Reflections on the Ethical Possibilities and Limitations of Abolitionist Praxis in Social Work

Abstract

Since 2020, blatant forms of state violence within the United States have reignited attention in the field of social work, where numerous calls have been made to realign and reconsider our standing ethical values and principles. Individually, social workers are beginning to reckon with the field's role within the carceral ecosystem and reimagining practice outside the confines of the carceral state. Institutionally, however, social work's professional organizations have reacted in contradictory ways. The National Association of Social Workers (NASW) in particular has been overtly inconsistent; touting support for racial justice while also broadcasting long-standing support for and partnerships with police. Furthermore, the NASW purportedly upholds a set of professional ethics and values that center social justice while also supporting tactics that surveil and criminalize marginalized communities. This disconnect between espoused ethics and actuality of practice undermines the professional legitimacy of social work. The profession must either acknowledge the current Code of Ethics as performative or take action to bring practice into alignment with professed ethics that affirm abolitionist practices. Using institutional social work statements, this article presents a conceptual exploration of the ethical potentials and limitations of abolitionist praxis in social work, culminating with a call to action.

Introduction

The sociopolitical dynamics unleashed in 2020 have left us reeling but also brought forth a much-needed reckoning regarding racism in the United States. The murder of George Floyd and subsequent protesting catalyzed a critical public examination of the interlockings between racism, police, and community safety. Within this discourse, social work having a larger role in community safety has been proposed, reigniting numerous calls to realign and reconsider our standing ethical values. The professional organizations of social work, such as the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Council on Social Work Education (CSWE), and Association of Social Work Boards (ASWB) have all espoused support for racial justice; yet they also tout long-standing partnerships with carceral systems. These contradictory commitments surface in the critiques of social work engaging in practices sustaining carceral systems, such as probation, child welfare, and prisons (e.g., Jacobs et al., 2020; Kim, 2018). Such critiques call for social work to align with efforts to defund the police and embrace abolitionist approaches to practice. Penal abolition is defined as both a political vision and practice of creating alternatives to policing, surveillance, and prisons (Critical Resistance, n.d.). Abolition is essential to dismantling White supremacy as it aims to dismantle key structures upholding white dominance: policing that disproportionately targets Black communities, Indigenous communities, and communities of color (BIPOC; Braga et al., 2019), court systems that disproportionately sentence BIPOC (Richie, 2012), and prisons that disproportionately cage BIPOC (Nellis et al., 2021). Abolition is also inextricably linked with feminism. In Abolition. Feminism. Now., Angela Davis (2022) and coauthors state, “Abolitionist traditions have relied on feminist analysis and organizing from their inception and … the version of feminism we embrace is also not possible without an abolitionist imagination.” We uptake a Black feminist framework in this interrogation, which necessitates the abolition of the carceral systems as well as a commitment to racial justice.

While contemporary debates on abolition are multifaceted, this article addresses (a) why abolitionist frameworks are needed in social work and (b) the disconnect between this need and our professional organization's response, focused on the NASW Code of Ethics (COE). It discusses social work's willingness and ability to move away from carceral practices that rely on policing, and instead commit to abolitionist practices that have been upheld by BIPOC communities. Furthermore, this article interrogates whether the field as it stands is ethically compatible with an abolitionist praxis, questioning if social workers can ethically claim to be abolitionists in their professional capacity. Despite increasing recognition of the need for abolitionist practices, a critical inquiry of abolition's possibility, utility, and convergence with social work's established COE remains to be interrogated. If we do not push for ethical alignment, we risk becoming a profession whose actual practice is deeply misaligned with our COE, rendering those ethics entirely performative.

We begin by understanding the arc of statements released in 2020 by governing bodies and lead institutions that highlight the disconnect between our practice and values. Then we provide a historical and contemporary overview of the ethical commitments in social work, tracing how the COE was first conceived along with subsequent alterations. This contextualizes our conceptual analysis, through which we map the terrain of ethical contradictions currently being enacted by institutional social work and the ethical conundrums that result. We outline alternative, largely anti-carceral feminist, approaches to social work, culminating with a discussion around how the field may prioritize abolitionist pathways moving forward.

Summer 2020: A Series of Statements

Shifting funds away from policing, alternatively reinvesting in social services, was proposed by abolitionist movement leaders (Kaba, 2020) galvanizing institutional social work to respond. ¹ These responses illuminated ethical disjunctures in social work. Several leading institutions began responding to one another's public statements, revealing positional variance and fundamental differences in ethical interpretations of social work's role in the moment and society. We trace the following arc of statements to situate our conceptual analysis in relationship to this timeline of events.

