The draft code

General Points

There was a strong desire for the English in which the Code is written to be as plain as possible. Particularly among the on-line commentators there were suggestions that its language was a little too "academic". We have responded to this in two main ways: 

• Both through accepting points made in the consultations and through further editing, we have tried to clarify and simplify the wording of the Code, in many ways which are not all discussed below. Throughout, the tendency of the comments made and accepted has been to shorten and simplify the Code not, as might have been feared, to add additional qualifications to it. 
• We have tried throughout to avoid currently fashionable jargon terms. At several points in the draft, terms were deliberately used which were unfamiliar in this context but which might have the potential to express a point powerfully and to become familiar through usage of the Code over the long term. Several of these terms caused extensive debate and elicited mixed views, both for and against. Some we have changed as a result, others are recommended for retention.

It was also suggested in discussion that “it is not easy to be a CLD worker, and [the Code] must be complex,” and that it must contain aspects that provoke and challenge people to examine and change their practice.  

The consultative draft introduced many clauses with the phrase “CLD workers ….” We have largely replaced this, as many consultees agreed that we should, with “We....” This simplifies the language, reinforces the element of personal affirmation in the Code and also helps a minority who feel that, though the Code accurately describes their aspirations for their practice, the term “CLD worker” does not express their professional identity.  

There has been a certain amount of debate about the correct verbs to use. Different people appear to detect different nuances of meaning between the modal verbs expressing obligation: "should", "will", "must" etc. In the recommended draft, for the first four clauses which express the basic constitutive principles of our approach, we use the present tense: “Our work is...” etc. After that, when dealing with our approach to various 
ethical issues, we use words expressing obligation, mainly "We will/will not ..."

The consultation gave people the chance to draw attention to any possible omissions from the draft Code. One suggestion that aroused some discussion was that CLD workers have obligations to conduct their personal lives outwith work in appropriate ways. Whilst no-one suggested that a detailed code could be drawn up for this, it was suggested that a general clause requiring people not to behave in such a way as to  bring the profession into disrepute might be required. We have not recommended this. It would not provide a clear guide to conduct and could perhaps be abused to the detriment of individual workers.  

Other suggestions raised by individuals for aspects that might require more attention were:  

• Our role as an "agent of change" within our institutions, changing their practices
• The need for collective action to protect and promote the interests of the profession
• More emphasis on activism and struggle

Prologue

The first two paragraphs (we are no longer suggesting labelling them as a "Prologue") attempt to make some points about the basic nature of CLD and the commitments it involves. Generally speaking, there was a strong welcome both for doing so and for the approach taken.  

We report below, under "Clause 1", on the extensive debate about the correct terminology for the people with whom a CLD worker has a professional relationship. The idea that giving primacy to the interests of the people in that relationship is fundamental and distinctive to CLD was widely endorsed.  The emphasis given to informal education as a constitutive principle was generally accepted, though some had preferences for alternative or additional terminology: "learning", "formal and informal", "non-formal", "lifelong", "experiential", "critical", plus possibly mentions of "power", "access" and other terms. 

Much of the second paragraph is about how the aim to widen participation in the fullest sense is a basic principle of CLD. Many welcomed the fact that participation in "effective democracy" and the "common wealth" are highlighted, rather than for example a narrower focus on the economy. The term "common wealth" was unfamiliar to some (though it has a long pedigree in Scottish thought) and was both liked and disliked. We continue to prefer it to possible alternatives ("common good", "society", "common weal"). 

There is however an important debate about how far a positive focus on overcoming disadvantage is a fundamental feature of all CLD work, or whether in some circumstances CLD can be a form of universal service provision. Whilst all would want disadvantage to be addressed, and very many strongly believe that this is a necessary and integral part of all CLD practice, there are concerns about appearing to stipulate the distribution of CLD resources as part of a Code of Ethics (the issue could also arise in connection with Clause 3). Also, it is generally acknowledged that it is legitimate to work with whole communities in ways that enhance their inclusiveness, and perhaps to recognise that an entire section of society such as young people may face a deficit in participation. We have tried to recognise and balance these concerns by introducing 
one small word: “...to extend the reach of effective democracy, particularly by actively engaging those who are excluded from participation …” 

One possible fundamental principle of CLD that, some argued, is missing from the draft code is that the engagement of the "client" involved must be voluntary. We feel that it is difficult to state this in categorical terms. We aren't always in control of how people come to us, though we must be in control of how we then deal with them – the fundamental obligations to the "primary client" express this.

