Our County Has A Memorandum Of Agreement (MOA) With Two Desi

Our County Has A Memorandum Of Agreement Mou With Two Designated Men

Our county has a Memorandum of Agreement (MOU) with two designated mental health providers to provide school-based therapy. They meet the specific requirements and guidelines of our state and district. These are the only providers we allow to meet with students and conduct therapy sessions during school hours. An intake process is completed and informed consent is provided by the parent/guardian. There is a private mental health provider that continuously tries to see his clients during school hours.

He has been told that he is not allowed to conduct therapy on campus. In response to this, he gets parents to add him to their child’s emergency contact list and permission to check-out list. He has been seen driving students around town to run his errands, taking them to restaurants, going to the park etc., all while billing the students insurance for the time he has the client. He is now picking up 2-3 students at a time and states he is providing “group therapy,” while he is billing insurance for each client. School administrators are encouraged to express concerns with parents regarding the amount of instruction lost, potential misuse of funds/bills, and inefficient therapy provided.

A number of administrators actually advocate to allow him to come because he often works with many of their “problem behaviors.” They have stated, “he actually answers when we call” or “I’m just glad to get this student off campus for a while.” This provider will also buy food, clothes, pay phone/light bills for parents/families, etc., so this makes it very difficult to explain to the parent the misuse of funds or substandard therapy he is providing. They see him as a resource and financial support to them. In addition to all of this, the provider's wife is a private, licensed psychologist who provides diagnoses and recommendations for therapy services, so most of his clients are referred to him by his wife’s company.

Paper For Above instruction

The situation described raises pressing ethical concerns rooted in the breach of professional standards, potential misuse of resources, and compromised client welfare within the context of school-based mental health services. The divergence between the designated providers authorized by the county’s Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) and the private provider participating outside these agreements exemplifies a complex intersection of ethics, legality, and institutional responsibility. This paper explores the ethical violations committed by the private provider, analyses the implications for professional integrity, and recommends strategies aligned with established ethical frameworks such as those outlined by Rosenberg and Schwartz (2019) and Brodhead (2019).

First, the private provider’s actions violate the core ethical principles of beneficence and nonmaleficence, as established in professional guidelines for mental health practitioners. Billing insurance for services not rendered or for group sessions that are not appropriately documented constitutes fraudulent practices, violating the integrity expected of mental health professionals (Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019). The provider's conduct of driving students around town under the pretense of providing therapy, while engaging in personal errands, not only breaches ethical boundaries but also poses significant safety risks to students. The ethical standards in the field explicitly discourage such dual relationships and dual roles, which blur the lines between professional duties and personal interests, adding potential for exploitation and harm (Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019).

Second, the ethical breach is compounded by the misuse of funds and resources. Administrators' allowance of this provider’s activities, citing the perceived behavioral benefits or immediate convenience, underscores a conflict between ethical obligations and practical concerns. Allowing or endorsing such conduct undermines the integrity of mental health service delivery, compromises accountability, and risks legal repercussions for the school district. Furthermore, the provider’s practice of buying food, clothing, and paying bills for families not only fosters dependency but also further misuses school or district resources, infringing upon ethical guidelines that advocate transparency and responsible resource management (Brodhead, 2019). Such actions threaten the trust placed in educational institutions' mental health services and diminish the perceived professionalism of the provider and the school district.

Third, conflicts of interest arise due to the provider’s familial connection to a licensed psychologist who facilitates referrals to him. This relationship creates an unethical bias where client referrals and treatment decisions may be driven by personal gain rather than client need or best practice standards. The ethical standards specify that mental health professionals must avoid conflicts of interest that could impair objectivity, independence, or professional judgment (Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019). The potential for favoritism, coupled with the provider’s disregard for established protocols, hampers the delivery of ethical care and jeopardizes the wellbeing of vulnerable students.

Addressing these issues requires a multifaceted approach rooted in ethical principles and institutional accountability. Firstly, the school district must enforce rigid boundaries aligned with its MOA, ensuring that only approved providers conduct therapy during school hours, and that these providers adhere strictly to legal and ethical standards. Regular audits and oversight mechanisms should be instituted to verify compliance, particularly concerning billing practices and service documentation (Rosenberg & Schwartz, 2019). Additionally, staff should be trained in ethical standards, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding student wellbeing, confidentiality, and resource integrity.

Furthermore, the district should establish clear conflict-of-interest policies, especially concerning familial connections that could influence treatment referrals. A transparent referral process that prioritizes client welfare and evidence-based practices can diminish perceived biases and promote professional integrity (Brodhead, 2019). It is also critical to educate school administrators and parents about ethical standards and the potential risks associated with unapproved providers conducting therapy without adherence to protocols. Communicating the importance of ethical compliance and the risks of misuse of funds or substandard care will bolster community trust and support for policy enforcement.

Finally, the ethical breach highlighted underscores the necessity for broader policy reforms that incorporate checks and balances regarding private providers operating within school systems. These reforms should be aligned with state regulations and professional standards, safeguarding the rights and wellbeing of students while maintaining fiscal responsibility. The overarching goal is to foster an environment where mental health services are delivered ethically, transparently, and effectively, ensuring that student welfare remains the top priority at all times (Brodhead, 2019).

References

• Rosenberg, N. E., & Schwartz, I. S. (2019). Guidance or Compliance: What Makes an Ethical Behavior Analyst? Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(2), 473.
• Brodhead, M. T. (2019). Culture Always Matters: Some Thoughts on Rosenberg and Schwartz. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 12(4), 826.
• American Psychological Association. (2017). Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct. APA.
• Scott, J. (2018). Ethical Considerations in School Mental Health Practice. Journal of School Psychology, 65, 107-115.
• National Association of School Psychologists. (2016). Principles for Professional Ethics. NASP.
• American Counseling Association. (2014). ACA Code of Ethics. ACA.
• Welfel, E. R. (2016). Ethics in Counseling & Psychotherapy. Brooks/Cole.
• Porter, S. (2020). Ethical Dilemmas in School-Based Mental Health Services. School Psychology Review, 49(2), 163-177.
• Kaplan, S. (2019). Addressing Conflicts of Interest in School Mental Health Practitioners. Ethics & Behavior, 29(4), 278-293.
• Thomas, C. R., & Grimes, J., (Eds.). (2017). Best Practices in School Psychology. Guilford Press.