In response to the murder of George Floyd, the Society of Social Work Research (SSWR) Policy Committee was one of the first social work institutional entities to respond, drafting a Call and Commitment to Ending Police Brutality, Racial Injustice, and White Supremacy, which was passed by the SSWR Board of Directors on June 4, 2022. CSWE also released a statement on June 2; however, this statement simply expressed sympathies to the families of those murdered through police violence and provided little to no commitments for action or future direction (CSWE, 2020a, 2020b). Following this, the Group for the Advancement of Doctoral Education (GADE) in Social Work in partnership with social work faculty released a statement on anti-racism, declaring solidarity with the Black Lives Matter movement and outlining the actions to deepen their commitment to an anti-racist future.

NASW did not respond publicly to the murder of George Floyd or address concerns around police violence until weeks later, on June 15. The statement they eventually released touted long-standing cooperation and partnership with police and criticized dissenting views, responding to a Wall Street Journal op-ed titled Are Social Workers the Answer? Following this, NASW released a social media post indicating support for the Trump Administration's executive order for more police training. This galvanized a flurry of responses criticizing NASW's positioning of social work in relation to law enforcement. Laura Abrams, Chair of the Department of Social Welfare at University of California, Los Angeles and Dettlaff, wrote an open letter on June 18 responding directly to NASW, calling on NASW and allied organizations to fully endorse the defund the police movement (Abrams & Dettlaff, 2020). This letter was signed by over 1100 social work professionals. That same day, NASW released a statement that now criticized the Trump Administration's executive order but neglected to advocate for defunding the police (NASW, 2020). Later that month, in response to the open letter by Abrams and Dettlaff, several social work leaders penned another statement advocating for a “both/and” approach to reforming law enforcement through continued collaboration (Bailey et al., 2020). This sparked a second open letter from Abrams and Dettlaff in collaboration with additional social work leaders Darcey Merritt, Jennifer Mosley, Lenna Nepomnyaschy, Sophia Sarantakos, and Shannon Sliva titled Affirming the Call for Social Work to Fully Support Defunding the Police (Abrams et al., 2020). This letter was unanimously endorsed by the SSWR Policy Committee but not endorsed by the SSWR Board.

Discussion of social work's role continued throughout the summer spanning various platforms, such as petitions, podcasts, blogs, and town halls. As the year progressed and the trial of Derek Chauvin along with the anniversary of George Floyd's murder passed, NASW and CSWE made statements expressing their condolences and commitment to “meaningful” police reform (NASW, 2021a) and anti-racism (CSWE, 2021). All the rhetoric used by these organizations continued to evade any endorsement of defunding the police. Cumulatively, all of the statements from social work's professional organizations endorsed reform, not abolition. Put another way, no professional organization of social work to date has taken a position in support of defunding or abolishing the police.

Mapping the Terrain: Overview of the Ethical Landscape in Social Work

The earliest edition of the COE established by NASW was approved on October 13, 1960 by the Delegate Assembly, a representative decision-making body comprised of members and the Board of Directors. The original COE largely focused on professionalization of the social worker (NASW, 1960–2007). It has been amended six times, the first amendment was made to address nondiscrimination in 1967, mirroring the Civil Rights Act (NASW, 1960–2007). However, social workers' commitment to social justice was not explicitly stated until 1996 (NASW, 1960–2007). Furthermore, a direct commitment to taking action against racial oppression was not added until 2021. This is articulated under the framework of cultural competence, stating: “Social workers must take action against oppression, racism, discrimination, and inequities and acknowledge personal privilege” (NASW, 2021b).