Some felt that our description of CLD commitments sometimes leans far towards relationships with individuals rather than communities and collective groups (though Clause 2 makes it clear that working with people in their social context is a fundamental principle). We have amended the last sentence of the first paragraph to recognise the importance of transforming communities.  

Primary Client

The code needs a form of words in which both to express the fundamental point that the interests of the people in the professional relationship have primacy, and to be used subsequently when spelling out the implications of that relationship. The term "client" is widely used by other professions. To some people it undoubtedly carries overtones of subservience. Professor Sercombe argues in his book that these are entirely inappropriate, and many consultees agree. But some still have difficulties with the word. 

A different point is a feeling, which some have, that the term emphasises an individual relationship that is inappropriate in a CLD context. However, unless they are opposed to the idea of professional standards in this field, we feel that they must be prepared to define the key relationship. This relationship can be with groups and communities as a whole, as the draft Code says – the precise implications must be spelt out by those involved in each particular field of practice. (We have reordered the sentence to bring the community aspect to the fore). 

Following this initial definition the draft code uses the term "constituent". This avoids reinforcing any negative implications that people may still draw from "client" and has the great advantage of emphasising that it is the communities, young people and communities involved that justify and "constitute" our practice. However it is a relatively unfamiliar term in this context and aroused considerable debate. Some felt that it could  be misinterpreted by elected representatives. But we interpret the general feeling as being that, if the core meaning of the proposed terminology is appropriate, it should be used, provided that the Code is not just baldly presented to people but is backed by guidance and training. 

Also, we do not believe that better alternatives are available. Some favour "the people we work with" or "participant", but these fail to define a core professional relationship and could include various colleagues, volunteers, partners etc. Terms such as "service user" are unduly restrictive and managerial. It was argued that the terms "members of the community" or indeed simply "communities" could be used, but we feel that this would not reflect the full range of possible practice approaches.  

Social Context

Debate over this clause was largely not about principle but wording. It was originally titled "ecology". Whilst this is a term which is used for analytical purposes to refer to the full range of contexts in which individuals live and develop, that usage was clearly unfamiliar to many. It was widely perceived as having mainly biological implications and perhaps as conjuring up a purely "green agenda", though some thought that it did have a powerful force. The terms "environment" (though this can be interpreted in the same way) or simply "context" were suggested as headings. We feel that "social context" provides a clearer title, and have deleted, by universal agreement, the word "natural" before environment in the text. But the resulting clause is not intended to imply the view that all the forces that affect peoples" lives are socially constructed.  

Equity

This is far from being a simple or conventional "equal opportunities" clause. It recognises equality of outcome as an objective of CLD work (see discussion under "Prologue above). We feel that the wording we now propose is succinct but reasonably powerful. It omits the clauses in the previous draft that, in effect, attempted to say a little more about the justification for acts of positive discrimination. The phrases about "past discrimination" and "claims for redress" proved difficult for people to interpret and apply. 

Equitable and inclusive practice should in any case take account of such factors. Various other words were proposed for the title or text – "access and inclusion", "social justice". We feel that the proposed wording is appropriate whilst avoiding any risk of conforming too closely to "official" discourse. 

Empowerment

There was general agreement that this clause describes one of the key principles of CLD, perhaps the most important. Various issues of wording have been addressed: 

• The phrase “supportingconstituents in holding those with power accountable” has been amended to make it clear that it is not the CLD worker who is being personally required to do the "holding accountable". This will no doubt still be seen as a challenging statement in some employment situations, but we believe that people want to see it stated.
• We have reordered the bullet points to convey a more logical progression from "enabling them to clarify and pursue their chosen priorities" to the more "political" aspects of empowerment. In several discussions people felt that something more should be said about the more "personal" aspects: amongst the suggestions were forming an engagement, developing relationships, building trust and confidence, building critical understanding, problem solving abilities or self-awareness, helping people to articulate their needs, building confidence, personal 
  responsibility and regard for self and others. Whilst we are reluctant to add additional phrases, we hope that the reordering shifts the emphasis in this direction.
• The phrase "facilitating disengagement from the professional relationship" was sometimes simply not understoodat a first reading, but the idea was always understood and supported after explanation. One consultee felt that a statement about fostering independence might be more positive.

