project. Reader gains no insight through the content
of the project.
Limited content that does not really support the purpose of the
report. Very poor coverage.
Displays only rudimentary knowledge of the content area.
Reader gains few if any insights
Presents some information that adequately supports the central
purpose, arguments, goals, or research questions of the project.
Although parts missing, it demonstrates a level of partially

proficient knowledge of the content area. Reader gains some
insights.
Presents clear and appropriate information that adequately
supports the central purpose, arguments, goals or research
questions of the project.
Demonstrates satisfactory knowledge of the content area.
Reader gains proficient insights.
Presents balanced, significant and valid information that clearly
and convincingly supports the central purpose, arguments,
research questions or goals of the project. Demonstrates in-
depth and specialised knowledge of the content area. The reader
gains important insights
Organization
COMMUNICATION
5%
Information/content is not logically organized or presented.
Topics/paragraphs are frequently disjointed and fail to make
sense together. Reader cannot identify a line of reasoning and
loses interest.
Information/content is not, at times, logically organized or
presented. Topics/paragraphs are frequently disjointed which
makes the content hard to follow. The reader finds it hard to
understand the flow of the report.
Information/content is presented in a reasonable sequence.
Topic/paragraph transition is unclear in places with linkages for
the most part. Reader can generally understand and follow the
line of reasoning, although work needed to be proficiently
organized.

Information/content is presented in a clear and understandable
sequence. Topic/paragraph transition is good with clear linkages
between sections and arguments. Reader can understand and
follow the line of reasoning.
Information/content is presented in a logical, interesting and
effective sequence. Topics and arguments flow smoothly and
coherently from one to another and are clearly linked.
Reader can easily follow the line of reasoning and enjoyed
reading the report.
Style & Tone
COMMUNICATION
5%
Writing is poor, unclear and unengaging, and the reader finds it
difficult to read and maintain interest. Tone is not professional
or suitable for an academic research project. A reorganization
and rewrite is needed.
Writing is unengaging and reader finds it difficult to maintain
interest. Tone is not consistently professional or suitable for an
academic research project. Work needed on academic writing
style.
Writing is usually engaging and keeps the reader’s attention.
Tone is generally appropriate for an academic research project,
although a clearer and more professional style and tone is
needed.
Writing style and tone is generally good and sustains interest
throughout. Tone is professional and appropriate for an

academic research project.
Writing is compelling and sustains interest throughout. Tone is
consistently professional and appropriate for an academic
research project.
Use of References
COMMUNICATION
5%
Little or no evidence of reference sources in the report. Content
not supported and based on unsubstantiated views.
Most references are from sources that are not peer- reviewed or
professional, and have uncertain reliability. Few if any
appropriate citations are provided. Reader doubts the validity of
much of the material.
Professionally legitimate references are generally used. Fair
citations are presented in most cases. Some of the
information/content/evidence comes from sources that are
reliable, but more academic sources needed to be convincing.
Professionally and academically legitimate references are used.
Clear and accurate citations are presented in most cases. The
majority of the information/content/evidence comes from
sources that are reliable.
Presents compelling evidence from professionally and
academically legitimate sources. Attribution is clear and
accurate. References are 75% from primarily peer-reviewed
professional journals or other approved sources.

Formatting
COMMUNICATION
5%
Research project exhibits no formatting, or frequent and
significant errors in Harvard formatting.
There are too many errors in the Harvard formatting to be
acceptable as a partially proficient piece.
Harvard formatting is employed in the research project with
minor errors. A review and rework of format and style of
referencing in text and in the bibliography is needed.
Harvard formatting is used accurately and consistently
throughout the research project, although some issues are
apparent as the reader is unable to find sources.
Harvard formatting is used accurately and consistently
throughout the research project. Accurate hyperlinks are
included where required, making it easy for readers to review
sources.
Written Communication Skills
COMMUNICATION
5%
The written project exhibits multiple errors in grammar,
sentence structure and/or spelling. Inadequate writing skills

(e.g., weaknesses in language facility and mechanics) hinder
readability and contribute to an ineffective research project.
The written project exhibits errors in grammar, punctuation and
spelling. The written project comes across as untidy and not
properly checked for mistakes. Errors present in written
communication make readability frustrating.
Written research project displays good word choice, language
conventions and mechanics with a few minor errors in spelling,
grammar, sentence structure and/or punctuation. Errors do not
represent a major distraction or obscure meaning.
Readability of the project is good due to the clarity of language
used. Grammar, spelling and punctuation is without error.
Spelling and grammar thoroughly checked.
Readability of the project is enhanced by facility in language
use/word choice. Excellent mechanics and syntactic variety.
Uses language conventions effectively (e.g., spelling,
punctuation, sentence structure, paragraphing, grammar, etc.).
Oral Communication Skills
COMMUNICATION
Oral presentation cannot be understood because there is no
logical sequencing of research information. Presenter uses
superfluous graphics or no graphics; graphics do not support or
relate to the information presented. Presenter reads most or all
of the project notes with little or no eye contact. Presenter
mumbles, incorrectly pronounces terms and/or speaks too
quietly. Oral presentation rambles, is unclear and cannot be
followed by the audience. Presenter is unprofessional, lacks

confidence, is uncomfortable and cannot answer basic
questions.
Research information is presented in a sequence that at times is
difficult to follow.
Graphics support and are related to the content of the project,
but presenter reads from slides and does not talk around the
topic. Presenter tries to maintains eye contact with the audience
but reads from notes too much.
Presenter uses good voice dynamics and clearly enunciates
terms, however they are uncomfortable for the most part and
finds it hard answering questions. Overall, the oral presentation
is delivered in a borderline manner and needs more practice and
preparation to reach required standards of delivery.
Research information is presented in a sequence that the
audience can follow. Graphics support and are related to the
content of the project. Presenter maintains eye contact with the
audience with a few minor exceptions; presenter reads from
notes on a few occasions. Presenter uses good voice dynamics
and clearly enunciates terms. Presenter is comfortable for the
most part and adequately answers questions.
Overall, the oral presentation is delivered in a satisfactory
manner and meets expectations with respect to oral
communication skills.
Research information is presented in a sequence that the
audience can follow. Graphics support and are related to the
content of the project. Presenter maintains eye contact with the
audience with a few minor exceptions, seldom returning to
notes. Presenter uses good voice dynamics and clearly
enunciates terms. Presenter is comfortable and answers
questions well.
Overall, the oral presentation is delivered in a good manner and

meets expectations with respect to oral communication skills.
Research information is presented in a logical, interesting and
effective sequence, which the audience can easily follow. Oral
presentation uses effective graphics to explain and reinforce the
information presented. Presenter maintains eye contact with
audience and does not read from notes. Presenter speaks in a
clear voice and uses correct, precise pronunciation of terms.
Oral presentation is thorough, clear, compelling, informative
and professionally delivered. Presenter is professional,
confident and comfortable, and answers questions effectively.
Analytical / Critical Thinking Skills
CRITICAL THINKING
20%
Research problem, concept or idea is not clearly articulated, or
its component elements are not identified or described.
Research information is poorly organized, categorized and/or
not examined; research information is often inaccurate or
incomplete. Presents little if any analysis or interpretation;
inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies research methods,
techniques, models, frameworks and/or theories to the analysis.
Presents few solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions
are often not well supported, are inaccurate and/or inconsistent,
and are presented in a vague or rudimentary manner.
Research problem, concept or idea is not clearly articulated at
times and confusing. Research information is badly organized,
categorized, and/or only superficially examined; research
information is often incomplete. Presents limited analysis or
interpretation; inaccurately and/or inappropriately applies

research methods, techniques, models, frameworks and/or
theories to the analysis. Presents some solutions or conclusions
but they are often not well supported, or logical.
Adequately identifies and describes (or sketches out) the
research problem, concept or idea and its components. Gathers
and examines information relating to the research problem,
concept or idea; presents and appraises research information
with some minor inconsistencies, irrelevancies or omissions.
Generally applies appropriate research methods, techniques,
models, frameworks and/or theories although with inaccuracies.
Outlines solutions or conclusions that are somewhat logical and
consistent with the analysis and evidence; identifies and/or lists
solutions or conclusions although not always clearly.
Formulates a clear description of the research problem, concept
or idea, and specifies major elements to be examined. Selects
information appropriate to addressing the research problem,
concept or idea; accurately and appropriately analyses and
interprets relevant research information. Effectively applies
appropriate research methods, techniques, models, frameworks
and/or theories in developing and justifying multiple solutions
or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are coherent, well
supported and complete.
Effectively formulates a clear description of the research
problem, concept or idea, and specifies major elements to be
examined. Selects and prioritizes information appropriate to
addressing the research problem, concept, or idea; accurately
and appropriately analyzes and interprets relevant research
information.
Precisely and effectively applies appropriate research methods,
employs advanced skills to conduct research. Uses techniques,
models, frameworks and/or theories in developing and justifying
multiple solutions or conclusions; solutions or conclusions are
insightful, coherent, well supported, logically consistent and

complete. Displays a mastery of complex and specialized areas.
Integration Skills
APPLICATION & EVALUATION
25%
Shows little ability to employ theory and practice across the
functional areas of business in the assessment of issues relating
to the research problem, concept, or idea. Does not recognize or
correctly identify cross-functional organizational issues relevant
to the research problem, concept or idea. Does not adequately
evaluate the research problem, concept or idea in light of
relevant principles, theories and practices across the business
functional areas. Few if any solutions, recommendations for
action, or conclusions are presented, and/or they are not
appropriately justified or supported.
Shows some ability to employ theory and practice across the
functional areas of business in the assessment of issues relating
to the research problem, concept or idea. Recognizes
organizational issues relevant to the research problem, concept
or idea but does not show understanding. Does not adequately
evaluate the research problem, concept or idea in light of
relevant principles, theories and practices across the business
functional areas. Some solutions offered but difficult to
understand. Recommendations for action, or conclusions are
presented, but they are often not well supported, or logical.