Although this article focuses primarily on changes to the NASW COE, there have been other “ethical shifts” in the field of social work since the 2020 uprisings. On June 26, 2020, the Grand Challenges for Social Work announced a 13th challenge titled Eliminate Racism, which would “focus on promoting culturally-grounded upstream interventions and prevention efforts that eradicate these advantages” (Grand Challenges for Social Work, 2020). The original 12 Grand Challenges were created by the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare to “champion social progress powered by science,” but did not include a challenge specific to addressing or eliminating racism. The challenges aimed to be a call to action for social workers in an effort to “harness social work's science,” collaborate across fields and disciplines, “gather evidence based on rigorous science,” and address “our toughest social problems” (Grand Challenges for Social Work, 2019). The program was launched in 2016 with 12 challenges ranging from “eradicating social isolation” to “reducing extreme economic inequality.” These challenges were purportedly guided by principles of social justice, inclusiveness, diversity, and equity (Grand Challenges for Social Work, n.d.). Although the creators of the Grand Challenges recently stated that racism was linked to all 12 Grand Challenges for Social Work as an explanation for their prior omission, they now reportedly felt there was a need to express a specific commitment to “eliminate the scourge of historic and structural racism” that would be assisted by new research avenues developed under the leadership of the Eliminating Racism Grand Challenge. Plans for the Grand Challenge include promoting evidence and practice-based research to improve the lives of those affected by racism, advancing community, empowerment, and advocacy to address and eradicate racism and White supremacy, fostering the development of an anti-racist social work workforce, promoting teaching and learning in social work education programs that examine structural inequalities and White privilege, and developing a policy agenda for eradicating racism and White supremacy from institutions and organizations (Grand Challenges for Social Work, 2020).

In 2020, the CSWE's Commission on Educational Policy and Commission on Accreditation was also in the midst of drafting a revised Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAS), which was to be approved in June 2022. The EPAS are the standards that all social work schools must abide by to attain or retain accreditation. The first draft of proposed changes to the 2022 policy was released for public review in 2019 with feedback sessions occurring alongside the 2020 uprisings. Changes to the draft EPAS following the 2020 uprisings included adding anti-racism, equity, and inclusion efforts into the competencies and curriculum, as well as efforts to advance racial justice (Council on Social Work Education, 2022). These changes occurred in large part due to advocacy efforts by several student groups who wrote letters to CSWE.

Along with the Grand Challenges and CSWE, NASW made small changes to their COE, approved on November 6, 2020 and February 19, 2021. These included explicit expectations for social workers to take action against oppression and racism, as well as engage in “critical self-reflection” and “self correction” (NASW, 2021b). Despite NASW President Mit Joyner's claims that the definition of “anti-racism” as explained by Dr. Ibram Kendi has always been present in the COE, the term “anti-racism” has never been present (NASW, 2021b). Dr. Kendi's definition of anti-racism is “a powerful collection of antiracist policies that lead to racial equity and are substantiated by antiracist ideas” (Kendi, 2019, p. 20). In a message to the social work community, Vice President of Ethics, Diversity, and Inclusion Hobdy (2020) stated that under the COE social workers must pursue social change, advocate for and engage in political action, and work to prevent and eliminate the domination and exploitation of any person, group, or class based on race, ethnicity, or national origin. Since 2020, NASW has hosted several virtual town halls to discuss anti-racist efforts and published a report and apology entitled “Undoing Racism through Social Work.” The report outlines a 2-year plan of action collaborating with other national organizations and social work partners, making public statements, engaging in national advocacy, conducting anti-racist training, continuing diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts, and following through with a policy blueprint for racial justice priorities. These priorities include improving access to mental and behavioral health, building healthy relationships to end violence, achieving equal opportunity to justice, eliminating racism, and advancing political justice (NASW, 2021c).

Despite these recent shifts in the NASW, CSWE, and Grand Challenges, there is much to be said about the lack of attention given to groups of social workers who have been dedicated to racial equity since their inception. The National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) was created in 1968 to address the “survival, well-being, and liberation” of Black communities (NABSW, n.d.). Due to the negligence of care for Black communities and lack of attention to dismantling racialized power within various systems, the NABSW created their own COE, which includes commitments to improve the social conditions for Black communities over personal interests, adopt the concept of a Black extended family, hold workers responsible for the quality and extent of service to the Black community, and protect the Black community from unethical and hypocritical practices (NABSW, 2021). Unlike the NASW or Grand Challenges, the NABSW constructed their ethics from a grounding in the principles of Nguzo Saba and the cardinal virtues of Ma’at. These include unity, truth, justice, purpose, self-determination, collective work, creativity, reciprocity, and harmony (NABSW, n.d.).

What then, is to be said about the decades passed in which the NABSW ethics were not acknowledged pointedly or successfully upheld by others within the profession? Which specific ethical codes and principles are prioritized in the field, and why. Why do we prioritize and adhere to the NASW COE? What gives it legitimacy? This provokes further questions as to why licensure requirements or curriculum standards are not steeped in ethical commitments unapologetically and historically dedicated to preserving Black life? The inability to truly prioritize ethical standards that are created with and by community may continue the cycle of reactive superficial principles created only in times of perceived societal crises and pressure.

