Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2006 ■ Volume 84 225

© 2006 by the American Counseling Association. All rights reserved.

The American Counseling Association (ACA) Ethics Com-mittee was composed of the following nine committee memberswho were appointed by presidents of the ACA and approvedby the ACA Governing Council: Donald Anderson (cochair),Harriet L. Glosoff (cochair), Mary A. Hermann, Laura W. Kelley,Michael M. Kocet, Michael Gerard Mason, Samuel Sanabria,Vilia Tarvydas, Joy Whitman, Samuel T. Gladding (ex officio),Bernadine L. Craft (Governing Council liaison), Larry T. Freeman(ACA staff liaison).

ACA Ethics Committee Goalsfor 2004–2005

During the 2004–2005 year, the ACA Ethics Committee pur-sued programs, meetings, and conference deliberations toachieve the following committee goals:

• Educating ACA members about the ACA (1995) Codeof Ethics (Note: this code is now superseded by theACA Code of Ethics [ACA, 2005])

• Recommending changes in the ACA Code of Eth-ics and the association’s Policies and Proceduresfor Processing Complaints of Ethical Violations(ACA, 2003)

• Receiving and processing complaints of alleged vio-lations of the ACA Code of Ethics

• Receiving and processing requests for interpretationsof the ACA Code of Ethics

This article summarizes the work of the Ethics Commit-tee based on its agenda for education, adjudication, policyoversight, and continuous improvement initiatives.

Committee Teleconferencesand Annual Meeting

The Ethics Committee conducted nine telephone confer-ence meetings during the 2004–2005 year. Telephone conferencecalls provided an efficient and cost-effective medium to

conduct the work of the Committee. The Committee con-vened for a face-to-face meeting on April 9, 2005, during the2005 ACA conference in Atlanta, Georgia.

Summary of Informaland Formal Inquiries

During the reporting period, the ACA Ethics and ProfessionalStandards Department received 758 informal inquiries and13 formal inquiries.

Informal Inquiries

The 758 informal inquiries were classified in the followingseven major categories.

1. Confidentiality (52%, n = 394): Inquiries in this cat-egory involved issues of confidentiality, includingbut not limited to issues regarding couples’ access torecords, subpoenas and court orders, expert witness,and divorce and separation decrees.

2. Counseling Relationship (26%, n = 197): Inquiriesin this category involved issues related to profes-sional disclosure statements, client welfare, termina-tion and referral, fees and bartering, and dual rela-tionship dilemmas.

3. Professional Responsibility (10%, n = 75): These in-quiries related to issues of professional responsibili-ties including professional competence, credentials,public responsibility, advertising and soliciting cli-ents, and reports to third parties.

4. Relationships With Other Professionals (7%, n = 53):This category involved concerns about relationshipsand conditions, role definition, consultation, and feesfor referrals.

5. Teaching and Supervision (3%, n = 23): Ethicalinquiries related to teaching and supervision, in-cluding self-growth experiences, field placement,and standards for students and supervisees, were thefocus of this category.

Donald Anderson, Department of Counselor Education, Radford University, cochair of the ACA Ethics Committee, 2004–2005;Larry T. Freeman, Ethics and Professional Standards Department, American Counseling Association. Correspondence con-cerning this article should be addressed to Donald Anderson, Department of Counselor Education, PO Box 6994, RadfordUniversity, Radford, VA 24142 (e-mail: danderso@radford.edu).

Report of the ACA Ethics Committee:2004–2005Donald Anderson and Larry T. Freeman

This report summarizes the activities of the American Counseling Association (ACA) Ethics Committee during theperiod of July 1, 2004, through June 30, 2005. Summary data of the complaints filed and the inquiries received arepresented.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2006 ■ Volume 84226

Anderson & Freeman

6. Assessments (1%, n = 8): Inquiries related to appraisaltechniques were concerned with purposes and ob-jectives of educational and psychological assess-ments; promoting client welfare and development;and the appropriate scoring, interpretation, and ap-plication of assessment results.

7. Research (1%, n = 8): Inquiries in this category relatedto the prevention of research participant injury, decep-tion in methodology, and breeches of confidentiality.

