Purposes and uses of code

At every consultation session, participants were first asked to state what they expected a Code of Ethics to do and how it might affect their work. They volunteered a range of overwhelmingly positive ideas, centring especially on the role of a Code in defining and communicating what CLD work is, rather than any specific behavioural changes that it might contribute to. These expectations included: 

• expressing the distinctiveness or identity of CLD
• expressing our professional identity; comparability with other professions
• codifying existing understandings; bringing clarity and consistency; being clear about our role and remit
• articulating the shared value base that we assume we have
• providing 'a stable core' for practice; basing our practice on values; legitimating our practices; providing a 'foundation stone'; expressing our primary duties
• bringing us back to the reasons we do it
• allowing us to challenge and examine our practice; aiding reflective practice; combating destructive practices
• promoting professional dialogue and understanding
• showing we take ourselves seriously; giving us confidence
• providing accountability
• offering reassurance and protection: for workers and for clients
• setting principles for working with vulnerable people
• showing the relationship between the CLD strands, that there is a unique approach underpinning a multi-disciplinary field
• helping understanding of our role by others; communicating to other services; influencing colleagues and managers outwith the profession; correcting misunderstandings
• combating the idea that 'anyone can do it'
• getting greater respect from other professions
• D-dealing with tensions with other partners; defining our limits in partnership work
• influencing employers and commissioners; helping to resist pressures on the sector
• a learning tool for new entrants and students – the topic is seen as absent from current education. 

It should be noted that working to a code of ethics is not new for everyone in the field. A few community workers have been registered with the Scottish Social Services Council. Some practitioners are covered by codes such as that of the Institute of Careers Guidance in particular aspects of their work. And some have a teaching background.  

A minority at two of the sessions, and individuals at some of the others, came with concerns about the value and purpose of a Code. They still made very constructive contributions to the debates on what the Code should say. One or two online commentators denounced the whole exercise as pointless.  

A few, though perhaps in the context of older debates a surprisingly small number, feel that professionalisation is not appropriate for CLD and could limit or distort practice. One suggested that monitoring of a code might become a „tick-box exercise‟, another that it „could be used as a stick to beat us‟. Some are sceptical about any code having any positive influence on practice or behaviour. We shall not debate these general points at length here. The great majority of consultees clearly did not find such concerns sufficiently compelling to put the exercise in question. 

We had many discussions about how if at all a Code might be enforceable, and the implications of a 'voluntary' system of registration, albeit one which might be required by employers for certain posts. These clearly reinforce the need for the Standards Council to do some serious thinking about the processes for monitoring, clarifying the implications of and, in some situations enforcing, the Code.  

The relationship between employees and employers in CLD and how the Code relates to these was much discussed, both in general and with reference to particular clauses of the draft. There are two main areas of discussion: 

1. Whether people attempting to abide by a code might find themselves in conflict with employers who did not accept or behave in accordance with its provisions. We have amended some specific clauses in the light of discussions of this nature. However in general it was accepted that such conflicts already arise and would continue to arise, but that a code might help to avoid them by making clear what CLD practice involves, or might protect workers where conflicts do occur.
2. Whether the provisions of the Code should be worded to apply only to individual workers or to their employers also. These issues arose particularly over the questions of professional development (Clause 10) and preserving health (Clause 13), but also apply elsewhere. Several people felt that an explicit obligation on employers should be mentioned. Others argued that it would be confusing to include this in particular clauses. On balance, we have not 
   recommended the inclusion of such specific statements about employers. We believe that any employer who, for example, expects CLD membership for certain posts, should by implication be seen as also accepting responsibilities. However, we recommend that the Standards Council should give serious consideration to how it might spell out the responsibilities for employers.  

Both of these issues suggest the need for the Standards Council to give active consideration to how it explains and promotes the Code to the employers of CLD workers.  

One issue that we had anticipated might be raised, but was in practice scarcely raised at all, is the possibility that the different strands of CLD might work to different principles. A number of people raised issues about the terminology involved in describing CLD as a single professional field. But nothing we discussed suggested any systematic differences between strands about the principles embodied in the Code (one possible partial exception is discussed below under „boundaries‟). Many participants emphasised their desire that the Code should be an inclusive one, applying to a wide range of staff, sessional workers and volunteers. Whilst no-one would suggest that literally every volunteer should be expected to sign up to adherence to the code, it was felt that explaining its principles would be useful in, for example, the induction of new volunteers. Some felt that a summary version, perhaps even on a single card, would be helpful in this and other situations.  

There was general approval of the objective of keeping the Code itself brief and succinct. However people found some of the commentary that has already been drafted helpful in clarifying its meaning, and it was widely agreed that an approved document on the meaning and interpretation of the Code should be available. The importance of introducing people to the Code and the issues it raises in initial training and Continuing Professional Development were noted. This would presumably create a need for additional learning materials.

Recommendations

The Standards Council should proceed with the adoption of a Code of Ethics, both as an element in registration, and as a tool for communicating the nature of Community Learning and Development and the commitments involved to a wider audience.   

The Standards Council, and in particular the Registration Committee, must give future consideration to: 

• the processes for monitoring, clarifying the implications of and enforcing the Code
• the provision of an authorised commentary and guidance on the Code, of a summary version or versions for uses such as public display, and of training materials
• the need to promote the code to employers and explain its implications to them; and the possible need for a document specifying the obligations of employers to workers that the Code implies