A Web of Contradictions: Inconsistencies in Enacting the Ethics of Social Justice and Self-Determination

The NASW ethical value of social justice and ethical principle of self-determinationare two components that are most synergistic with abolitionist values and the NABSW COE. Yet, these two components also present the starkest areas of contradiction in application. The value of social justice is described as:

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. (NASW, 1960–2007)

Despite racism underpinning poverty, disparate unemployment, and discrimination, demanding racial justice is strikingly absent. The promotion of cultural and ethnic diversity is mentioned; however, it is notable that race and naming racism is explicitly not mentioned. This indicates social work's historic neglect of prioritizing racial issues and BIPOC communities.

NASW positions self-determination as an ethical mandate, focusing on the duty to promote the self-determination of clients (NASW, 1960–2007). It is first nested under the value of Dignity and Worth of a Person, which is defined as:

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 and to the broader society. They seek to resolve conflicts between 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.

This clearly lacks specificity in the definition and operationalization of self-determination. A second mention comes under Social Workers' Ethical Responsibilities to Clients:

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.

Social work literature has a general consensus on self-determination including governing one's own behavior, being empowered to self-advocate, bodily autonomy, and freedom from external sources (Ackerman, 2006; Wehmeyer et al., 2004). However, inherent in the description of self-determination under Ethical Responsibilities to Clients is a contradiction—self-determination is referred to as a right, yet it can be stripped from the client if the practitioner justifies it with their “professional judgment.” Furthermore, we must consider that many social workers work with involuntary clients through carceral systems of probation, prisons, child welfare, and more. This indicates a precarious gray area of practice, compounded by a gap in the literature concerning tangible operationalization and implementation. It also lacks clear guidance from NASW.

Silencing Dissent: Avoidance of Institutional Accountability

Despite the NASW claiming social justice and self-determination should be prioritized, social work often finds itself caught in a paradoxical tangle of contradictions. These contradictions not only impact the communities that social workers work with, but they also impact social workers themselves. In recent years, social workers have experienced tactics of repression and retaliation for speaking against the contradictions in social work. Following the release of their open letter on June 18, 2022, calling on NASW to endorse defunding the police, Drs. Abrams and Dettlaff emailed NASW CEO Angelo McClain with a list of the 1,131 signees to this letter, along with comments they provided in support of this endorsement. This email received no response, and to date, NASW has never publicly acknowledged receipt of this letter.

In August 2020, the Social Service Workers United-Chicago (SSWU), a group that organizes for “higher pay, better working conditions, and an approach to social work that centers liberation,” penned a letter titled The NASW Is Failing Us. Either It Changes, or We Will Change It Ourselves. In the letter, SSWU stated that amidst the 2020 uprisings and global pandemic, they stood in solidarity with their clients to “dismantle oppressive systems which harm professionalized care workers” and denounced the NASW's efforts for minor reforms, calling for collective action to address the “deep and pernicious moral rot within the NASW.” They also highlighted racist and oppressive histories of policing and presented research to the NASW, which continued to support social work collaboration with law enforcement. SSWU listed 11 demands, including an endorsement of the #8toAboliton movement, endorsement of student demands to remove law enforcement from schools, expanding social work training accessibility, and condemning the harm of law enforcement agencies using social service agencies grants. With over 1,700 signatures, the petition called for NASW to embrace abolition and racial justice, and to commit to ending carceral practices in social work.

In a podcast with Jonathan Singer and Mit Joyner, Joyner was asked to react to SSWU's statement. She replied that the letter “lacked primary sources,” making her question the accuracy of their conclusions (Singer, 2020). Furthermore, she stated that social workers should not have the mentality “if I don't get what I want I pull out,” and that NASW serves and protects communities. When asked about retaliation of social workers who speak out against colleagues, Joyner stated that workers should use respect, professional language, and do their homework when talking about a colleague or program. She stated that under her leadership the NASW would not be dissolved but expanded. Around the time of SSWU's letter, social worker Kim Young posted a sample letter on Instagram for demanding that the NASW take accountability for complying with oppressive systems. NASW responded by blocking Young from the NASW Instagram account. No acknowledgment or apology has ever been made.