Exhibits application of principles, theories and practices across
the functional areas of business to the analysis of the research
problem, concept or idea. With some exceptions, outlines and
describes (or sketches out) some cross- functional
organizational issues that are relevant to the research problem,
concept or idea.
Adequately identifies and describes (or summarizes) solutions,
recommendations for action, or conclusions that are, for the
most part, appropriate, but which need to be more aligned with
principles and concepts in the functional areas of business.
Demonstrates an ability to integrate and apply principles,
theories and practices across the functional areas of business to
the analysis of the research problem, concept or idea.
Identifies, examines and critically evaluates important cross-
functional organizational issues associated with the research
problem, concept or idea. Clearly justifies solutions,
recommendations for action, or conclusions based on analytics
and an insightful synthesis of cross-disciplinary principles and
concepts in the functional areas of business.
Demonstrates well-developed ability to integrate and apply
principles, theories and practices across the functional areas of
business to the analysis of the research problem, concept or
idea. Effectively identifies, examines and critically evaluates
important cross-functional organizational issues associated with
the research problem, concept, or idea. Clearly and effectively
justifies solutions, recommendations for action, or conclusions
based on strong analytics and an insightful synthesis of cross-
disciplinary principles and concepts in the functional areas of
business. Can link thinking across disciplines and contexts.

Veterans in the Criminal Justice System and
the Role of Social Work
KELLI E. CANADA and DAVID L. ALBRIGHT
School of Social Work, University of Missouri, Columbia,
Missouri, USA
Veterans, particularly those who were involved in combat,
experience difficulty readjusting to civilian life after
deployment.
Difficulties in adjustment postdeployment can contribute to
involvement in the criminal justice system for some veterans.
Inter-
ventions for veterans in the criminal justice system (e.g.,
veteran
courts) are expanding as stakeholders become more aware of the
risks that veterans face in corrections. The social work
profession
is especially suited to play a unique and critical role in veteran
interventions through direct practice, advocacy, administration,
and research. This article discusses the role of social work
practice
with veterans in corrections and the implications for the social
work
profession in veteran-related policy and research. This article
includes an overview of the research on veterans in the criminal

justice system, a discussion of one rapidly expanding
intervention
for veterans, and a focused discussion on the multiple roles for
social workers in practice, policy, and research.
Following the September 11, 2001 attack on the United States,
approximately
two million service members were deployed in support of
Operations
Enduring Freedom (OEF), Iraqi Freedom (OIF), and New Dawn
(OND).
Because of advances in military field medicine, combat-injured
service mem-
bers survive at much higher rates than in prior conflicts (Ling,
Bandak,
Armonda, Grant, & Ecklund, 2009). As veterans return home
from deployment,
there has been an increased awareness of the potential
difficulties in readjusting
to civilian life particularly for veterans exposed to combat
(Magruder, & Yeager,
2009). An estimated 20% of veterans from recent wars report
symptoms of post-
traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depression, or
traumatic brain injury
Address correspondence to Kelli E. Canada, School of Social
Work, University of
Missouri, 706 Clark Hall, Columbia, MO 65202. E-mail:
[email protected]
Journal of Forensic Social Work, 4:48–62, 2014
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1936-928X print=1936-9298 online
DOI: 10.1080/1936928X.2013.871617
48

(TBI; RAND Corporation, 2008). Many mental disorders
including PTSD can
co-occur with substance use problems and uncontrolled anger or
aggression
(Taft et al., 2007), which can contribute to criminal conduct.
Among community stakeholders, there is growing concern
regarding
veterans who come into contact with the criminal justice
system. Mounting
evidence suggests that veterans, particularly combat veterans,
may be
encountering the criminal justice system because of their unmet
mental
health needs (GAINS Center, 2008). Because of the
rehabilitative needs of
veterans in corrections and the growing awareness of the risks
that veterans
face when returning home from combat, stakeholders advocated
for the
development of specialized interventions to address the complex
needs of
this population. Veteran courts are one of the most rapidly
expanding inter-
ventions for military veterans who encounter the criminal
justice system.
Although there is growing awareness of the needs of veterans,
there is
scant literature on veterans in corrections particularly from
social work scho-
lars. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the
literature

regarding veterans in corrections by focusing on targeted
interventions for
social work practice and research. The article begins with a
synthesis of
the literature on veterans in the criminal justice system,
including the preva-
lence, differential risks, and predictors of arrest among
veterans. Then, the
emergence of one rapidly expanding intervention, veteran
courts, is dis-
cussed. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion on the
multiple roles
that social workers can play in practice and research with
veterans who are in
the criminal justice system and their families.
VETERANS IN CORRECTIONS
Prevalence
The United States ranks highest in the world in the number of
individuals who
reside in jail or prison. One out of every 100 adults in the
United States is incar-
cerated, a nearly sevenfold increase since the 1970s (Holder,
2009). More
recent estimates suggest that one out of every 34 adults in the
United States
are involved in the criminal justice system through community
supervision
(i.e., probation or parole), jail, or prison (Glaze & Parks, 2012).
Among incar-
cerated individuals, approximately 140,000 veterans are in
prison, more than
half (57%) serving time for a violent offense, which is higher
than their nonve-

teran counterparts (47%; Noonan & Mumola, 2007). There are
no national stat-
istics that estimate the total number of veterans under probation
or parole.
Factors Contributing to Veterans’ Criminal Justice Involvement
Although there is existing research that attempts to discern the
factors that
cause or contribute to veterans’ criminal justice involvement,
the results are
Veterans and Criminal Justice 49
mixed and inconclusive (Taylor, Parkes, Haw, & Jepson, 2012).
Evidence
suggests that veterans, particularly combat veterans, may be
encountering
the criminal justice system because of their unmet mental health
needs
(GAINS Center, 2008). Although there is no empirical support
suggesting that
mental illness causes criminal justice involvement, recent
research does con-
clude that incarcerated veterans report more psychiatric and
substance use
problems prior to arrest (McGuire, Rosenheck, & Kasprow,
2003) and high
rates of lifetime trauma (Saxon et al., 2001). Psychiatric
disorders are also
more common among incarcerated veterans in comparison to
veterans in
the community (Black et al., 2005).

Some scholars argue that individual characteristics of veterans,
such
as antisocial personality disorder and level of education, are
more closely
tied with arrest than military involvement (Greenberg &
Rosenheck, 2009;
Taylor et al., 2012). Primary risk factors of arrest for veterans
include being
male, minority, single, less educated, and young and having
mental
health problems (Greenberg & Rosenheck, 2009), which are
similar to the
risk factors for the general population (Bonta, Law, & Hanson,
1998).
Although there is overlap in the predictors of arrest for veterans
and the
general population, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that
veterans are
at risk of mental health problems and difficulty in adjusting
postdeployment,
which uniquely contribute to coming into contact with the
criminal justice
system.
One of the most common mental health problems among
veterans is
PTSD. PTSD, an anxiety disorder occurring after exposure to a
life-
threatening event or injury during combat, is a major concern
for veterans
(Magrunder & Yeager, 2009; Stimpson, Thomas, Weightman,
Dunstan, &
Lewis, 2003; U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 2012). PTSD
is character-
ized by re-experiencing (e.g., re-occurring thoughts or dreams),
avoidance

and numbing (e.g., avoidance of thoughts or feelings of the
traumatic event),
and arousal symptoms (e.g., anger outbursts; American
Psychiatric Associ-
ation, 2013). It is estimated that nearly 20% of veterans from
the most recent
wars report symptoms of PTSD, major depression, or TBI
(RAND Corpor-
ation, 2008). Posttraumatic stress disorder in veterans has been
associated
with being arrested upon returning from a combat deployment
(Calhoun,
Malesky, Bosworth, & Beckham, 2005) and can exacerbate
veterans’ ability
to reintegrate into civilian society.
PTSD and TBI are comorbid, making the etiology of symptoms
difficult
to distinguish (Lew et al., 2009). An estimated 14% of veterans
returning
home from Afghanistan or Iraq had a brain injury that is
associated with sub-
stance use, difficulty controlling anger, and general aggression,
all of which
could lead to criminal misconduct (Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008).
This rate is
likely an underestimate, as it only takes into account veterans
who are acces-
sing services. Prevalence of TBI is anticipated to double within
five years
after deployment (Hoge, Auchterlonie, & Milliken, 2006).
50 K. E. Canada and D. L. Albright

Given that many OEF=OIF=OND veterans are diagnosed with
PTSD and
TBI (Tanielian & Jaycox, 2008), it is plausible that these
veterans are at an
increased risk for criminal justice involvement. However, recent
research using
the Veteran Administration’s Health Care for Reentry Veterans
data found that
OEF=OIF=OND veterans were less likely to be incarcerated in
comparison to
other veterans (Tsai, Rosenheck, Kasprow, & McGuire, 2013).
It is important
to note that these data are limited in generalizability as it only
included people
who were eligible for Health Care for Reentry Veterans services
and excluded
individuals serving longer sentences. Further, it only captured
veterans who
were in prison, not veterans who were on probation, parole, or
in jail.
In addition to PTSD and TBI, veterans are also at risk of
substance
abuse. Previous research estimates that approximately one
quarter of veter-
ans in the community have a substance abuse or dependence
diagnosis
(Wagner et al., 2007; Walker, Howard, Lambert, & Suchinsky,
1994). Sub-
stance use often co-occurs with mental illness (Cuffel, 1996),
particularly
PTSD and TBI (Taft et al., 2007). High rates of substance abuse
are consist-
ently documented in the literature for the general population of
people
who encounter the criminal justice system (Fazel, Bains, &

