The Concept of Control in Selected Codes of Ethics in Social Work

Social work is referred to as an ambivalent profession which includes both assistance and control. This leads to a  number of dilemmas. As support when seeking for the solution to those dilemmas one could use the Code of Ethics for social workers of the Czech Republic. Due to the fact that its current form does not focus on the topic of control and that there are not many guides in the Czech language for its processing, the aim of this text is to fi nd out how control work with clients is processed by selected codes of ethics. In order to achieve the goal, we chose a qualitative analysis of eight selected codes of ethics. We have found that the codes examined can be distinguished according to logic – explicit use of the term control, legitimate/illegitimate control, contraindication of control, the situation of legitimate control, the form of control, and ethics of control work. This text is devoted to the fi rst four categories. It is this scope that could be used in the eventual consensus of experts about the new necessity to incorporate parts dealing with control into the Czech Code.


Introduction
Th e theoretical objective of the text is to fi nd out how selected codes of ethics work on the topic of control work with clients. We were wondering how explicit the term control is and what the logical approach is for working with control. Th e intentional choice of codes of ethics has led us to the partial question of whether we can fi nd a connection between the political ideology of a given country and the concept of control in the code. Th e purpose of the article is to develop the topic of control for the purpose of possible future innovations of the Code of Ethics for social workers of the Czech Republic. Th e fi ndings of the article could serve as a possible inspiration. Th e text is written from the critical perspective of social work which is logically refl ected in the theoretical anchoring of key concepts as well as in the interpretation of the fi ndings. Th e key concepts, such as control in social work, legitimacy of control, and the purpose of codes of ethics, will be explained fi rst. Th e research methodology will then be briefl y characterised, and later the research fi ndings together with the recommendations will be presented.

Control in Social Work
Th e Oxford Dictionary defi nes the noun 'control' as the power to infl uence or direct people's behaviour or the course of events and the verb 'to control' as to determine behaviour or oversee the course of something. 1 According to the Cambridge Dictionary, the verb 'to control' means to order, limit, or rule something, or someone's actions or behaviour. 2 In Czech, this term is explained as supervision, examination, management, or infl uence. 3 Using these defi nitions, control in social work can be defi ned as the power of social workers to direct or restrict some client behaviour, to control or infl uence certain events, and to oversee the behaviour or actions required. Control can be understood as a method, activity, or even the goal of social work. In this text, it will be understood as an activity through which the above power is realised. It is more appropriate to deal with activities in the plural given the fact that this can be a continuum of diff erent actions. Th e diff erentiation of this continuum of control methods is surprisingly not dealt with in the literature much. In the Czech context, perhaps the most well-known diff erentiation is Ivan Úlehla's four ways of controlling 4 which (in terms of directivity) determines the types of unsolicited communication from the perspective of the client (clarifi cation, persuasion, supervision, custody). Similarly, from a client perspective, three ways of controlling were identifi ed by Janebová and Truhlářová. 5 Th ey studied control and its concept in English written literature in the area of social work. Although they looked at control from a client perspective, we believe that the three categories of control found by them can be seen as general categories of control. Th e notional range of control actions was distinguished inclusively from the broadest to the narrowest and, at the same time, to the most directive distinction (the broader are a superset of the narrower ones). Th e broadest distinction includes all social work activities that involve any behaviour unsolicited by the client in the sense of words of Ivan Úlehla. 6 Such behaviour is represented even by a subtle form of control such as the giving of unsolicited information. A higher degree of directivity can be found in the case of restricting the self-determination of the client when a social worker decides on certain more or less important matters by himself (for example, Behroozi, Burman, Akademikerförbundet). 7 And as the most directive, they point out the situation where the client is forced to use a service that he does not want (for example, Willshire, Brodsky, Trotter, AASW, Trotter, Ward). 8 We were, among other things, also interested, in our analysis of whether and how control is understood in selected codes of ethics.