Although these are only recent instances of NASW's lack of accountability, there are many other instances of harm to workers at the hand of professional institutions which have been ignored. Despite the fact that NASW has since offered an apology for social work's role in oppressive systems, they have repeatedly failed to acknowledge the multiple demands of social workers and the implementation of abolitionist practices they called for.

When Reality Clashes: Conundrums With Applying Ethics to Practice

While many discussions about integrating abolitionist practice in social work have been occurring in recent years, these conversations have yet to make their way into the professional, academic literature and are viewed as lacking empirical basis. Despite this, we identify several key areas of emergent abolitionist practices: transformative justice and accountability, abolishing family policing, harm reduction, and civic engagement. This section outlines (a) the ways social work historically and contemporarily has engaged in unethical practice and (b) potentials in advancing abolitionist practices, yet the limitations encountered regarding implementation. The disjunctures with social justice and self-determination in present-day practice are emphasized, while highlighting abolitionist efforts to bring practice back into alignment with espoused ethics.

Transformative justice and accountability

Social work has historically been a leading profession in addressing issues of domestic and sexual violence. Professionalization of domestic and sexual violence intervention was largely steeped in a carceral feminist framework, which positions more aggressive punishment and sentencing as a marker of success in addressing violence against women (Bernstein, 2012; Richie, 2012). Black, Indigenous, and women of color feminisms have critiqued this approach as overlooking disproportionate effects on communities of color, resulting in expansion of the carceral state without making women safer, especially BIPOC women. Social work scholar Beth Richie is one of the leading critics of carceral feminism. In her book Arrested Justice: Black Women, Violence and America's Prison Nation (2012), she examines how domestic and sexual violence service provision has fed the carceral state and criminalization of Black bodies, thereby revictimizing survivors. These outcomes do not align with social justice or self-determination.

Community-based transformative justice practices are emergent alternatives to addressing domestic and sexual violence in the field. These approaches divest from police as sources of conflict reconciliation. INCITE and Creative Interventions use community organizing methodologies for accountability and safety to address domestic violence. Creative Interventions (2020) released a 526-page tool kit, documenting their community intervention model since 2012 and findings. The Bay Area Transformative Justice Collective (a volunteer-run organization that operates outside of the nonprofit structure) uses pods, which are intentional community configurations that work to develop values, skills, and strategies for the prevention and intervention of child sexual abuse.

The above are just a few examples of a growing constellation of abolitionist-based approaches to domestic and sexual violence work. The NASW has expressed support for restorative justice practices, touting “reinvestment” in community resources and public safety reform (Wilson & Wilson, 2021); yet remains quiet on transformative justice, despite demands, we detailed above. This focus on reform and restorative justice is careful to maintain a relationship with police. Restorative justice practices have been critiqued for being complicit with police. Social work scholar Kim (2021) compares the use of restorative justice with transformative justice practices, noting the most significant differentiation being restorative justice allows for carceral accommodation and seeks to repair the system while transformative justice focuses on dismantling, transforming, and operating outside of the system. She is wary of the co-optation seen with restorative justice practices: “While legal codification may create a pathway to legitimacy and perhaps state and federal resources for restorative justice or broader alternative justice options, it can also serve as a dangerous entry point to a more facile co-optation by and ultimate control of alternative justice options by the very institutions undergirding the carceral state” (p. 317). Transformative justice practices demonstrate the potential for realigning social work's approach to addressing domestic and sexual violence with our ethical values. However, can social work implement these practices without falling back into partnership with law enforcement, thereby subverting the very premise transformative justice was built on? This would require the field, particularly institutions such as NASW, to cease prioritizing and supporting practices that maintain partnership with law enforcement.

Abolishing family policing

Since its earliest origins, the family policing system has been designed to maintain the superiority of White Americans while maintaining the oppression of Black Americans, first through exclusion of Black families when services focused on poverty relief, and later through over-involvement when services shifted to surveillance and punishment. While forcibly separating Black children from their parents as an act of racial oppression originated with human chattel slavery, today the family policing system maintains this oppression through the forced removal of Black children from their families at rates nearly double that of White children (Puzzanchera & Taylor, 2021). Family separation and placement in foster care result in immeasurable harm to Black families including poverty, houselessness, joblessness, substance use, mental health concerns, and incarceration (e.g., Bauer & Thomas, 2019; Courtney et al., 2011; Doyle, 2007). These outcomes then drive families' continual involvement in the system through the surveillance and policing that occur in Black communities. While the system asserts this is for “protection,” the outcome is the same—the subjugation of Black families by the state.