Doll, 2006; Peters,
Greenbaum, Edens, Carter, & Ortiz, 1998). Similarly for
veterans, one quarter
of veterans who are in prison were using drugs and=or alcohol
at the time of
arrest, which suggests preventive services targeting substance
use might lead
to a decreased incarceration rate (Noonan and Mumola, 2007).
HEALTH AND MENTAL HEALTH OF VETERANS IN THE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
Adults living in prison, both veterans and nonveterans,
experience a range of
chronic physical problems (i.e., arthritis and hypertension;
Maruschak, 2008)
and mental illness (e.g., mania and major depression; Glaze &
James, 2006).
Managing chronic health and mental health problems are a
significant
challenge for the correctional system, particularly as prisoners
age (Mitka,
2004). Many prisons operate on limited budgets and are not
equipped with
the personnel or the finances to provide comprehensive
healthcare services
to prisoners. With the median age being 10 to 12 years older for
incarcerated
veterans than nonveterans (Blodgett, Fuh, Maisel, & Midboe,
2013), these
older veterans have unique medical and rehabilitative service
needs
(Williams & Abraldes, 2007).
Although additional research is needed to be conclusive, it
appears that

veterans in prison compared to nonveterans are at greater risk
for a variety of
negative outcomes. For example, veterans in prison are at a
heightened risk
of suicide while incarcerated and upon release (Frisman &
Griffin-Fennell,
2009; Wortzel, Binswanger, Anderson, & Adler, 2009). In
addition, felony
convictions can interfere with finding and securing employment
and may
have an impact on benefits for veterans and their families
(Addlestone &
Chaset, 2008), both of which can lead to poverty, making
veterans even more
vulnerable upon reentry to the community. Nationally,
Greenberg and
Rosenheck (2008) found that incarcerated veterans are at the
greatest risk
of homelessness upon release from prison.
Both veterans and nonveterans in prison are more likely to have
PTSD
than the general population (Saxon et al., 2001). Among people
with PTSD,
in particular, living in prison may retraumatize them (Sigafoos,
1994) or
influence them to revert to ‘‘combat mode’’ because of the
vulnerabilities
inherent in the prison environment (Cavanaugh, 2010). Veterans
may also
be at additional risk for PTSD symptoms because of some

combination of
premilitary factors (Elbogen et al., 2012) and traumatic military
experiences
(i.e., combat and military sexual trauma) that can be
exacerbated by stress,
poor treatment, or no treatment while in custody (Sigafoos,
1994).
Emergence of Veteran Courts
Over the past decade, stakeholders advocated for criminal
justice-based
programming and interventions that can reduce the risks
veterans face when
coming into contact with the law. There is also public
acknowledgment that
military veterans should be treated differently than civilians
because of their
voluntary subjectivity to potential violence, unease, and trauma
for the pro-
tection of our country (Hawkins, 2010). One rapidly expanding
intervention
is veteran courts, which are also referred to as veteran treatment
courts.
Veteran courts were first established in 2004 in Anchorage,
Alaska (Hawkins,
2010). Shortly after Anchorage’s veteran court emerged, Judge
Robert Russell
created a veteran court in Buffalo, NY, which has now become
the model for
veteran courts across the country (Office of National Drug
Control Policy,
2010). There are over 150 veteran courts across the country and
many more
in the planning stages (see
http://www.justiceforvets.org/veterans-treatment-

court-locations for a current list of veteran courts in the United
States).
Veteran courts are based on the mental health and drug
treatment court
models. These specialty or alternative courts were designed on
the theoreti-
cal underpinnings of therapeutic jurisprudence (Winick &
Wexler, 2003),
which argues that the law and legal proceedings can act as a
therapeutic
agent by using the law to address the underlying causes of
criminal involve-
ment. The goal of specialty courts is to reduce criminal
recidivism through
the provision of treatment and services; intensive supervision
and monitor-
ing; and the use of rewards and sanctions for behavioral
reinforcement.
Veteran Court Model
In line with the specialty court model, veteran courts are
voluntary programs
that divert some veterans who have been arrested to a separate
court docket.
Eligibility for veteran courts varies by jurisdiction. However,
most veteran
courts limit eligibility to veterans who are eligible for Veterans
Administration
benefits and charged with nonviolent, misdemeanor, or low-

level felony
charges (Hawkins, 2010). Because veteran courts are voluntary
programs, eli-
gible veterans have the right to opt into the program by agreeing
to a signed
contract that includes an agreement to treatment adherence;
abstinence from
drugs and alcohol; frequent reporting to probation and the
judge; work for
those veterans who are physically and mentally able; and
compliance with
behavioral requirements (e.g., no new arrests, conducting
oneself with res-
pect, following dress code and general rules, telling the truth;
Russell, 2009).
Once an eligible veteran is accepted into the veteran court,
he=she is
diverted from the traditional court docket to the specialized
docket. A team,
including a judge, probation officer, caseworker, court
administrator, veteran
service representative, peer mentor, and treatment provider,
provides the
veteran with intensive, community-based treatment,
rehabilitative services,
and supervision (Hawkins, 2010; Russell, 2009). Ideally, there
is continuity
with this team from the time of initial treatment planning
through program
completion. The veteran court is designed to encourage the
development
of one-on-one relationships between participants and the judge
and other
team members through frequent court sessions, which can occur
up to once

per week. In these sessions, the judge speaks directly to
participants rather
than through attorneys. The veteran court team meets prior to
court sessions
to discuss each participant. The judge will discuss any
successes or problems
with treatment adherence and=or program compliance directly
with partici-
pants before an audience of other veteran court participants
(Hawkins, 2010).
Veterans Justice Outreach Specialists, often social workers,
play an
important role in developing treatment plans with the other
veteran court
team members and act as a liaison with the Veterans
Administration. Treat-
ment and services can include mental health and substance use
treatment,
employment services, access to computers, GED programming,
and peer
mentoring (Stiner, 2012). All veteran court participants are
assigned a peer
mentor who is also a veteran (Russell, 2009). Mentors provide
support as
participants navigate through the veteran court program. The
length of
veteran court participation varies from court to court, but
typically ranges
from one to two years (Hawkins, 2010).
As a component of monitoring, the veteran court team uses
sanctions
and rewards as incentives to either change behaviors or to
continue with suc-
cessful progression in treatment and=or probation, similar to

other specialty
courts (Russell, 2009). Sanctions are decided on by the veteran
court team
and given for noncompliance with program requirements (e.g.,
failure to par-
ticipate in mandated services, probation violations, positive
urine screens for
substance use, lying to the staff, and being late or noncompliant
with court
orders). Sanctions given in other specialty treatment courts,
which are also
used in many veteran courts, can include requiring more
services, modifying
treatment plans, increasing the frequency of reporting to
caseworkers and
probation officers, increasing monitoring through electronic
devices, cur-
fews, verbal warnings, written essays, jail, and termination from
the program
(Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, 2003). Rewards are
used as a
reinforcement for positive behaviors for participants who adhere
to treatment
plans, remain sober, and comply with probation (Russell, 2009).
Rewards
include being called first in court, applause, verbal praise,
public recognition
of accomplishments, fewer court appearances, fewer drug
screens, overnight
passes to visit family, fewer restrictions, and ultimately
graduation.

Specialty Court Critiques
Although veteran courts are receiving much praise and support,
in general,
the specialty court model has been critiqued by advocacy
groups. The
Bazelon Center (2003) argued that one’s due process and right
to self-
determination are violated by the sanctioning of nonadherence
to treatment.
Specifically, due process, or the legal right to formal legal
proceedings, could
be violated if court participants are required by the specialty
court judge
to comply with treatment and subsequently sanctioned to jail for
noncom-
pliance. Specialty court participants have not been sentenced to
involuntary
outpatient commitment. Rather, they have agreed to participate
in a court-
based program for treatment. Sentencing a person to involuntary
treatment
requires a separate trial to determine a person’s mental capacity
and capa-
bility to make treatment decisions; a need for a trial to
determine mental
capacity often makes a person ineligible for specialty court. All
specialty
court participants are required to be of sound mind prior to
specialty court
diversion. To reduce the risk of due process violation, treatment
decisions
should be made in collaboration with specialty court
participants to promote
self-determination in treatment decisions; however, the Bazelon