Legitimacy of Control in Social Work
Social work sometimes tends to perceive itself as a helping profession and forget about its controlling role. By doing so it idealises and uncritically sublimates its controlling role in society. If we perceive any unsolicited behaviour as control, it is even possible that the control activities will proportionally exceed the aid activities (client-requested). For example, unsolicited information (according to Úlehla, 9 it is clarifi cation) or unsolicited client motivation (according to Úlehla, 10 it is persuasion) are legitimate and relatively frequent ways of working with clients. Certainly, control is a very important part of social work and, as such, should be given the deserved attention. Th e legitimacy of control in social work stems from its commitment to society. Assistance boundaries are limited by the values and standards of a given country. A relationship with a client cannot be reduced to the personal level. 11 It is rather a tripartite contract between social work, the state, and the client, including the rights and obligations of all the participants. 12 Th e relationship between the client and the social worker is strongly determined by the country or state in which the social work is paid for and by its policy. A good understanding of social work presupposes an understanding of its functions within the framework of the state's functioning. Although the motivation of social work is undoubtedly to help others, its function also leads to the need of control. On the one hand, it wants to contribute to social altruism, while on the other hand it leads people to adhere to social norms. 13 It wants to help clients fi nd ways to live a satisfying and socially acceptable life but, at the same time, it expects them to meet certain conditions and it has the power to enforce those conditions through the law. 14 Th at is why social work is oft en referred to as an ambivalent profession (for example, Senior, Laan, Noble, Smith), 15 ambiguous (for example, Laan, Day, Hyslop), 16 dual (for example, Banks, Trotter), 17 double or Janus-like (for example, Hyslop, Janebová, Truhlářová), 18 with a twin (for example, Hyslop), 19 or with a double task (for example, Salamon). 20 Dealing with this duality is one of the greatest challenges in social work. 21 According to Peter Leonard, 22 the function of social work (in relation to the state) can be understood in two diff erent ways. From the consensual, respectively the structurally functionalist viewpoint, the mission of social work is not only to help people meet their expected needs but also 8 2018 to solve confl icts and tensions, to socialise people marked as deviant, and to create consistency between people and their social environment through their mutual adaptation. Th e task of social work is to control non-compliant citizens and to reform non-functioning social structures. In this view, control is seen as a legitimate tool to maintain the social order of society. On the other hand, if one sees it through the lens of the confl ict paradigm, social work is in the service of dominant elites and it serves to maintain their political and economic power over groups that are considered to be a threat to the existing power structure. Social work in terms of this concept does not work in the interests of those with whom it works but in the interest of the oppressive structures of the neoliberal state. 23 Th is view is typical for critical social work which may include both more traditional structuralist criticism and criticism from various post-movements. 24 Th ey have enriched it in particular with Foucault's concept of governmentality which explores governance strategies combining specifi c power technologies aimed at shaping the mentality of subjects in their day-today functioning. 25 When analysing codes of ethics, we draw on both points of view. In spite of our critical position, we strongly believe that even control can be a legitimate part of social work in some situations. Th is is particularly true in situations where, due to the incompetence or irresponsibility of a person or of contextual causes, people are seriously threatened, that is, if the person is fundamentally threatened by the behaviour of other people, or if the person fundamentally threatens himself, or other people. 26 At the same time, we accept critical social work arguments that social work is being exploited and abused by neoliberal ideology in order to discipline people in favour of the interest of elites. In practice, Loïc Wacquant 27 describes the gradual transformation of the originally protective function of social policy (and thus of social work) into a remedial function where more and more disciplinary principles penetrate into it. Th e help of the neoliberal state for people is increasingly conditioned by the fulfi lment of duties and the function of social work is then the supervision and control of the fulfi lment of these duties. Th is supervision is commonly referred to as welfare surveillance and identifi es specifi c forms of monitoring, controlling, and disciplining people who ask for help due to a poor living situation or other social problems. 28 Social work, in the context of welfare surveillance policy, changes into a control tool and its goal is to assess people's previous income in order to give them access to social assistance from the state -it becomes a gatekeeper of help (for example, Rodger, Kam), 29 serves as a tool for the depoliticisation of social problems (for example, Day, Rogowski) 30 forcing people to address structural problems individually, and it is also a tool for the politicising of non-adaptive behaviour (for example, Donzelot, Donaghue) 31 where it is entrusted with the creation or implementation of repressive measures and 23 Leonard's distinction dates back to 1976 so that, at the time of its creation, it did not include the lenses of poststructuralism and postmodernism. programmes against 'asocial behaviour' instead of the activities which support the marginalised, it becomes a tool for observing, evaluating, and sanctioning the socially weakest -especially the homeless and the poor for example, Gengler, Smith, Monahan), 32 it becomes an instrument of the visibility for the 'others' (for example, Janebová, Monahan), 33 and it participates on managing the workfare policy that, in order to provide fi nancial help, demands that people participate in precarious forms of work (for example, Keller, Dee, Mertl) 34 .
In connection with the analysis of codes of ethics, we will ask how the process of legitimate control was managed in those texts while, at the same time, how to prevent the misuse of social work by neoliberal ideology.