In response to this history of harm, abolitionists have sought to reconsider the care of children and families in society, through both abolition of the family policing system and recreating societal supports for children and families. Rather than a state-sanctioned system with the power to separate families, abolitionists call for funds to be divested from family policing and reinvested in families and communities so children can remain safely in their homes (e.g., Dettlaff et al., 2020). Ultimately, abolition seeks to build communities where members intervene, providing a sufficient array of community supports and interventions to minimize and address harm. In this way, abolition is not about simply ending the family policing system; it is about creating the conditions in society where the need for a family policing system is obsolete.

Despite all that is known about the harms to Black families through family policing, the social work profession has explicitly endorsed this system—advocating for increased resources to expand the scope of this system and increased the presence of social workers. The persistent support of this system is wholly incompatible with the COE, an incompatibility that was made even more blatant with the 2021 revisions mandating direct action against discrimination, racism, oppression, and inequities. Given the family policing system is a direct cause of discrimination, racism, oppression, and inequities—any support of this system by the profession of social work is an inherent contradiction with our professed values.

Harm reduction

Social work has a long history of policing the sexual activity and substance use of communities (Abrams, 2000; Wahab, 2002). This legacy has translated into contemporary punitive approaches to sex work, specifically diversion programs that have proven ineffective in reducing sex trafficking and exploitation in sex work (Global Health Justice Partnership, 2018; Wahab, 2006). This legacy has also translated into punitive approaches addressing illicit drug use, such as abstinence-only models (MacMaster, 2004). Harm reduction has been suggested as a means for more effective and just practice.

Harm reduction is an approach to community care originally benefacted in the United States by: sex workers, 1970s trans-activists Sylvia Rivera and Marsha P. Johnson (co-founders of Street Transvestite Action Revolutionaries), and 1960s racial justice leaders like the Black Panthers and Young Lords( a Puerto Rican liberation organization) (Fernandez, 2020). This approach emphasizes self-determination, bodily autonomy, empowerment, and valuing abolitionist frameworks—rejecting law enforcement as a part of the intervention. The focus is to reduce the potential of high-risk behaviors, such as unprotected sex and drug use, by providing resources and environments that support risk-reducing behavior. The adoption of this approach by policymakers and practitioners began in the 1980s with the rise of HIV/AIDS and concerns about intravenous drug use (e.g., O’Hare, 2007), marking a turning point. Harm reduction began to become a medicalized (thereby professionalized) intervention, extracting it from its community-based and radical roots. Social work literature and practice began supporting harm reduction as a viable intervention, as it aligns with espoused social work values and has proven more effective than traditional approaches (Brocato & Wagner, 2003).

The majority of harm reduction services remain focused on addressing addiction. The NASW espoused open support for harm reduction as early as 2000 (NASW, 2000). Scholars Andrews and Patterson (1995) attempted to create a protocol for social workers interfacing with pregnant mothers who use substances, drawing from the NASW COE. Yet, there is an undeniable stickiness when implementing harm reduction and navigating mandatory reporting requirements and few guidelines exist for practitioners (Vakharia & Little, 2017). This leaves practitioners with little instruction, specifically around navigating mandated reporting requirements while also honoring social justice and self-determination—another inherent contradiction. The COE supports self-determination; however, the way in which self-determination is written into the COE is within itself a paradox, stating social workers should only honor self-determination to a certain yet unspecified point, resting solely on their judgment of someone becoming a “risk to themselves or others.” Given the variation that exists among social workers' views regarding the use of substances, these judgments are likely to vary widely and reflect social workers' own values rather than those of their clients. Furthermore, the genesis of harm reduction was movement-based and community-led, intended to divest from state-embedded, law enforcement interventions. Yet, due to the mandatory reporting entanglements that are supported by NASW, harm reduction strategies have become an unnecessarily complex area of practice.