Center
(2003) questioned participant involvement in treatment-based
decisions.
In addition, some courts are criticized for having vague written
policies, including the requirements for successful completion
or graduation
(Bernstein & Seltzer, 2003; Erickson, Campbell, & Lamberti,
2006). Redlich,
Hoover, Summers, and Steadman (2008) question participants’
full under-
standing of the weight of a guilty plea in lieu of trial and what
is required
by postadjudication specialty courts. For example, some
specialty court
participants’ length of supervision exceeds the period of
punishment that
accompanies usual processing in a traditional court (i.e., time
spent in jail).
IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIAL WORK
In the 1980s, the criminal justice system became more punitive
in managing
crime (Garland, 2001). With this shift, efforts toward
rehabilitating people in
the criminal justice system were replaced with longer sentences,
retributive
policies, and mass incarceration. In more recent years, new
policies within
the criminal justice system have emphasized the need for

rehabilitative efforts
for some populations (i.e., people with mental illnesses and=or
addictions)
by using the legal system as a therapeutic intervention (Wexler,
2000).
Theory and practice frameworks inherent in social work
education, like
the ecological systems perspective and strengths-based
approach, comp-
lement these recent rehabilitative shifts and bring a unique
perspective to
the criminal justice system, including an understanding of the
interaction
between people and their environment and use of strengths in
recovery.
As described above, veterans are at risk of criminal justice
involvement
and at risk during incarceration for a variety of negative
outcomes. Although
it is likely that more interventions directed at veterans in
corrections will
emerge over the following years, one of the most prominent
interventions
for veterans today are veteran courts. Veteran court programs
are part of a
movement toward rehabilitative efforts rather than the more
traditional
retribution approach used in corrections. Expansion of treatment
courts,
particularly for veterans, is a priority for the United States
Senate (Senate
Committee on the Judiciary, 2011). Social workers, trained in
assessing
people within their environment, can help veteran courts better
meet their

goals of addressing the underlying contributors to criminal
justice involve-
ment. Specifically, social workers are able to develop
multifaceted treatment
plans that address both person-level contributors (i.e., substance
abuse,
untreated mental illness) and environmental-level contributors
(i.e., unem-
ployment, dysfunctional social networks, neighborhood
triggers) to criminal
justice involvement. More broadly, social workers are suited to
assist veterans
along the continuum of the criminal justice system (i.e., arrest,
incarceration,
parole, probation, and re-entry) through advocacy, outreach,
education, and
service linkage. In working with veterans in corrections, social
workers have
a unique opportunity to collaborate across disciplines and
professions.
Practice
There are opportunities for social work practice and
intervention with veter-
ans at multiple points along the criminal justice continuum. In
veteran courts,
social workers work either through the Veterans Administration
or through
community agencies to provide mental health evaluations,
casework servi-
ces, therapy, and=or advocacy for court participants. Social
workers involved
in veteran court programs play a dual role in that they are
providers of ser-
vices but also court liaisons who are required to update team

members on
their clients’ adherence to and engagement in services. These
reports, if poor,
can result in court participants’ receipt of sanctions. Social
workers are thus
required to balance their therapeutic work with clients and
mandates from
the court while still promoting social work values, such as one’s
right to
self-determination and confidentiality. Although this balance is
challenging,
social workers are encouraged to discuss the parameters of their
relationship
up front with clients who are involved in veteran court
programs and, more
broadly, corrections by delineating the limitations of
confidentiality and
describing requirements to provide status reports to the judge
and=or pro-
bation officers (see Canada & Epperson, 2014).
In addition to playing a key role in veteran courts, social
workers can
assist veterans before they enter the criminal justice system
through
preventive efforts by helping veterans access services through
outreach
and education. This is critically important given the stigma for
many service
members (and likely veterans) to seek treatment for mental
health problems

(Ben-Zeev, Corrigan, Britt, & Langford, 2012). This stigma and
reluctance to
seek mental health treatment might be exacerbated by both
providers’
perceptions toward mental illness (Servais & Saunders, 2007) in
military
populations and general perceptions of the criminal justice
system. Social
workers in community settings should ask clients about military
service status,
combat exposure, trauma, and barriers to adjustment as part of
initial evalua-
tions to provide the most appropriate services. Given the risk
for PTSD, TBI,
and substance abuse among veterans, it is especially important
that social
workers assess for these disorders and provide or link
individuals with the
necessary services. A well-rounded assessment also includes an
assessment
of the veteran’s strengths, including the possibility that one
source of strength
is his=her military experience (Coll, Weiss, & Metal, 2013). In
addition, provi-
ders should proactively seek continuing education on military
culture and
remain aware that stigmatization might affect the therapeutic
alliance.
Social workers may also work with families of veterans within
correc-
tions to provide resources, help navigate the criminal justice
system, and
assist with re-entry to the community after being incarcerated.
As targeted
intervention programs for veterans continue to emerge, social

workers will
need to play an active role as advocates to ensure veterans’
rights are being
upheld and that veterans have a full understanding of program
requirements
prior to participation in diversion programs.
Policy
Given that veterans are at risk of developing PTSD and
substance abuse
problems that can lead to increased involvement with the
criminal justice sys-
tem, more specialized, preventative, and alternative sentencing
interventions
are needed. There are currently over 150 veteran courts,
specialized veteran
dockets, or veteran tracks in courts across the county (McGuire,
Clark,
Blue-Howells, & Coe, 2013). Veteran courts bridge multiple
systems,
including community-based programs that can provide viable
rehabilitative
services and can divert some veterans from incarceration and its
subsequent
consequences.
Veteran courts, however, are not universally available and
therefore
only a portion of military veterans are eligible for these
specialized programs.
In counties without veteran courts, veterans may be eligible for

other speci-
alty courts (e.g., mental health or drug treatment courts). Even
in counties
with veteran courts, not all veterans will be eligible to
participate. As dis-
cussed above, eligibility for veteran courts varies by
jurisdiction; however,
most courts restrict participation to veterans with lower-level,
nonviolent
charges and require that veterans are service-eligible through
the Veterans
Administration (Hawkins, 2010). These policies may
significantly limit the
number of veterans that these courts serve. For example,
veterans may be
at a higher risk of committing charges classified as violent
(Noonan &
Mumola, 2007). In addition, military discharge status (e.g.,
dishonorable dis-
charge) may impede certain individuals from receiving benefits
for
treatment-related services and thus ineligible for a veteran
court. Discharge
status can be petitioned, but there is no guarantee that the status
can be
altered. Advocacy is especially important in these cases when
other than
honorable discharges may be due to alcohol, drug, or mental
health-related
problems. Although veteran court eligibility criteria involve
criminal law and
economic implication, it is important that veteran court policies
do not
exclude those veterans most in need of treatment.
Social workers are both liaisons between the criminal justice

and social
service systems and providers of treatment within them. The
National Asso-
ciation of Social Workers’ partnership with the White House’s
Joining Forces
(2012) positions social work as a leader in transitioning military
veterans
back to their communities after deployment and keeping them
there. As the
National Association of Social Workers and schools of social
work continue
to develop and implement programming to train community-
based service
providers and improve their understanding of veterans’
reintegration experi-
ences and military culture, they are well-advised to improve
social work’s
readiness to work with military veterans in the criminal justice
system.
Research
Although there is a growing body of research on veterans in the
criminal
justice system, many unanswered questions remain.
Interdisciplinary
research on veterans is greatly needed to gain a better
understanding of
veterans’ experiences in the criminal justice system and the
factors contribu-
ting to criminal justice involvement, particularly those related
to deployment
and=or combat exposure. Interdisciplinary research allows for
collaboration
and mutual understanding from multiple viewpoints (e.g., law,
medicine,

and social work) to examine veterans within the criminal justice
system from
multiple vantage points. One of the vantage points that social
work scholars
bring to interdisciplinary teams is viewing veterans and the
multiple systems
they are embedded within (i.e., family, military, and criminal
justice) as a
foundation for developing new and evaluating existing
interventions. Inter-
ventions that address individual needs are essential; however,
preventing
criminal justice involvement and rehabilitation often require
multifaceted
intervention that both addresses individual and systemic needs.
Although interventions like veteran courts are rapidly
expanding, a solid
body of evidence on the effectiveness of these programs is
lacking. To begin
to test the effectiveness of interventions, research is needed to
investigate the
extent to which interventions for veterans are addressing their
needs. Speci-
alty court models are based on the ideology that therapeutic
intervention is
fundamental in addressing the underlying causes of criminal
justice involve-
ment. However, it is not yet clear why veterans are coming into
contact with
the criminal justice system and if those reasons are different

from the general
population. Once a clear understanding of the causes or
contributors to
veterans’ criminal justice involvement has been established, the
creation
and validation of instruments to measure the effectiveness of
veteran courts
is needed. Use of validated instruments within veteran courts
across the
country is the first step in gaining understanding of the impact
that targeted
interventions are having on veterans and their criminal
recidivism. As
research on veterans in corrections continues to grow, it is also
essential to
examine variation among veteran experiences, including
variation in veter-
ans who served in different wars and exposure to combat, rather
than draw-
ing conclusions regarding veterans as a homogeneous group.
CONCLUSION
There is a growing need for social work practitioners and
researchers to
engage with military veterans who have come into contact with
the criminal
justice system to provide needed services, link individuals and
families with
resources, contribute to the development of validated
assessment instru-
ments, and investigate effective interventions to prevent
veterans’ arrest and
incarceration. Social workers can play critical roles in service
provision,
advocacy, and research that cross multiple systems involving

veterans and
their families. Interdisciplinary research is greatly needed to
gain a better
understanding of veterans’ experiences in the criminal justice
system and
the factors contributing to criminal justice involvement,
particularly those
related to deployment and=or combat exposure. Using multiple
perspectives
(e.g., social work, law, and nursing) in research will promote
the develop-
ment of comprehensive assessment and intervention that are
able to address
the multifaceted challenges that many of our military veterans
face. As new
initiatives for veterans arise, like veteran courts, social workers
have the
opportunity to be at the forefront of implementation and
evaluation to help
prevent veterans from coming into contact with the criminal
justice system
and to assist veterans who have been arrested.
REFERENCES
Addlestone, D. F., & Chaset, A. (2008). Veterans in the
criminal justice system. In
Veterans for America (Ed.), The American veterans and service
members survival
guide: How to cut through the bureaucracy and get what you
need and are entitled
to. Retrieved from