Formal Inquiries or Complaints

The ACA Ethics and Professional Standards Department pro-cessed 13 formal inquiries or complaints. None of the ac-cused was a member of the American Counseling Associa-tion, and the complaints or inquiries were determined to beoutside the jurisdiction of the ACA Ethics Committee. There-fore, in the year 2004–2005, there were neither complaintsnor sanctions against ACA members.

On the basis of the past year, patterns of inquiries andcomplaints indicate that there may be a decline in com-plaints against ACA members. The Ethics Committee alsonoted that ACA members should become increasingly knowl-edgeable and sensitive about and more adherent to profes-sional standards related to confidentiality and professionalrelationships. The ACA Ethics Committee is especially com-mitted to advancing a better understanding of and compli-ance with these categories of professional standards.

Case AdjudicationsThe following is a summary of cases that came before the ACAEthics Committee for 2004–2005. The cases are listed by thepre-adjudication case (PAC) number and are summarized below.

Four cases were reviewed and evaluated for adjudication.One case (PAC-1048) was adjudicated, sanctions imposed,and sanctions satisfied. Two other cases (PAC-001 and PAC-003) were reviewed for adjudication at the cochair level. Afourth case (PAC-002) was reviewed and subsequently re-ferred to the 2005–2006 Ethics Committee for adjudica-tion. All cases were resolved with the following administra-tive outcome:

• PAC 1048: The charged member was certified by theCommittee as having satisfied all sanctions imposed byprevious action of the Committee. The case was closed.

• PAC-001: The case was reviewed at the cochair level of theadjudication process. The complainant failed to provideinformation clarifying allegations and defining the scopeof a complaint. The complainant subsequently did notrespond to the Committee’s requests for information. Thecase was closed for lack of complainant response.

• PAC-002: The cochair requested and received addi-tional information from the complainant in the case.The case was subsequently referred to the 2005–2006Ethics Committee for adjudication.

• PAC-003: This case was dismissed. The complaintdid not expose compelling evidence of unprofes-sional conduct or violation of the ACA (1995) Codeof Ethics and Standards of Practice. The case wasclosed for lack of sufficient evidence or cause.

Recommendations for Change of ACAPolicies and Procedures for ProcessingComplaints of Ethical Violations

The Ethics Committee reviewed the ACA Policies and Pro-cedures for Processing Complaints of Ethical Violations(ACA, 2003). As a result of ongoing policy review, the Com-mittee determined that several guiding principles and pro-cedures defined in the ACA Policies and Procedures requiredrevision or the addition of new policies and procedures. TheEthics Committee determined that the following additionsand changes to the ACA Policies and Procedures would en-hance the future work of the Committee.

Policy and Procedures Review

Considering its educational responsibility to ACA members,the Committee determined that instruction, advice, and coun-sel should be viable outcomes of an adjudication process.Often, the Committee has noted that the ACA member most inneed of education, advice, and counsel is the member filing acomplaint or one against whom a complaint has been filed.

Historically, in cases before the Ethics Committee inwhich a decision of “no violation” of ethical standards wasdetermined, documentary and hearing evidence sometimesrevealed a clear need for advising, consultation, and educa-tion about prevailing ethical issues.

In that regard, the committee carefully considered theconcept of a Letter of Instruction. The Committee views itsLetter of Instruction to be a tool for advising, educating, andconsulting. The Committee proposed and the ACA Govern-ing Council approved a policy implementing a Letter ofInstruction to be used in situations in which ethical chargesare brought against a member and “no violation” is found,yet some degree of unawareness, misunderstanding, or im-paired judgment might be inferred based on case evidence.

The Committee made a distinction that a Letter of Instruc-tion would neither represent nor convey any quality of a sanc-tion. At the discretion of the Committee, a Letter of Instructionwould, however, be an educational and advising interventionfor the benefit and professional development of both parties toa complaint. The adopted policy required that there would beno record maintained of issuing a Letter of Instruction.

Other Policy Changes

The Ethics Committee also considered and proposed, andthe ACA Governing Council approved, revisions to policiesand procedures relating to telephone conference hearingsand new procedures for closing adjudicated cases.