Purpose of Codes of Ethics
Th e presence of a code of ethics, according to Greenwood, 35 is one of the conditions for recognising some work as a profession. However, this outward motivation is not the only reason why professions -or their professional associations -are creating codes of ethics. Th e purpose of a code of ethics is generally to defi ne acceptable/unacceptable behaviour, to promote good practice, to provide criteria for the self-evaluation of members of the profession, to create a framework for professional conduct and professional accountability, to serve as support for professional identity, and as a sign of professional maturity. 36 In the context of social work, the creation of a code of ethics comes from the need to provide social workers with support and regulation of practice, to protect clients against the misuse of offi cial authority and against neglect of care, to have criteria for assessing the ethics of current practice and for assessing complaints, and also to create the identity and status of the profession in society. 37 Th e codes of ethics of social work in individual countries can vary considerably in terms of scope, structure, and defi ned relationship to other social work subjects. Olson 38 distinguishes three models of codes of ethics according to these criteria. Th e fi rst, brief model, is characterised by the basic principles of practice, which, however, lack a clear structure. Th e principles model uses a logical form: preamble/purpose, fundamental principles and values, and interpretation for principles. Th is form focuses on each principle separately and modifi es them in terms of a range of relationships that members of the profession may encounter. Th e relationship model that Olson considers to be the best developed is the only one that highlights relationships between a group or group members and other groups in society, such as the public, clients, or employers. Th is model oft en divides the code into sections starting with provisions such as 'relationships/commitments to... ' followed by a list of standards and policies for that relationship. Of course, the question is to what extent more extensive and detailed codes are a guarantee of good moral and ethical decision-making. In the literature, one can fi nd above all two criticisms of codes of ethics. Th e fi rst is based on the formal existence of codes of ethics where their origin is motivated by the desire of a profession to meet Greenwood's criteria of the profession and to strengthen its position 39 while, in practice, the professional group does not work with them very much. Th e second criticism, of which the advocates are mainly postmodernists in social work, is based on the detachment of codes of ethics from everyday practice. 40 Th e postmodernist perspective of social work points out, through a series of research fi ndings, that social workers practically do not know or do not follow the code of ethics, preferring the principle of personal responsibility in decision making (cf. Felkenes, Dolgoff , Skolnik, Landau, Christians). 41 For a possible innovation of the Czech Code of Ethics, there are, at least, two questions which could be relevant from the point of view of the overall concept. First of all, which of the three of Olson's models 42 should be followed and, secondly, how to ensure the deformalisation of the practical use of the Code of Ethics for social workers of the Czech Republic.

Methodological Anchor
Th e codes of ethics examined were originally chosen by deliberate selection, with an emphasis on the national 43 codes of countries that are considered to be the most aff ected by neoliberal ideology. Th at is why Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom 44 were chosen, that is, the countries marked by Esping-Andersen terminology as liberal and, as noted by Titmuss, as residual social states. With regard to the application aim (that is, to off er the basis for the innovation of the Czech Code of Ethics), the existing Czech Code of Ethics and the culturally-close Slovak Code were included in the selection. Th is was not the only reason for their choice. Th e statistical comparison of the Czech Republic's social protection expenditure with other European countries shows that while the Czech share of social protection expenditures in GDP in 2015 was 19.1%, the EU average was 29% in the same year. 45 Interestingly, the United Kingdom, which is otherwise referred to as a residual welfare state, was also within this average. Th e Czech Republic can be described, in this sense, as an ultra-residual welfare state (just like Slovakia, where the ratio was only 18.3%). Both Central European countries are possibly not perceived as prototypes of neo-liberal states. It might be due to the fact that the eff ects of neo-liberalism are not particularly discussed there rather than due to the fact that they would not bear the signs of neoliberal ideology (for example, emphasis on social cuts in the social area, eff orts to privatise 39  potentially profi table services in social work, fascination with individual responsibility and the assessment of people based on their previous income to the detriment of the structural causes of problems, the intermingling of criminal principles into social policy, and the transfer of resources from the social to the criminal system 46 ). In view of our critical position, we have also examined the code created by the International Federation of Social Workers, the Statement of Ethical Principles (oft en referred to in the Czech context as the international code of ethics), which we perceive to a large extent as anchored in critical practice. During the review process, the international code of ethics was updated to a global one on 2 nd July 2018 (Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles). Due to this fact, both versions of the code were included in the analysis. We also decided to examine the Swedish Code, which was interesting for us in terms of a diff erent type of welfare state (social democratic, respectively institutional). Although Esping-Andersen's distinction between the liberal, conservative, and social democratic models of the welfare state has started, as a consequence of the global expansion of neo-liberal values, losing validity (which the author of this concept has acknowledged), 47  Within the selected codes, we searched for passages that could be considered relevant to the defi nition of control above. We have used qualitative analysis techniques for the documents. We examined the thematic consensus among the located parts of the text which led us to the recognition of categories -explicit use of the term control, legitimate/illegitimate control, contraindication of control, situation of legitimate control, form of control, and ethics of control work. Given that the last category of 'ethics of control work' is very extensive and contains enough material even to publish a separate article, this text will only be devoted to the fi rst four categories of the concept of control.