http://www.nvlsp.org/images/products/survivalguide.pdf
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of
mental disorders (5th ed). Washington, DC: American
Psychiatric Publishing.
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. (2003). Criminalization
of people with mental
illness: The role of mental courts in system reform. Jail
Suicide=Mental Health
Update, 12, 1–11.
Ben-Zeev, D., Corrigan, P. W., Britt, T. W., & Langford, L.
(2012). Stigma of mental
illness and service use in the military. Journal of Mental Health,
21, 264–273.
Bernstein, R., & Seltzer, T. (2003). The role of mental health
courts in system reform.
University of the District of Columbia Law Review, 7, 143–162.
Black, D. W., Carney, C. P., Peloso, P. M., Woolson, R. F.,
Letuchy, E., & Doebbeling,
B. N. (2005). Incarceration and veterans of the first Gulf War.
Military Medicine,
170, 612–618.
Blodgett, J. C., Fuh, I. L., Maisel, N. C., & Midboe, A. M.
(2013). A structured evidence
review to identify treatment needs of justice-involved veterans
and associated
psychological interventions. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Veterans Affairs.
Bonta, J., Law, M., & Hanson, K. (1998). The prediction of

criminal and violent
recidivism among mentally disordered offenders: A meta-
analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 123, 123–142.
Calhoun, P. S., Malesky, L. A., Bosworth, H. B., & Beckham, J.
C. (2005). Severity of
posttraumatic stress disorder and involvement with the criminal
justice system.
Journal of Trauma Practice, 3, 1–16.
Canada, K. E. & Epperson, M. (2014). The working relationship
and its association
with outcomes among mental health court participants.
Community Mental
Health Journal. doi: 10.1007=s10597-014-9713-z
Cavanaugh, J. M. (2010). Helping those who serve: Veterans
treatment courts
foster rehabilitation and reduce recidivism for offending combat
veterans.
New England Law Review, 45, 463–487.
Coll, J. E., Weiss, E. L., & Metal, M. (2013). Military culture
and diversity. In A. Rubin,
E. L. Weiss, & J. E. Coll (Eds.), Handbook of military social
work (pp. 21–36).
Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cuffel, B. (1996). Comorbid substance use disorder: Prevalence,
patterns of use, and
course. New Directions for Mental Health Services, 70, 93–105.
Elbogen, E. B., Johnson, S. C., Newton, V. M., Straits-Troster,
K., Vasterling, J. J.,
Wagner, H. R. (2012). Criminal justice involvement, trauma,

and negative affect
in Iraq and Afghanistan war era veterans. Journal of Consulting
and Clinical
Psychology, 80, 1097–1102.
Erickson, S. K., Campbell, A., & Lamberti, S. (2006).
Variations in mental health
courts: Challenges, opportunities, and a call for caution.
Community Mental
Health Journal, 42, 335–344.
Fazel, S., Bains, P., & Doll, H. (2006). Substance abuse and
dependence in prisoners:
A systematic review. Addiction, 101, 181–191.
Frisman, L. K., & Griffin-Fennell, F. (2009). Commentary:
Suicide and incarcerated
veterans—Don’t wait for the numbers. Journal of the American
Academy of
Psychiatry & Law, 37, 92–94.
GAINS Center. (2008). Responding to the needs of justice-
involved combat veterans
with service-related trauma and mental health conditions.
Retrieved from
http://gainscenter.samhsa.gov/pdfs/veterans/CVTJS_Report.pdf
Garland, D. (2001). The culture of control: crime and social
order in contemporary
society. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
Glaze, L. E., & James, D. J. (2006). Mental health problems of

prison and jail
inmates (NCJ Publication No. 213600). Rockville, MD: U.S.
Department of
Justice.
Glaze, L. E., & Parks, E. (2012). Correctional populations in the
United States, 2011.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin (NCJ 239972). Retrieved
from http://bjs.
ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpus11.pdf
Greenberg, G. A., & Rosenheck, R. (2008). Jail incarceration,
homelessness and
mental health: A national study. Psychiatric Services, 59, 170–
177.
Greenberg, G. A., & Rosenheck R. A. (2009). Mental health and
other risk factors
for jail incarceration among male veterans. Psychiatric
Quarterly, 80,
41–53.
Hawkins, M. D. (2010). Coming home: Accommodating the
special needs of military
veterans to the criminal justice system. Ohio State Journal of
Criminal Law, 7,
563–573.
Hoge, C. W., Auchterlonie, J. L., & Milliken, C. S. (2006).
Mental health problems,
use of mental health services and attrition from military service
after returning
from deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan. Journal of the
American Medical
Association, 295, 1023–1032.

Holder, E. (2009). Attorney General Eric Holder at the Vera
Institute of Justice’s third
annual justice address. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/ag/speeches/
2009/ag-speech-090709.html
Lew, H. L., Otis, J. D., Tun, C., Kerns, R. D., Clark, M. E., &
Cifu, D. X. (2009).
Prevalence of chronic pain, posttraumatic stress disorder and
persistent
postconcussive symptoms in OIF=OEF veterans: Polytrauma
clinical triad.
Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development, 46, 697–
702.
Ling, G., Bandak, F., Armonda, R., Grant, G., & Ecklund, J.
(2009). Explosive blast
neurotrauma. Journal of Neurotrauma, 26, 815–825.
Magrunder, K. M., & Yeager, D. E. (2009). The prevalence of
PTSD across war eras
and the effect of deployment on PTSD: A systematic review and
meta-analysis.
Psychiatric Annals, 39, 778–788.
Maruschak, L. M. (2008). Medical problems of prisoners (NCJ
Publication No.
221740). Rockville, MD: U.S. Department of Justice.
McGuire, J., Clark, S., Blue-Howells, J., & Coe, C. (2013). An
inventory of VA
involvement in veteran courts, dockets, and tracks. Retrieved
from http://
www.justiceforvets.org/sites/default/files/files/An%20Inventory
%20of%20VA%20
involvement%20in%20Veterans%20Courts.pdf

McGuire, J., Rosenheck, R. A., & Kasprow, W. J. (2003).
Health status, service use
and costs among veterans receiving outreach services in jail or
community
settings. Psychiatric Services, 54, 201–207.
Mitka, M. (2004). Aging prisoners stressing health care system.
Journal of the
American Medical Association, 292, 423–424.
Noonan, M. E., & Mumola, C. J. (2007). Veterans in state and
federal prison, 2004.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department
of Justice.
Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2010). Fact sheet:
Veterans treatment courts.
Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President. Retrieved
from http://www.
whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/ondcp/Fact_Sheets/veterans_t
reatment_courts_
fact_sheet_12-13-10.pdf
Peters, R. H., Greenbaum, P. E., Edens, J. F., Carter, C. R., &
Ortiz, M. M. (1998).
Prevalence of DSM-IV substance abuse and dependence
disorders among
prison inmates. The American Journal of Drug & Alcohol
Abuse, 24, 573–587.

RAND Corporation. (2008). One in five Iraq and Afghanistan
veterans suffer from
PTSD or major depression. Retrieved from
www.rand.org/news/press/2008/
04/17.html
Redlich, A. D., Hoover, S., Summers, A., & Steadman, H. J.
(2008). Enrollment in
mental health courts: Voluntariness, knowingness, &
adjudicative competence.
Law & Human Behavior, 34, 91–104.
Russell, R. T. (2009). Veterans treatment court: A proactive
approach. New England
Journal on Criminal & Civil Confinement, 35, 357–372.
Saxon, A. J., Davis, T. M., Sloan, K. L., McKnight, K. M.,
McFall, M. E., & Kivlahan,
D. R. (2001). Trauma, symptoms of posttraumatic stress
disorder and asso-
ciated problems among incarcerated veterans. Psychiatric
Services, 52,
959–964.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. (2011). Drug and veterans
treatment courts:
Seeking cost-effective solutions for protecting public safety and
reducing recidi-
vism. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.
Retrieved from
http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/hearing.cfm?id=3d903
1b47812de259
2c3baeba6209f34
Servais, L. M., & Saunders, S. M. (2007). Clinical
psychologists’ perceptions of

persons with mental illness. Professional Psychology: Research
and Practice,
38, 214–219.
Sigafoos, C. E. (1994). A PTSD treatment program for combat
(Vietnam) veterans
in prison. International Journal of Offender Therapy and
Comparative
Criminology, 38, 117–130.
Stimpson, N. J., Thomas, H. V., Weightman, A. L., Dunstan, F.,
& Lewis, G. (2003).
Psychiatric disorder in veterans of the Persian Gulf War of
1991. British Journal
of Psychiatry, 182, 391–403.
Stiner, M. (2012). Veterans treatment courts and the U.S.
Department of Labor.
Dispatch from the Front Lines. Retrieved from
www.justiceforvets.org
Tanielian, T., & Jaycox, L. (2008). Invisible wounds of war:
Psychological and
cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist
recovery.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Taft, C. T., Kaloupek, D. G., Schumm, J., Marshall, A. D.,
Panuzio, J., King, D. W., &
Keane, T. M. (2007). Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms,
physiological
reactivity, alcohol problems and aggression among military
veterans. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 116, 498–507.