Journal of Counseling & Development ■ Spring 2006 ■ Volume 84 227

Report of the ACA Ethics Committee: 2004–2005

The Committee found that its process of closing a case afterimposing sanctions was not as efficient as it desired. In a spiritof continuous improvement, the Committee recommended andthe Governing Council approved new language to make thecase closing process more formal and accountable.

2005 Graduate Student Ethics CaseStudy Competition

A major educational initiative of the ACA Ethics Committeewas the 2005 Graduate Student Ethics Competition. The pur-pose of this competition was to support the ACA Ethics Com-mittee charge of educating ACA members about its ethicalstandards and ethical issues. The case study competitionserved as an opportunity to engage graduate student mem-bers at the master’s and doctoral levels in critically analyzinga potential ethics case and creating an appropriate ethicaldecision-making plan in response to the ethical situation.

From across the nation, teams from 34 master’s and 12doctoral graduate programs participated in the competition.Each competing team responded to an ethical dilemma de-signed for the master’s and doctoral program level. Ethicalcase studies written by the teams were evaluated by the Eth-ics Committee. The ACA Ethics Committee certified resultsof the scoring and determined the following winners.

Master’s Level

First Place: Capella University—Renee Kurkin, ReneeTucker, and Cheryl Wessell

Second Place: South Dakota State University, West RiverGraduate Center—Kristin Donnan, Jamie Hurich, RayOllila, Jackie Schad, Geneva Gray, and Joffrey Suprina

Third Place: The University of Iowa Division of Counsel-ing, Rehabilitation, and Student Development—KareshaWilliams Cole, Anna Harper, LaKeisha L. Harris, andMichael Hartley

Doctoral Level

First Place: Southern Illinois University–Carbondale—Cindy Anderton, Cathy Brock, Barbara S. Gambino, andDebra Pender

Second Place: Georgia State University—Danica G. Haysand Erin Mason

Third Place: College of William and Mary—Jennifer Dent,Allison Smith, and Lorna Tempest.

ACA Ethics Committee InterpretationThe ACA Ethics Committee is occasionally asked to render anopinion or interpretation regarding an ethical dilemma or other

ethical concern. The Committee was asked to render a deci-sion whether there are ethical standards related to structuralrequirements for counseling facilities (e.g., buildings and of-fices) regarding maintaining confidentially and client pri-vacy. The committee considered the request and rendered thefollowing interpretation.

Counselor educators and counselors in schools, agencies,hospitals, clinics, postsecondary, and other practice settingsmay be required to consult on or render an opinion regard-ing specifications for facilities wherein counseling is prac-ticed. The following guideline is provided to assist counse-lors in circumstances where they are called to render opin-ions regarding the construction or renovation of facilitieswherein counseling is performed.

The ACA Ethics Committee does not offer specific struc-tural recommendations regarding counseling facilities. How-ever, the committee asserts that confidentiality, privacy, andsafety are essential features of the counseling process. There-fore, facilities wherein counseling is performed should es-sentially provide for the basic protection of legal rights andfor the security, confidentiality, and privacy of students,clients, and patients and of the information shared in a coun-seling process.

In addition to guidance provided by the ACA (1995)Code of Ethics and this ACA Ethics Committee interpreta-tion, the Committee refers counselors who provide servicesin postsecondary settings to Standard E.6.a. of the accredi-tation standards for university and college counseling cen-ters (International Association of Counseling Services, 2000),which reads: “Individual sound-proofed offices should beprovided for each professional staff member and intern.” Inaddition, the Committee suggests reviewing the introduc-tion to Standard C and Standard C2 of that document.

ReferencesAmerican Counseling Association. (1995). Code of ethics and stan-

dards of practice. Alexandria, VA: Author.American Counseling Association. (2003). ACA policies and proce-

dures for processing complaints of ethical violations. RetrievedJanuary 26, 2006, from http://www.counseling.org/Resources/CodeOfEthics/TP/Home/CT2.aspx

American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA Code of ethics. Al-exandria, VA: Author. Retrieved January 26, 2005, from http://www.counseling.org/Resources/CodeOfEthics/TP/Home/CT2.aspx

International Association of Counseling Services. (2000). Accredi-tation standards for university and college counseling centers.Retrieved June 30, 2005, from http://iacsinc.org/uccstand.htm#E.6