Civic engagement

Despite the field having deep origins in grassroots activism and community organizing (Abrams & Curran, 2004; Hansan, 2011), the intersection of social work and social protest is arguably an under-researched area. There are a handful of single case studies providing examples of social workers being agents of change in social policy (e.g., Bird, 2016; Shokane & Masoga, 2019). There is extant research examining the role social workers may play in collective action and civic engagement, detailing internal and external barriers to engaging in partisan politics or lobbying, and emphasizing policy advocacy (Rocha et al., 2010). However, there is a distinct gap in the literature explicitly concerning civil disobedience. NASW additionally does not provide any statements or guidance around civil disobedience as practitioners. The International Federation of Social Workers (IFSW, 2018) states the profession is a: “…practice-based profession and an academic discipline that promotes social change and development, social cohesion, and the empowerment and liberation of people. Principles of social justice, human rights, collective responsibility, and respect for diversities are central to social work. Underpinned by theories of social work, social sciences, humanities and Indigenous knowledge, social work engages people and structures to address life challenges and enhance wellbeing.” Again, no direct mention of civil disobedience against harmful structures that challenge human rights and liberation or actions rendered necessary to enact social change. However, the spirit of the IFSW's call to center social change is echoed in public statements made by NASW CEO Angelo McClain in the aftermath of the Trump election, evoking the NASW COE, urging social workers to “fight fiercely” against Trump administrative efforts to oppress people. These sentiments cumulatively support if not seemingly mandate social workers resist acts of social and racial injustice. Furthermore, the newest iteration of the COE includes a directive to take action against racial oppression, illuminating one of many ways institutional social work touts action-based language but stops short of endorsing real, transformative actions. By failing to endorse specific actions that can yield change, including civil disobedience, NASW's calls to action are hollow, seemingly in attempts to avoid any public scrutiny that might jeopardize its membership revenue.

Discussion: Prioritizing Abolitionist Pathways

Committing to an abolitionist praxis requires social workers to interrogate our normalized ethical standards, especially those that might inadequately address harm caused to communities and social workers themselves. Although there have been recent changes to the ethical guideposts within the profession, many social workers continue to question whether the addition of phrases like “anti-racism” or “racial equity” is actually being carried out in practice. These reflections bring to the fore contradictory circumstances in which social workers call for dismantling oppression while continuing to uphold carceral institutions that actively harm communities. In this regard, we question whether it is possible for social workers to practice mass refusal—refusing to take part in carceral institutions or harmful practices that perpetuate violence. As seen in the uproar around the criminalization of gender-affirming care and the separation of trans children from their families, it is possible for social workers to stand up for ethical commitments that are not explicitly imposed by our professional organizations but are still deeply necessary for communities to thrive (Yurcaba, 2022). Social workers' recent refusal to report youth who were targeted by the Texas directive, and their subsequent move to quit their jobs and file statements to legislators describing why the directive was antithetical to the COE, show that mass refusal is not just an idea but a strategic move.

A Case for Disruptive Social Work: Prioritizing Unionizing Over Professional Associations

Social workers' ability to unionize and strike has been difficult due to ethical tensions arising from the NASW COE (Morgan & Polowy, 2013). According to the COE, social workers can engage in “organized action, including the formation and participation in labor unions, to improve services to clients and working conditions.” However, the COE also states, “reasonable differences of opinion exist among social workers concerning their primary obligation as professionals during an actual or threatened labor strike or job action” and that workers should examine the issues and the impact on clients before deciding on a course of action (Morgan & Polowy, 2013). Although there is a lack of research on social work strikes, recent demands from social workers demonstrate there is desire to advocate for better treatment of themselves and the communities they work for. Social workers have recently vocalized a need to unionize and strike, demanding better working conditions, lower caseloads, universal health care, and ending imperialism (West, 2018). Social workers across the world have also engaged in direct actions. One article calls for a “disruptive social work”—radical social work practice that aims to “create political and social change by collectively refusing to cooperate with social relations and institutions that are deeply ingrained” (Feldman, 2022, p. 8). By taking up disruptive social work practices, workers would defy existing rules and authorities, empowering clients to advocate as well. This disruptive social work would include collective actions, mass mobilization, strikes, marches, sit-ins, and overloading the system to yield meaningful change. Abolitionist praxis calls for this type of disruptive social work, one that refuses the normalization of harmful practices and policies, and pushes for collective action and mass refusal. It is both possible and necessary to demand that workers stand by their ethical commitments, dismantling harmful systems.

A Case for Accountability and Authenticity in Our Ethical Commitments

NASW's Framework for Achieving Anti-Racist Social Work states that social workers should work on understanding White supremacy and oppressive logic, as well as evolve our workplace cultures, by holding ourselves accountable to addressing systemic racism and the root causes of inequity both internally and externally (NASW, 2021c). These forms of accountability start with the ability to be called in by the members who constitute the profession.