Taylor, J., Parkes, T., Haw, S., & Jepson, R. (2012). Military
veterans with mental
health problems: A protocol for systematic review to identify
whether they have
an additional risk of contact with the criminal justice systems
compared with
other veteran groups. Systematic Reviews, 1, 53–61.
Tsai, J., Rosenheck, R. A., Kasprow, W. J., & McGuire, J. F.
(2013). Risk of incarcer-
ation and other characteristics of Iraq and Afghanistan era
veterans in state and
federal prisons. Psychiatric Services, 64, 36–43.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. (2012). National Center
for PTSD. Retrieved
from http://www.ptsd.va.gov/.
Wagner, T. H., Harris, K. M., Federman, B., Dai, L., Luna, Y.,
& Humphreys, K.
(2007). Prevalence of substance use disorders among veterans
and comparable
nonveterans from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
Psychological
Services, 4, 149–157.
Walker, R. D., Howard, M. O., Lambert, M. D., & Suchinsky,
R. (1994). Psychiatric
and medical comorbidities of veterans with substance use
disorders. Hospital
& Community Psychiatry, 45, 232–237.
Wexler, D. (2000). Therapeutic jurisprudence: an overview.

Thomas M. Cooley Law
Review, 17, 125–134.
The White House. (2012). Joining forces. Washington, DC: The
White House, Office
of the Vice President, Briefing Room. Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.
gov/the-pressoffice/2012/07/25/americas-social-workers-join-
dr-jill-biden-
launch-social-work-and-servic
Williams, B., & Abraldes, R. (2007). Growing older: Challenges
of prison and reentry
for the aging population. In R. Greifinger (Ed.), Public health
behind bars
(pp. 56–72). New York, NY: Springer ScienceþBusiness Media.
Winick, B. J., & Wexler, D. B. (Eds.). (2003). Judging in a
therapeutic key: Thera-
peutic jurisprudence and the courts. Durham, NC: Carolina
Academic Press.
Wortzel, H. S., Binswanger, I. A., Anderson, C. A., & Adler, L.
E. (2009). Suicide
among incarcerated veterans. Journal of the American Academy
of Psychiatry
& Law, 37, 82–91.
1
The National Association of Social Workers (NASW)

Code of Ethics
Preamble
The primary mission of the social work profession is to enhance
human well-
being and help meet basic human needs of all people, with
particular attention
to the needs and empowerment of people who are vulnerable,
oppressed, and
living in poverty. A historic and defining feature of social work
is the
profession’s focus on individual well-being in a social context
and the well-
being of society. Fundamental to social work is attention to the
environmental
forces that create, contribute to, and address problems in living.
Social workers promote social justice and social change with
and on behalf of
clients. “Clients” is used inclusively to refer to individuals,
families, groups,
organizations, and communities. Social workers are sensitive to
cultural and
ethnic diversity and strive to end discrimination, oppression,
poverty, and other
forms of social injustice. These activities may be in the form of
direct practice,
community organizing, supervision, consultation,
administration, advocacy,
social and political action, policy development and
implementation, education,
and research and evaluation. Social workers seek to enhance
the capacity of
people to address their own needs. Social workers also seek to

promote the
responsiveness of organizations, communities, and other social
institutions to
individual’s needs and social problems.
The mission of the social work profession is rooted in a set of
core values. These
core values, embraced by social workers throughout the
profession's history, are
the foundation of social work's unique purpose and perspective.
x Service
x Social justice
x Dignity and worth of the person
x Importance of human relationships
x Integrity
x Competence
This constellation of core values reflects what is unique to the
social work
profession. Core values, and the principles that flow from them,
must be
balanced within the context and complexity of the human
experience.
Purpose of the NASW Code of Ethics
Professional ethics are at the core of social work. The
profession has an
obligation to articulate its basic values, ethical principles, and
ethical
standards. The NASW Code of Ethics sets forth these values,
principles, and
standards to guide social workers’ conduct. The Code is
relevant to all social

workers and social work students, regardless of their
professional functions,
the settings in which they work, or the populations they serve.
The NASW Code of Ethics serves six purposes:
1. The Code identifies core values on which social work’s
mission
is based.
2. The Code summarizes broad ethical principles that reflect the
profession’s core values and establishes a set of specific ethical
standards that should be used to guide social work practice.
3. The Code is designed to help social workers identify relevant
considerations when professional obligations conflict or ethical
uncertainties arise.
4. The Code provides ethical standards to which the general
public can hold the social work profession accountable.
5. The Code socializes practitioners new to the field to social
work’s mission, values, ethical principles, and ethical
standards.
6. The Code articulates standards that the social work
professional
itself can use to assess whether social workers have engaged in
unethical conduct. NASW has formal procedures to adjudicate
ethics complaints filed against its members1. In subscribing to
this Code, social workers are required to cooperate in its
implementation, participate in NASW adjudicationproceedings,
and abide by any NASW disciplinary rulings for sanctions based
on it.

1 For information on NASW adjudication procedures, see
NASW Procedures
for the Adjudication of Grievances.
The Code offers a set of values, principles, and standards to
guide decision
making and conduct when ethical issues arise. It does not
provide a set of rules
that prescribe how social workers should act in all situations.
Specific
applications of the Code must take into account the context in
which it is being
considered and the possibility of conflicts among the Code’s
values, principles,
and standards. Ethical responsibilities flow from all human
relationships, from
the personal and familial to the social and professional.
Further, the NASW Code of Ethics does not specify which
values, principles, and
standards are most important and ought to outweigh others in
instances when
they conflict. Reasonable differences of opinion can and do
exist among social
workers with respect to the ways in which values, ethical
principles, and ethical
standards should be rank ordered when they conflict. Ethical
decision making in
a given situation must apply the informed judgment of the
individual social
worker and should also consider how the issues would be judged
in a peer
review process where the ethical standards of the profession
would be applied.

Ethical decision making is a process. There are many instances
in social work
where simple answers are not available to resolve complex
ethical issues. Social
workers should take into consideration all the values,
principles, and standards
in this Code that are relevant to any situation in which ethical
judgment is
warranted. Social workers’ decisions and actions should be
consistent with the
spirit as well as the letter of this Code.
In addition to this Code, there are many other sources of
information about
ethical thinking that may be useful. Social workers should
consider ethical
theory and principles generally, social work theory and
research, laws,
regulations, agency policies, and other relevant codes of ethics,
recognizing that
among codes of ethics social workers should consider the
NASW Code of Ethics
as their primary source. Social workers also should be aware of
the impact on
ethical decision making of their clients’ and their own personal
values and
cultural and religious beliefs and practices. They should be
aware of any
conflicts between personal and professional values and deal
with them
responsibility.
For additional guidance social workers should consult the
relevant literature on
professional ethics and ethical decision making and seek
appropriate

consultation when faced with ethical dilemmas. This may
involve consultation
with an agency-based or social work organization’s ethics
committee, a
regulatory body, knowledgeable colleagues, supervisors, or
legal counsel.
Instances may arise when social worker’s ethical obligations
conflict with
agency policies or relevant laws or regulations. When such
conflicts occur,
social workers must make a responsible effort to resolve the
conflict in a manner
that is consistent with the values, principles, and standards
expressed in this
Code. If a reasonable resolution of the conflict does not appear
possible, social
workers should seek proper consultation before making a
decision.
The NASW Code of Ethics is to be used by NASW and by
individuals,
organizations, and bodies (such as licensing and regulatory
boards, professional
liability insurance providers, courts of law, agency boards of
directors,
government agencies, and other professional groups) that
choose to adopt it or
use it as a frame of reference. Violation of standards in this
Code does not
automatically imply legal liability or violation of the law. Such
determination
can only be made in the context of legal and judicial
proceedings. Alleged
violations of the Code would be subject to a peer review
process. Such

processes are generally separate from legal or administrative
procedures and
insulated from legal review or proceedings to allow the
profession to counsel
and discipline its own members.
A code of ethics cannot guarantee ethical behavior. Moreover,
a code of ethics
cannot resolve all ethical issues or disputes or capture the
richness and
complexity involved in striving to make responsible choices
within a moral
community. Rather, a code of ethics sets forth values, ethical
principles, and
ethical standards to which professionals aspire and by which
their actions can be
judged. Social workers’ ethical behavior should result from
their personal
commitment to engage in ethical practice. The NASW Code of
Ethics reflects
the commitment of all social workers to uphold the profession’s
values and to
act ethically. Principles and standards must be applied by
individuals of good
character who discern moral questions and, in good faith, seek
to make reliable
ethical judgments.
Ethical Principles
The following broad ethical principles are based on social
work’s core values of
service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person,
importance of human

2
relationships, integrity, and competence. These principles set
forth ideals to
which all social workers should aspire.
Value: Service
Ethical Principle: Social workers’ primary goal is to help people
in need and to
address social problems. Social workers elevate service to
others above self-
interest. Social workers draw on their knowledge, values, and
skills to help
people in need and to address social problems. Social workers
are encouraged
to volunteer some portion of their professional skills with no
expectation of
significant financial return (pro bono service).
Value: Social Justice
Ethical Principle: Social workers challenge social injustice.
Social workers
pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of
vulnerable and
oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’
social change
efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty,
unemployment,
discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These
activities seek to
promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and
cultural and ethnic
diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed
information,
services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful
participation in

decision making for all people.
Value: Dignity and Worth of the Person
Ethical Principle: Social workers respect the inherent dignity
and worth of the
person. Social workers treat each person in a caring and
respectful fashion,
mindful of individual differences and cultural and ethnic
diversity. Social
workers promote clients’ socially responsible self-
determination. Social
workers seek to enhance clients’ capacity and opportunity to
change and to
address their own needs. Social workers are cognizant of their
dual
responsibility to clients’ interests and the broader society’s
interests in a socially
responsible manner consistent with the values, ethical
principles, and ethical
standards of the profession.
Value: Importance of Human Relationships
Ethical Principle: Social workers recognize the central
importance of human
relationships. Social workers understand that relationships
between and among
people are an important vehicle for change. Social workers
engage people as
partners in the helping process. Social workers seek to
strengthen relationships
among people in a purposeful effort to promote, restore,
maintain, and enhance
the well-being of individuals, families, social groups,
organizations, and
communities.