Presentation of the Findings
Th e selected codes of ethics approach the work with control with the following logic. 49 Th ey admit that control may be legitimate under certain circumstances but in some cases they also state its contraindications.

Explicit Use of the Term Control
Interestingly, those codes that have more elaborated control principles do not explicitly use the term control. On the other hand, the codes that do not contain processed control principles use the term control (in the unspecifi ed sense) in connection with the ethical dilemmas of social work at the very end. An example may be the Etický kodex sociálních pracovníků 50 (the Czech Code of Ethics for Social Workers, further referred to as ČEK), which states in Part C that 'Th e Social Worker has the role of a worker who helps and controls clients at the same time' , or the Etický kódex sociálneho pracovníka a asistenta sociálnej práce Slovenskej republiky 51 (Code of Ethics of the Social Worker and Social Work Assistant of the Slovak Republic, further referred to as SEK), which includes (in section 3) among ethical problems and dilemmas the fact that the role of social workers is at the same time to help and control, or the penultimate version of the international code of ethics 52 (IFSWa), which in the Preface includes help and control into functions of social work. In the current 2018 version of this code, the notion of control is no longer explicitly used but the power position that social workers have over clients is mentioned (the possibility of control is therefore assumed implicitly). An exception to the more elaborated codes is the Canadian Guidelines for Ethical Practice 53 (further referred to as CASW 54 ), which explicitly states in Article 1.4.2 the principle of minimising the use of controls. It states that any decision restricting the civil or legal rights of clients must be taken aft er a prudent assessment of the situation. Also, the Swedish code Ethics in Social work -A code of conduct and ethical behaviour for social workers 55 (further referred to as Akademikerförbundet) works with the notion of control. It perceives control in a specifi c connotation of risk control and damage prevention.
Other developed codes replace the concept of control, for example, by terms of constraint, supervision, coercion, measure, or use of power.

Legitimate/Illegitimate Control
Th ose codes which do not express information about control explicitly assume (by conditions given) its inevitability and hence legitimacy rather implicitly. For example, the British Code does not contain an explicit wording about the legitimacy of control but control legitimacy under certain circumstances can be deduced from the fact that the code develops it in terms of its conditions and the way of its implementation. For example, the 2018 international code of ethics Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles (further referred to as IFSWb 56 ) is even briefer, which implicitly derives this legitimacy from defi ned situations. According to this code, the use of 50  control is appropriate (usually when there is a threat to the client or to others). Th e legitimacy of control and its illegitimacy are perceived as complementary phenomena within the framework of codes of ethics. In terms of the order of the topics, the rights of the clients are fi rst presented, and only then the circumstances under which it is legitimate to restrict those rights are specifi ed. Among the rights of clients that may be considered essential in the context of the control performance (in the relevant passages of the codes) is the right to take risks (the British Th e Code of Ethics for Social Work Statement of Principles -further referred to as BASW), 57 the right to an informed decision (CASW, AASW, 58 BASW, IFSWb), the right to autonomy and independence (AASW, BASW), the right to participate in the decision-making process (BASW, Akademikerförbundet) -some codes more particularly emphasise this right for children (BASW, CASW), the right to self-determination (CASW, AASW, IFSWb, BASW, Akademikerförbundet), the right to personal dignity (Akademikerförbundet), the right to privacy (AASW, IFSWb), the right to liberty (Akademikerförbundet), and the right to information confi dentiality (AASW, BASW, IFSWa, IFSWb, Akademikerförbundet).

