| Course | MSW 547 Equity, Justice, and Global Perspectives |
|---|---|
| Week | 5 |
| Paper type | Code of ethics application |
| Length | About 550 words, 5 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Chamberlain University |
| Program | Master of Social Work (MSW) |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for MSW 547 Week 5
Code of Ethics Application to a Ninety-Day Closure Order: Standard 1.17(b) on Abandonment, Its Operative Words Matched to Facts, Interruption of Services as the Standard That Nearly Fits, Mission Language Kept in Its Place and an Obligation Stated
Student Name
Chamberlain University
MSW 547: Equity, Justice, and Global Perspectives
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
Code of Ethics Application to a Ninety-Day Closure Order: Standard 1.17(b) on Abandonment, Its Operative Words Matched to Facts, Interruption of Services as the Standard That Nearly Fits, Mission Language Kept in Its Place and an Obligation Stated
The Instruction
On March 2, the program manager at my placement, a grant-funded counseling program for adults leaving jail, sent an email: because the grant pays for 90 days per client, all cases open longer than 90 days are to be closed by March 31. E., 31, is at day 84. E. began a new job three weeks ago, has a court date on April 14 and told me last week that the counseling sessions are "the one thing keeping me steady."
The instruction applies to every client in the program, but this paper concerns one: the provision has to be applied to a person, and E. is the person the order reaches first.
The Words That Have to Be Satisfied
Standard 1.17(b) reads, in part, that workers "should take reasonable steps to avoid abandoning clients who are still in need of services," should withdraw services "precipitously only under unusual circumstances" and "should assist in making appropriate arrangements for continuation of services when necessary" (National Association of Social Workers, 2021).
Fact Matched to Term
Still in need of services: E.'s own statement, a court date in six weeks and a new job, each a known stressor. Precipitously: closure within a month, set by a funding date rather than E.'s progress. Unusual circumstances: a grant's billing period is the program's ordinary condition, not an unusual one. Reasonable steps: asking the manager for an exception, and, if refused, arranging another provider before closure. Appropriate arrangements: a named counselor with an appointment, not a phone list.
The Standard That Nearly Fits
Standard 1.15 asks workers to ensure continuity "in the event that services are interrupted by factors such as unavailability, disruptions in electronic communication, relocation, illness, mental or physical ability, or death." It looks close, but the word that excludes it is "interrupted." A planned closure is not an interruption; it is an ending, and endings belong to 1.17.
Purpose Language Is Not a Rule
The Code's preamble describes the profession's mission to enhance human well-being. That sentence states a purpose. It does not by itself tell me what to do on March 31, and I do not rest the argument on it.
The Employer's Claim
Standard 3.09(a) says workers "generally should adhere to commitments made to employers." The word "generally" leaves room, and 1.17(b) is the specific duty in this situation.
An Obligation, Not Advice
Standard 1.17(b) requires me, by March 31, to request an exception for E. in writing, and, if it is refused, to transfer E. to a named counselor at the county clinic with a first appointment before April 14, and to tell E. both plans now. The manager approved a 30-day extension on March 9.
References
National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics of the National Association of Social Workers. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English
MSW 547 Week 5 instructions, in plain terms
The code application puts one provision inside your own paragraph and answers each of its operative words with a fact. Describe the workplace instruction concretely without identifying the employer. Quote the provision's working words and match each to a fact from the situation. Identify a standard that seems to govern but does not, and point to the word that excludes it. Keep the code's purpose statements separate from its rules. If an employer standard pulls the other way, weigh it. End with a stated position on what the provision requires here, as an obligation rather than advice. One provision applied fully earns more than several quoted side by side. Use a pseudonym and change details that could identify the agency.
Inside the MSW 547 Week 5 example
The instruction section describes a March 2 email ordering closures by March 31 under a 90-day grant limit, and E. at day 84 with a new job, an April 14 court date and a statement about the sessions. The words section quotes Standard 1.17(b), citing the NASW Code (2021). The matching section pairs still in need, precipitously, unusual circumstances, reasonable steps and appropriate arrangements with facts. The near-miss section shows Standard 1.15 turns on interrupted. A section sets the preamble aside as purpose. A section reads generally in 3.09(a). The conclusion requires a written exception request or a named transfer, and reports the 30-day extension granted March 9.
MSW 547 Week 5 rubric: what full points look like
Markers look for fit, not relevance. A paper that quotes a provision, describes a situation and asserts that the standard applies loses the most. Credit goes to operative words matched to facts, a near miss excluded by a specific word, purpose language kept separate, any competing standard weighed and a conclusion stated as an obligation. Identifying details about a real workplace lose marks. Citations should be to the specific standard numbers and in APA. A situation shaped until every fact fits is easy to spot; keeping an inconvenient fact and dealing with it earns more credit than a clean story.
Common MSW 547 Week 5 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Applications most often slip by stacking three or four standards and applying none. Another frequent gap is a conclusion phrased as what would be wise rather than what is required. Some papers treat a mission sentence as a rule. Others leave identifying details about an employer in place. If your situation fits two provisions, choose the more specific one and explain why the other is the near miss. An application that ends with what the worker must do by a date, and reports what happened, shows the provision actually guiding practice rather than decorating it. Read the provision aloud and underline each word that must be satisfied; each underlined word needs a fact beside it.
Get a MSW-547 Week 5 example written to your instructions
Send the scenario your classroom issued, the standards your section expects, and the length. A custom Week 5 example is written to that scenario and returned inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. If the situation comes from your own job, take the names and the agency out before it reaches us; the argument runs the same on a described case.
More MSW 547 papers and MSW samples
- MSW 547 Week 1: Who Owed the Interpreter Post
- MSW 547 Week 2: Obligation Analysis of Client Primacy
- MSW 547 Week 3: Right to Housing Framework Paper
- MSW 547 Week 4: Duty Conflict Write-Up on W.
- MSW 547 Week 6: Distributive Justice Write-up
- MSW 547 Week 7: Justice Argument Paper
- MSW 547 Week 8: Applied Ethics Synthesis
- MSW 548 Week 5: Financing Model Comparison
- MSW 546 Week 5: Client Feedback Review for V.
- MSW 549 Week 5: Pay Gap Analysis
- MSW 545 Week 5: Psychoeducation Handout on Depression
MSW 547 Week 5 questions, answered
The situation seems to break no standard at all. What then?
Write that, and show the search. A finished example can conclude that nothing in the code prohibits the instruction and that the discomfort the writer feels is real but unsupported, which is a genuine result and often the more honest one. Name the two or three provisions you tested, quote the closest, and say which word in it left the situation outside.
How current does my copy of the code need to be?
Current enough that the numbering matches what your instructor has open, which matters more than it sounds. Standards get renumbered between revisions, and a marker checking a cited section against a different edition finds the wrong text there. Take the version your classroom links to, cite the year, and quote from that copy rather than from a secondary source repeating it.
Does the employer get a defense in the paper?
It should, in a few lines. Instructions that run against a standard usually have an institutional reason behind them, a funding condition, a safety rule, a contract term, and a paper treating the organization as simply careless has argued against nobody real. State the reason as the employer would state it, then say why it does not change what the provision requires.
Where can I find a free MSW 547 Week 5 sample paper?
The MSW 547 Week 5 paper applying Standard 1.17(b) to a 90-day closure order, word by word, is reproduced in full lower down.
Why does Standard 1.15 not govern in the MSW 547 Week 5 sample?
Because it covers services interrupted by factors such as illness or relocation, and a planned closure on a funding date is an ending, which Standard 1.17 governs.