Value: Integrity
Ethical Principle: Social workers behave in a trustworthy
manner. Social
workers are continually aware of the profession’s mission,
values, ethical
principles, and ethical standards and practice in a manner
consistent with them.
Social workers act honestly and responsibly and promote ethical
practices on the
part of the organizations with which they are affiliated.
Value: Competence
Ethical Principle: Social workers practice within their areas of
competence and
develop and enhance their professional expertise. .Social
workers continually
strive to increase their professional knowledge and skills and to
apply them in
practice. Social workers should aspire to contribute to the
knowledge base of
the profession.
Ethical Standards
The following ethical standards are relevant to the professional
activities of all
social workers. These standards concern (1) social workers’
ethical
responsibilities to clients, (2) social workers’ ethical
responsibilities to
colleagues, (3) social workers’ ethical responsibilities in
practice settings, (4)
social workers’ ethical responsibilities as professionals, (5)
social workers’
ethical responsibilities to the social work profession, and (6)
social workers’
ethical responsibilities to the broader society. Some of the

standards that follow
are enforceable guidelines for professional conduct, and some
are aspirational.
The extent to which each standard is enforceable is a matter of
professional
judgment to be exercised by those responsible for reviewing
alleged violations
of ethical standards.
1. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBILITIES TO
CLIENTS
1.01 Commitment to Clients
Social workers’ primary responsibility is to promote the well-
being
of clients. In general, clients’ interests are primary. However,
social
workers’ responsibility to the larger society or specific legal
obligations may on limited occasions supersede the loyalty
owed
clients, and clients should be so advised. (Examples include
when a
social worker is required by law to report that a client has
abused a
child or has threatened to harm self or others.)
1.02 Self-Determination
Social workers respect and promote the right of clients to self-
determination and assist clients in their efforts to identify and
clarify
their goals. Social workers may limit clients’ right to self-

determination when, in the social workers’ professional
judgment,
clients’ actions or potential actions pose a serious, foreseeable,
and
imminent risk to themselves or others.
1.03 Informed Consent
(a) Social workers should provide services to clients only in the
context of a professional relationship based, when
appropriate, on valid informed consent. Social workers should
use
clear and understandable language to inform clients of the
purpose
of the services, risks related to the services, limits to services
because of the requirements of a third-party payer, relevant
costs,
reasonable alternatives, clients’ right to refuse or withdraw
consent, and the time frame covered by the consent. Social
workers should provide clients with an opportunity to ask
questions.
(b) In instances when clients are not literate or have difficulty
understanding the primary language used in the practice setting,
social workers should take steps to ensure clients’
comprehension.
This may include providing clients with a detailed verbal
explanation or arranging for a qualified interpreter or translator
whenever possible.
(c) In instances when clients lack the capacity to provide
informed

consent, social workers should protect clients’ interests by
seeking permission from an appropriate third party, informing
clients consistent with the clients’ level of understanding. In
such
instances social workers should seek to ensure that the third
party
acts in a manner consistent with clients’ wishes and interests.
Social workers should take reasonable steps to enhance such
clients’ ability to give informed consent.
(d) In instances when clients are receiving services
involuntarily,
social workers should provide information about the nature and
extent of services and about the extent of clients’ right to refuse
service.
(e) Social workers who provide services via electronic media
(such as
computer, telephone, radio, television) should inform recipients
of
the limitations and risks associated with such services.
(f) Social workers should obtain clients’ informed consent
before
audiotaping or videotaping clients or permitting observation of
services to clients by a third party.
1.04 Competence

(a) Social workers should provide services and represent
themselves
as competent only within the boundaries of their education,
training, license, certification, consultation received, supervised
experience, or other relevant professional experience.
(b) Social workers should provide services in substantive areas
or use
intervention techniques or approaches that are new to them only
after engaging in appropriate study, training, consultation, and
supervision from people who are competent in those
interventions
or techniques.
(c) When generally recognized standards do not exist with
respect to
an emerging area of practice, social workers should exercise
careful judgment and take responsible steps (including
appropriate
education, research, training, consultation, and supervision) to
ensure the competence of their work and to protect clients from
harm.
1.05 Cultural Competence and Social Diversity
3
(a) Social workers should understand culture and its function in
human behavior and society, recognizing the strengths that

exist in all cultures.
(b) Social workers should have a knowledge base of their
clients’
cultures and be able to demonstrate competence in the
provision of services that are sensitive to clients’ cultures and
to differences among people and cultural groups.
(c) Social workers should obtain education about and seek to
understand the nature of social diversity and oppression with
respect to race, ethnicity, national origin, color, sex, sexual
orientation, age, marital status, political belief, religion, and
mental or physical disability.
1.06 Conflicts of Interest
(a) Social workers should be alert to and avoid conflicts of
interest
that interfere with the exercise of professional discretion and
impartial judgment. Social workers should inform clients when
real or potential conflict of interest arises and take reasonable
steps to resolve the issue in a manner that makes the clients’
interests primary and protects clients’ interests to the greatest
extent possible. In some cases, protecting clients’ interests may
require termination of the professional relationship with proper
referral of the client.
(b) Social workers should not take unfair advantage of any
professional relationship or exploit others to further their

personal, religious, political, or business interests.
(c) Social workers should not engage in dual or multiple
relationships with clients or former clients in which there is a
risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client. In instances
when dual or multiple relationships are unavoidable, social
workers should take steps to protect clients and are responsible
for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive
boundaries. (Dual or multiple relationships occur when social
workers relate to clients in more than one relationship, whether
professional, social, or business. Dual or multiple relationships
can occur simultaneously or consecutively).
(d) When social workers provide services to two or more people
who have a relationship with each other (for example, couples,
family members), social workers should clarify with all parties
which individuals will be considered clients and the nature of
social workers’ professional obligations to the various
individuals who are receiving services. Social workers who
anticipate a conflict of interest among the individuals receiving
services or who anticipate having to perform in potentially
conflicting roles (for example, when a social worker is asked to
testify in a child custody dispute or divorce proceedings
involving clients) should clarify their role with the parties
involved and take appropriate action to minimize any conflict
of interest.
1.07 Privacy and Confidentiality
(a) Social workers should respect clients’ right to privacy.
Social

workers should not solicit private information from clients
unless it is essential to providing services or conducting social
work evaluation or research. Once private information is
shared, standards of confidentiality apply.
(b) Social workers may disclose confidential information when
appropriate with valid consent from a client or a person legally
authorized to consent on behalf of a client.
(c) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of all
information obtained in the course of professional service,
except for compelling professional reasons. The general
expectation that social workers will keep information
confidential does not apply when disclosure is necessary to
prevent serious, foreseeable, and imminent harm to a client or
other identifiable person or when laws or regulations require
disclosure without a client’s consent. In all instances, social
workers should disclose the least amount of confidential
information necessary to achieve the desired purpose; only
information that is directly relevant to the purpose for which
the disclosure is made should be revealed.
(d) Social workers should inform clients, to the extent possible,
about the disclosure of confidential information and the
potential consequences, when feasible before the disclosure is
made. This applies whether social workers disclose
confidential information on the basis of a legal requirement or
client consent.

(e) Social workers should discuss with clients and other
interested
parties the nature of confidentiality and limitations of clients’
right to confidentiality. Social workers should review with
clients circumstances where confidential information may be
requested and where disclosure of confidential information may
be legally required. This discussion should occur as soon as
possible in the social worker-client relationship and as needed
throughout the course of the relationship.
(f) When social workers provide counseling services to families,
couples, or groups, social workers should seek agreement
among the parties involved concerning each individual’s right
to confidentiality and obligation to preserve the confidentiality
of information shared by others. Social workers should inform
participants in family, couples, or group counseling that social
workers cannot guarantee that all participants will honor such
agreements.
(g) Social workers should inform clients involved in family,
couples, marital, or group counseling of the social worker’s,
employer’s, and agency’s policy concerning the social worker’s
disclosure of confidential information among the parties
involved in the counseling.
(h) Social worker should not disclose confidential information
to
third-party payers unless clients have authorized such

disclosure.
(i) Social workers should not discuss confidential information
in
any setting unless privacy can be ensured. Social workers
should not discuss confidential information in public or
semipublic areas such as hallways, waiting rooms, elevators,
and restaurants.
(j) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients
during legal proceedings to the extent permitted by law. When
a court of law or other legally authorized body orders social
workers to disclose confidential or privileged information
without a client’s consent and such disclosure could cause harm
to the client, social workers should request that the court
withdraw the order or limit the order as narrowly as possible or
maintain the records under seal, unavailable for public
inspection.
(k) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients
when responding to requests from members of the media.
(l) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of clients’
written and electronic records and other sensitive information.
Social workers should take reasonable steps to ensure that
clients’ records are stored in a secure location and that clients’
records are not available to others who are not authorized to
have access.

(m) Social workers should take precautions to ensure and
maintain
the confidentiality of information transmitted to other parties
through the use of computers, electronic mail, facsimile
machines, telephones and telephone answering machines, and
other electronic or computer technology. Disclosure of
identifying information should be avoided whenever possible.
(n) Social workers should transfer or dispose of clients’ records
in
a manner that protects clients’ confidentiality and is consistent
with state statues governing records and social work licensure.
4
(o) Social work should take reasonable precautions to protect
client
confidentiality in the event of the social worker’s termination of
practice, incapacitation, or death.
(p) Social workers should not disclose identifying information
when discussing clients for teaching or training purposes unless
the client has consented to disclosure of confidential
information.