But if social work were to begin engaging in a process of accountability, what would this look like? Processes of accountability include an acknowledgment of harm, the consequences of that harm, and a series of actions to repair the harm. However, while these actions are important elements of an accountability process, or what Creative Interventions refers to as the “Staircase of Accountability,” it is important to recognize that the first step in this process is an immediate cessation of harm. Thus, for social work to even begin engaging in a process of accountability, social work must cease the immediate violence it is causing through its complicity and collaboration with carceral systems. Following the summer of 2020, the profession was faced with an opportunity to not only acknowledge the harm it has been complicit in through its collaborations with carceral systems, but also to commit to cease this harm. This moment in history presented an opportunity for the profession to publicly disconnect from systems of oppression and affirm that social work would no longer be complicit in the harms these systems produce—thus aligning ourselves with our purported values. However, this did not occur. Rather, the NASW publicly affirmed its support of the police in multiple instances and continues to support social work–police partnerships, an area of practice they refer to as “Justice and Corrections Social Workers” (NASW, n.d.). Furthermore, NASW continues to endorse a reform platform rather than an abolitionist stance toward policing, including endorsement of the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act (NASW, 2021a), legislation opposed by the Movement for Black Lives (Associated Press, 2021). If this were not enough to demonstrate that NASW lacks understanding of accountability and capacity to engage in an accountability process, we present their “Apology Statement” as a final example. This statement was included in their 2021 publication, Undoing Racism Through Social Work: NASW Report to the Profession on Racial Justice Priorities and Action. Within this apology, they describe a series of harmful actions the profession has engaged in throughout its history as well as its current practices:

One of the most persistent challenges to anti-racist practice within social work is the disproportionate impact of the child welfare system on families of color. Research shows that African American, Latino/Hispanic and Native American children are still less likely to receive social support services, but more likely to be removed from their homes during interactions with the child protective services system.

In acknowledging these harms, the report states “This is unacceptable and we need to make amends.” Amends that were never described. The report goes on to list a series of statements and webinars as well as reformist policy actions NASW is supporting. But most importantly, the report includes no commitment to end the harm and violence it is currently engaging in. An apology for harm while still engaging in the acts that cause harm epitomizes a performative response. To this day, NASW still supports social work collaborations with the police. The continued complicity of the social work profession in acts of violence and harm, and the lack of accountability, demonstrates that, despite individual social workers calling for abolitionist practices, social work at large has not begun to meaningfully consider or address the depth of problems within the profession. Until the profession of social work commits to ceasing the harm and violence it is complicit in, any process of accountability is not possible.

Conclusion

If this moment in history could not serve as a catalyst for NASW to stand against the police and other carceral systems, despite all the evidence of racism and harm, it is clear that the profession has little capacity to recognize the blatant inconsistency between our professed values and the reality of social work practice. At this point, it is clear that our COE is merely a performative statement intended to message a public commitment to justice while presenting the ways that social work facilitates and participates in oppression as benevolent. Yet what would social work look like if it were to adhere to our ethical values? What if social workers began to demand this and refused to participate in the harm and oppression endorsed by NASW? Furthermore, is an abolitionist stance within social work possible given the confines of the profession that have been codified for decades, or does an abolitionist stance for social work turn its lens toward the profession itself?

Finally, while this article has focused largely on the role of NASW and the inconsistencies between the COE and the reality of social work practice, we call into question both the legitimacy and power of NASW. There is a danger in calling on the NASW to bring about change as this perpetuates the idea that the NASW holds power. Rather, the NASW is an entirely membership-based organization, and thus the power lies among its members. Thus, this article is not advocating for the NASW to bring about change; rather, we call on social workers to recognize their collective power and organize for a social work that is not complicit in the harm and oppression that result from carceral systems. This begins by abandoning the NASW due to their complicity in harm. If social workers are true to our values, we can no longer endorse a professional organization that actively condones practices that result in harm. This is followed by social workers removing ourselves from the systems that are responsible for harm. For decades, social workers have believed we are needed within oppressive systems to bring about change from the inside. Yet despite our efforts to bring about change, it is time to recognize these efforts have failed. Change cannot come from the inside when it is clear these systems do not desire change. Rather, social workers must work from outside these systems toward their abolition. This will not only align us with our professional values, but also demonstrate to the public and the broader profession that our values are more than performative statements. For social work to remain credible as a profession, the time to act is now.