In the final sentence, after some debates about the implications of  the wording “We presume that constituents are competent in assessing and acting on their interests” we have adopted two suggestions from consultees to make it read “Our starting point is that constituents are capable of assessing and acting on their interests”. There was asuggestion that the possibility of challenging these assessments should be stated, but we feel that it is implied.  
 

Duty of Care

There was a considerable amount of debate about when it is legitimate to expose constituents to risk, and to what degree. However this did not identify a clear demand for amendment (except for the universally agreed deletion of "further" from "further harm"). The clause is not intended to encourage a risk averse attitude (it talks of avoiding only "the likelihood of harm or injury"), or to deny that risk and challenge are valid tools of CLD work. Its main purpose is to set a limit to the applicability of other principles, such as the one that we have just discussed about constituents" assessment of their own interests.  

Corruption

There was general acceptance of the necessity for this clause. The only significant amendment, following several comments, is to insert "seek to" before "advance ourselves", to make it clear that even unsuccessful attempts to do so are not permissible. The previous second sentence on "conflict of interest" has been moved to Clause 7, following suggestions that it belongs more appropriately there. 

Transparency

This clause caused considerable debate around the feasibility of appearing to require workers to be in conflict with their employers if they are requiring to withhold e.g. information about a planned policy change that might be detrimental to a community. The second sentence in the consultation draft “The interests of other stakeholders will not be withheld from them” in particular was seen both as raising this issue but as being rather opaque in its meaning and possible interpretation. We recommend deleting that sentence, believing that a clear affirmation of the basic principles of openness and truthfulness should be enough to give guidance to workers on the dilemmas that inevitably arise in practice.  

Confidentiality

This clause also aroused considerable debate, with some apparently feeling that it could not be included because it could be read as indicating that workers might be under an obligation to breach statutory duties to disclose information relating for example to the protection of children and vulnerable adults. However further discussion revealed that there was little or no disagreement that: 

• A necessary part of building a professional relationship should be providing a  general understanding of the possible limits to confidentiality
• It is good practice both to make these limits clear individually to anyone who wants to give a worker sensitive information, and if at all possible to seek their consent to disclosure

The difficulties that people had appear to have stemmed from the impression that the consultative draft gave clients an absolute veto over the disclosure of sensitive information, and/or that it ignored the possible occasional need to take urgent action without the opportunity for discussion.  

The wording that we now propose for the second half of this Clause: “Constituents should be made aware of the limits to confidentiality. Until this happens, the presumption of confidentiality should apply. Wherever possible they should be consulted before disclosure.” was tested at the last two consultation sessions and met with general approval.  It was also suggested that the remaining first sentence of the clause (“Information provided …”) was redundant. However we feel that it is important because it: 

• States confidentiality as a positive principle, whilst the rest of the Clause refers to its limits
• Reminds us that confidentiality is not just an issue in extreme situations, but in everyday ones, covering for example protecting the personal confidences of clients from each other

Other points raised:

• It was suggested that even providing a general understanding is difficult in informal and unstructured groups. But are these situations where confidentiality issues are likely to arise?
• It was suggested that some principles underlying what limits to confidentiality may be acceptable should be spelt out. We feel that these vary too much in different practice contexts for this to be feasible.
• Perhaps confidences given by volunteers etc should also be protected.

Co-operation

The inclusion of this as an ethical principle was welcomed, as was the term used, rather than a more anodyne word such as "partnership". However one group felt that "collaboration" would be a "stronger and more contemporary" word. One commentator felt that the emphasis should instead be on ""supporting constituents to co-operate with others in order to secure the best possible outcomes for themselves". We regard that as an aspect of "empowerment, covered above. The word "actively" (seek) has been included in response to comments.

Professional Development

The relevance of this as an ethical principle was also acknowledged. A variety of comments suggested that, in effect, the proposed wording was a little too focused on access to external learning sources and not sufficiently on the individual worker"s own agency in identifying what is available and reflecting on their own practice. We now propose amendments that take this into account.  

We have also deleted the phrase "up to date" as not being ethically relevant and because, as an on-line commentator said “Our commitment should be to continuing to develop our "expertise" to new and higher levels, in order to increase our effectiveness.” 

