NVASC Standards, Is The Conduct Of The Victim Assistance Provider Ethical?

1. Based on your values alone, is the conduct of the victim assistance provider ethical? Explain.
Yes, based solely on my values, the conduct of this victim assistance provider is ethical. It would be absolutely against my values to allow this woman and her two young children continue to reside in a home where domestic violence is occurring. I would make sure that my friend Betty is aware of the fact that these people are vulnerable and they need to have their location remain confidential but I would not share details of their situation. Additionally, I would make sure that the situation would be as temporary as possible until they were able to get into the domestic violence shelter.
2. According to the NVASC Standards, is the behavior ethical? How are the standards the same or different from your values?
This behavior could be argued either way regarding the NVASC Standards. NVASC Standard 3.2 states: “the victim assistance provider recognizes the interests of the person served as the primary responsibility” (NVASC Ethical Standards). Above all, it is the responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being the primary duty of the victim assistance provider.
However, NVASC Standard 1.1 instructs that “the victim assistance provider understands his or her legal responsibilities, limitations, and the implications of her or his actions within the service delivery setting, and performs duties in accord with laws, regulations, policies, and legislated rights of persons served”.
It is not the responsibility of the victim assistance provider to find housing for the client from a friend. It would be the responsibility of the victim assistance provider to continue to search for shelter for the woman and her children and to notify other authorities that would need to be aware of her sensitive situation. Confidentiality is essential in this
situation.
Overall, this situation is unlikely to be considered ethical by NVASC standards and needs to be avoided. My previously voiced opinions regarding my willingness to help this woman find shelter would be a worst-case scenario if no other accommodations could be provided and I believe they were at-risk of returning to the violent home.
Scenario 2: David and Emma
The ethical standard that applies to scenario 2 is NCVAS Standard 2.1: “The victim assistance provider conducts relationships with colleagues and other professionals in such a way as to promote mutual respect, confidence, and improvement of services” (NCVAS Ethical Standards). Although Emma, the victim assistance provider, is concerned for the safety of the victims that she works with, a public event that is commending the chief district attorney is an absolutely terrible time to address this “no drop” policy. Being a prosecuting attorney, David’s intentions are to keep the public safe. In no way is he trying to harm battered women.
Ethical standard 2.1 illustrates the need for mutual respect between victim assistance providers and other professions. It also requires that the victim assistance provider promotes the improvement of services. Emma’s concern for her clients is legitimate, she should address her concerns with David in a private meeting or in a way that will not publically question the public’s confidence in his ability to be effective in his position of authority. David and Emma are working for the same cause and they could forge an alliance and propose a solution to the “no-drop” policy that would be much more effective than humiliating David at a political dinner.