(q) Social workers should not disclose identifying information
when discussing clients with consultants unless the client has
consented to disclosure of confidential information or there is a
compelling need for such disclosure.
(r) Social workers should protect the confidentiality of deceased
clients consistent with the preceding standards.
1.08 Access to Records
(a) Social workers should provide clients with reasonable access
to
records concerning the clients. Social workers who are
concerned that clients’ access to their records could cause
serious misunderstanding or harm to the client should provide
assistance in interpreting the records and consultation with the
client regarding the records. Social workers should limit
clients’ access to their records, or portions of their records, only
in exceptional circumstances when there is compelling
evidence that such access would cause serious harm to the
client. Both clients’ requests and the rationale for withholding
some or all of the record should be documented in clients’ files.
(b) When providing clients with access to their records, social
workers should take steps to protect the confidentiality of other
individuals identified or discussed in such records.
1.09 Sexual Relationships
(a) Social workers should under no circumstances engage in

sexual
activities or sexual contact with current clients, whether such
contact is consensual or forced.
(b) Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or
sexual
contact with clients’ relatives or other individuals with whom
clients maintain a close personal relationship when there is a
risk of exploitation or potential harm to the client. Sexual
activity or sexual contact with clients’ relatives or other
individuals with whom clients maintain a personal relationship
has the potential to be harmful to the client and may make it
difficult for the social worker and client to maintain appropriate
professional boundaries. Social workers—not their clients,
their clients’ relatives, or other individuals with whom the
client maintains a personal relationship—assume the full
burden for setting clear, appropriate, and culturally sensitive
boundaries.
(c) Social workers should not engage in sexual activities or
sexual
contact with former clients because of the potential for harm to
the client. If social workers engage in conduct contrary to this
prohibition or claim that an exception to this prohibition is
warranted because of extraordinary circumstances, it is social
workers—not their clients—who assume the full burden of
demonstrating that the former client has not been exploited,
coerced, or manipulated, intentionally or unintentionally.
(d) Social workers should not provide clinical services to

individuals with whom they have had a prior sexual
relationship. Providing clinical services to a former sexual
partner has the potential to be harmful to the individual and is
likely to make it difficult for the social worker and individual to
maintain appropriate professional boundaries.
1.10 Physical Contact
Social workers should not engage in physical contact with
clients when there is a possibility of psychological harm to
the client as a result of the contact (such as cradling or
caressing clients.) Social workers who engage in appropriate
physical contact with clients are responsible for setting clear,
appropriate, and culturally sensitive boundaries that govern
such physical contact.
1.11 Sexual Harassment
Social workers should not sexually harass clients. Sexual
harassment includes sexual advances, sexual solicitation,
requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature.
1.12 Derogatory Language
Social workers should not use derogatory language in their
written or verbal communications to or about clients. Social
workers should use accurate and respectful language in all
communications to and about clients.
1.13 Payment for Services

(a) When setting fees, social workers should ensure that the fees
are fair, reasonable, and commensurate with the service
performed. Consideration should be given to clients’ ability to
pay.
(b) Social workers should avoid accepting goods or services
from
clients as payment for professional services. Bartering
arrangements, particularly involving services, create the
potential for conflicts of interest, exploitation, and
inappropriate boundaries in social workers’ relationships with
clients. Social workers should explore and may participate in
bartering only in very limited circumstances when it can be
demonstrated that such arrangements are an accepted practice
among professionals in the local community, considered to be
essential for the provision of services, negotiated without
coercion, and entered into at the client’s initiative and with the
client’s informed consent. Social workers who accept goods or
services from clients as payment for professional services
assume the full burden of demonstrating that this arrangement
will not be detrimental to the client or the professional
relationship.
(c) Social workers should not solicit a private fee or other
remuneration for providing services to clients who are entitled
to such available services through the social workers’ employer
or agency.
1.14 Clients Who Lack Decision-Making Capacity

When social workers act on behalf of clients who lack the
capacity to make informed decisions, social workers should
take reasonable steps to safeguard the interests and rights of
those clients.
1.15 Interruption of Services
Social workers should make reasonable efforts to ensure
continuity of services in the event that services are
interrupted by factors such as unavailability, relocation,
illness, disability, or death.
1.16 Termination of Services
(a) Social workers should terminate services to clients and
professional relationships with them when such services and
relationships are no longer required or no longer serve the
clients’ needs or interests.
(b) Social workers should take reasonable steps to avoid
abandoning clients who are still in need of services. Social
workers should withdraw services precipitously only under
unusual circumstances, giving careful consideration to all
factors in the situation and taking care to minimize possible
adverse effects. Social workers should assist in making
appropriate arrangements for continuation of services when
necessary.
(c) Social workers in fee-for-service settings may terminate
services to clients who are not paying an overdue balance if the

financial contractual arrangements have been made clear to the
client, if the client does not pose an imminent danger to self or
5
others, and if the clinical and other consequences of the current
nonpayment have been addressed and discussed with the client.
(d) Social workers should not terminate services to pursue a
social,
financial, or sexual relationship with a client.
(e) Social workers who anticipate the termination or
interruption of
services to clients should notify clients promptly and seek the
transfer, referral, or continuation of services in relation to the
clients’ needs and preferences.
(f) Social workers who are leaving an employment setting
should
inform clients of appropriate options for the continuation of
services and of the benefits and risks of the options.
2. SOCIAL WORKERS’ ETHICAL RESPONSIBLITIES TO
COLLEAGUES
2.01 Respect

(a) Social workers should treat colleagues with respect and
should
represent accurately and fairly the qualifications, views, and
obligations of colleagues.
(b) Social workers should avoid unwarranted negative criticism
of
colleagues in communications with clients or with other
professionals. Unwarranted negative criticism may include
demeaning comments that refer to colleagues’ level of
competence or to individuals’ attributes such as race, ethnicity,
national origin, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital
status, political belief, religion, and mental or physical
disability.
(c) Social workers should cooperate with social work colleagues
and with colleagues of other professions when such cooperation
services the well-being of clients.
2.02 Confidentiality
Social workers should respect confidential information shared
by
colleagues in the course of their professional relationships and
transactions. Social workers should ensure that such colleagues
understand social workers’ obligations to respect confidentiality
and
any exceptions related to it.

2.03 Interdisciplinary Collaboration
(a) Social workers who are members of an interdisciplinary
team
should participate in and contribute to decisions that affect the
well-being of clients by drawing on the perspectives, values,
and experiences of the social work profession. Professional
and ethical obligations of the interdisciplinary team as a whole
and of its individual members should be clearly established.
(b) Social workers for whom a team decision raises ethical
concerns should attempt to resolve the disagreement through
appropriate channels. If the disagreement cannot be resolved,
social workers should pursue other avenues to address their
concerns consistent with client well-being.
2.04 Disputes Involving Colleagues
(a) Social workers should not take advantage of a dispute
between
a colleague and an employer to obtain a position or otherwise
advance the social workers’ own interests.
(b) Social workers should not exploit clients in disputes with
colleagues or engage clients in any inappropriate discussion of
conflicts between social workers and their colleagues.
2.05 Consultation
(a) Social workers should seek the advice and counsel of

colleagues whenever such consultation is in the best interests of
clients.
(b) Social workers should keep themselves informed about
colleagues’ areas of expertise and competencies. Social
workers should seek consultation only from colleagues who
have demonstrated knowledge, expertise, and competence
related to the subject of the consultation.
(c) When consulting with colleagues about clients, social
workers
should disclose the least amount of information necessary to
achieve the purposes of the consultation.
2.06 Referral for Services
(a) Social workers should refer clients to other professionals
when
the other professionals’ specialized knowledge or expertise is
needed to service clients fully or when social workers believe
that they are not being effective or making reasonable progress
with clients and that additional service is required.
(b) Social workers who refer clients to other professionals
should
take appropriate steps to facilitate an orderly transfer of
responsibility. Social workers who refer clients to other
professionals should disclose, with clients’ consent, all

pertinent information to the new service providers.
(c) Social workers are prohibited from giving or receiving
payment
for a referral when no professional service is provided by the
referring social worker.
2.07 Sexual Relationships
(a) Social workers who function as supervisors or educators
should
not engage in sexual activities or contact with supervisees,
students, trainees, or other colleagues over whom they exercise
professional authority.
(b) Social workers should avoid engaging in sexual
relationships
with colleagues when there is potential for a conflict of interest.
Social workers who become involved in, or anticipate
becoming involved in, a sexual relationship with a colleague
have a duty to transfer professional responsibilities, when
necessary, to avoid a conflict of interest.
2.08 Sexual Harassment
Social workers should not sexually harass supervisees, students,
trainees, or colleagues. Sexual harassment includes sexual
advances,
sexual solicitation, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal
or

COURSE CODE BCO 316 COURSE NAME INDSTRIAL MARKETING Marketing Pla.docx

COURSE CODE BCO 316 COURSE NAME INDSTRIAL MARKETING Marketing Pla.docx

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

Similar a COURSE CODE BCO 316 COURSE NAME INDSTRIAL MARKETING Marketing Pla.docx

Similar a COURSE CODE BCO 316 COURSE NAME INDSTRIAL MARKETING Marketing Pla.docx (20)

Más de richardnorman90310

Más de richardnorman90310 (20)

Último

Último (20)

COURSE CODE BCO 316 COURSE NAME INDSTRIAL MARKETING Marketing Pla.docx