The implications of this for volunteers were discussed: might it perhaps exclude them? However it was noted that the principle relates to the knowledge (etc) needed to meet obligations to constituents. Volunteers have lower obligations, but if knowledge is needed to meet their obligations, it needs to be acquired. 

Other points raised: 

• There should be some comment about an obligation to work within one"s capacity and skill range.
• Obligations to colleagues as well as constituents should be mentioned

Self-awareness

Debate here centred on one word: "humility", which had a Marmite-like effect on people. It has a long history in religious and philosophical thinking, being used in effect to assert that attitudes that might in the past have been associated with servility are in fact morally superior to pride and arrogance. As a result it can carry a powerful moral force, which many liked, particularly after discussion. But it also carries many very negative 
associations, as a glance at the thesaurus confirms, and many other consultees found it unacceptable. It did not appear to convey to people, as it was intended to, that approaching people"s differences with the right attitude need not exclude the possibility of challenging aspects of their behaviour that are unacceptable.

 Many of the suggested alternatives: "respect", "understanding", "empathy", have a disadvantage. They do not place the focus on the strength of the willingness to respect, understand etc (as "humility" might) but rather on those states of mind actually being achieved. But it may be that ultimately we do not actually empathise with, respect etc, for example, violent sexual practices in a subcultural group.

We are recommending deleting "humility". Our recommended alternative phrases are intended to convey the willingness to try to respect and understand, whilst specifically mentioning the possibility of challenge.

 Boundaries

There was little dispute with the principle that setting boundaries to behaviour with constituents is important, and there was also an understanding that these boundaries are there to allow the professional relationship to develop in a way that does not exploit people"s vulnerability and gives them the chance to develop and change as a result. There was a recognition that the boundaries might be harder to define in some settings, 
particularly for people working in their own communities and/or in rural areas, but the principle was generally felt to still apply.

Debates centred around the specific mention of sexual engagement. There were two main strands to these debates.  Firstly, there were suggestions that, although young people must be protected, the same principle could not be applied to every constituent in a community setting, or  even, a few appeared to argue, to adult learners generally. We endorse the point made by the online commentator who said on this point that: 

The fundamental point is that successful professional relationships with individual constituents are based upon trust, and that this trust can all too easily be misinterpreted or abused for sexual purposes. Our suggested rewording should help to make the basis for the principle clearer. Relationships that have the potential to transform people"s lives – which surely are a feature of community development as well as other approaches – can create a temporary emotional closeness or dependence. This "safe space" must be protected. Clearly in a community setting, there will always be a need for self awareness, guidance and supervision to help to determine where the borderline between people in such a protected relationship and uninvolved members of the wider community must be drawn.  

Secondly, many people questioned the "singling out" of sexual boundaries for mention. Some felt that it appeared to devalue the significance of other boundaries. We would continue to argue for a specific mention, for the reasons outlined in the previous paragraphs. Other boundary violations, without necessarily being less important, are less susceptible to a blanket prohibition (accepting small gifts, or casual socialising may not always be unacceptable) or clearly violate other principles (e.g. bullying). Sexual attraction has an insidious power and people need to be alert to it and its possible consequences.  

Some consultees felt that the mention of this subject appeared abrupt and suggested to them an unhealthy focus. Suggestions were made for its inclusion as a separate clause, which we have considered but feel that on balance that this could be seen as appearing to place even more focus on the subject; or that it should be mentioned as an aspect of "Corruption", which would, we feel, lose the important link to professional boundary setting and suggest that only abusive sexual relationships are problematic. Our proposed rewording should however help to mitigate any apparent abruptness.  

Self-care

There were some useful discussions around this clause. Many felt that it is of growing importance. Many discussions were on the need to define the position of employers (see section on "Purposes and Uses of Code"). Some were about affirming a broad definition of health, including mental health and wellbeing. We trust that CLD workers will wish to interpret "health" in this way, and have recommended keeping the clauseshort and simple.  
Other points made: 

• We also need also to affirm the right of workers to withdraw from situations that present a risk.
• We need to look not only at CLD practice but at work/life balance. 

Recommendation

The Standards Council should consider and adopt the draft Code of Ethics proposed below (pp19-20) 

Peter Taylor 
Howard Sercombe 
April 2010