Sub-standard 2.4 Upholding the value of doing no harm and practicing beneficence.
According to the National Association for Social Work (2015), this substandard requires social workers to avoid actions that harm individuals, groups, and communities. According to Kirst-Ashman and Hull (2010), non-maleficence is the way of doing no harm meaning the facilitator is recommending a course of action that is worthwhile or helpful. This means that doing no harm is the value whereby the facilitator promises to the client, group, and community members that their facilitation will not harm anyone. Practicing beneficence is when the social worker takes actions that benefit others by providing for their good (Higham, 2006). Instead, respect them and maintain professional boundaries ensuring that no harm is done. Additionally, social workers should strive to actively promote the well-being of people, empower them, and priortised their needs.
To demonstrate competence the student and the team heard the community's voice and decided to address the prioritised need the community is longing for instead of promising them something that the organisation will not be able to offer. To avoid harm in the community the conflict resolution team conducted needs assessment in schools through discussions with the teachers and learners and menstrual hygiene was a significant barrier. Then the students and the conflict resolution team worked together to provide sanitary pads for school children monthly ensuring that they attend school every day. Therefore, the team avoids the harm of conducting a project that comes out of their assumptions but rather attends to the needs of the school children. As this project was implemented, children and teachers showed interesting feedback through group discussion and evaluation forms showing that the project was helpful to learners they mentioned that ‘the project helped us because some of us might not be able to afford a pack of pads’. The student is certain that she is adequately competent as she demonstrated the ability to uphold no harm. Therefore, the SSW rates herself 4\5 working together with the WPDI team and stakeholders. For evidence, please refer to the macro evaluation and termination report section number 8.