Contraindications to Control
Some codes may, before defi ning circumstances where control is legitimate, still emphasise situations where control is not legitimate -that is, its contraindication (BASW, CASW, Akademikerförbundet). Th is contraindication is tied to the right to risk. For example, the British Code (BASW) states in Principle 2 that social workers are aware of the fact that people using social work services have the right to take risks. Th e Swedish Code, in which fi rst two parts are more of a discussion on the values of the Swedish state, addresses the contradiction of control in the form of rhetorical questions. In those, for some of the key values, there is considered the possibility of disregarding the value. Th ere is no such provision in the Czech Code of Ethics, but a similar principle is traceable, for example, in Výkladový sborník pro poskytovatele sociálních služeb 59 (the Interpretative Proceedings for Social Service Providers), where the right to reasonable risk is defi ned. It is stressed that given the fact that 'risk is an integral part of our lives and an indispensable condition for adolescence, providers should not seek to eliminate it completely from the lives of their clients but instead allow them to undertake some reasonable risk' . Similar eff orts to balance between adequate and inadequate risks were in the area of the social and legal protection of children but aft er criticism of the guardians for children and youth, the methodologies were withdrawn. Other segments of social work outwith the social services area do not have such guidance.

Situation of Legitimate Control
Th e defi nition of the circumstances in which it is inevitable to restrict the rights of clients is, in selected codes of ethics, linked to the consequences of situations where the rights, safety, and interests of people are threatened, where people need to be protected, or where people are threatened with suff ering serious harm. In other words, to act in order to restrict civil or legitimate 57

2018
human rights is possible only if lawfully justifi ed (AASW, BASW, SEK, Akademikerförbundet) or in the interests of higher ethical requirements such as a life-saving situation (IFSWa, SEK). Th e rights of the client may be limited due to other fundamental responsibilities of the social worker in the given situation -based on the professional liability of social workers, the responsibility to ensure care, the responsibility to respect the law, or liability to other service providers or other parties (AASW). Th e Swedish Code extends the situation of the momentary threat when it adds future threats. Th us, it legitimises preventive control. Th ese situations can be divided into those when (1) the client is threatening other people, or when (2) the safety of the client's own self is at risk (see Table 1). In this, ethical codes are consistent with theories of social work. 60

2a) Client threatens own self because of limited decision-making capacity 2b) Client is unable to protect own self because of limited decision-making capacity
In the fi rst case, the control (1a) is either used over those who seriously endanger or damage other (concrete) people, or (1b) those who threaten or damage society. Th e use of control over those who seriously threaten or harm other (concrete) people (1a) results from the commitment of social work to protect the rights (CASW, SEK, AASW, IFSWa, IFSWb, Akademikerförbundet), interests (AASW, IFSWa, IFSWb), freedom, well-being, dignity, equal value of all people, democracy (Akademikerförbundet), and safety (AASW) of other people, or to prevent the threatening of those values (Akademikerförbundet). Th e Swedish Code, however, points out that the content of the above concepts needs to be very clearly defi ned. Th e term 'rights' is included in almost all of the codes examined which may indicate that it is a concept that covers all others. Th e Czech Code also functions in this regard. It is characterised in paragraph 1.3 (by John Stuart Mill's paraphrase) as respect for the right of 'each individual to self-realisation to such an extent that there is no restriction of the same right of others' . Furthermore, section 2.1.4 deals with the possibility of limiting the client's privacy rights and the confi dentiality of his or her communications when other persons are at risk. Control of those who seriously threaten or injure society (1b) results from statutory requirements and conditions (AASW) or such control is applied when their rights and freedoms confl ict with collective interests (CASW). Specifi cally, the legitimacy of the Swedish Code is described as a legitimate characteristic of 'corrective' devices. Implicitly, it derives from a cultural consensus in Swedish society where control or 'public power' can be exercised over others in the interests of others (this probably means the control of practices of minority cultures that may jeopardise the rights of some of their members -such as women and children). Th e Swedish Code also addresses the question of the legitimacy of surveillance in the form of surveillance systems used in the social protection system where control is applied to certain groups preventively in order to minimise the risks (the response relates to the need to preserve human dignity).
In the second case (2) it is advisable to apply control in (2a) the interest of the client's own self -that is, of those who seriously endanger or harm themselves due to limited or worsened decision-making capacity (CASW), or (2b) of those who, for similar causes, are not able to protect themselves (CASW). Most codes do not distinguish these two situations (BASW, Akademikerförbundet, IFSWa, IFSWb, AASW, SEK, ČEK). In both cases, the aim of control is to prevent even more damage to them (CASW). Th e Canadian Code is more specifi c in this case when it defi nes a situation where the client intends to harm his or her own self (2a) or the adult client is abused by another person (2b). According to the Canadian Code, capacity can be understood as the ability to understand information relevant to the decision and as the ability to reasonably judge the foreseeable consequences of choosing, that is, whether to act or not to act (it always applies specifi cally to each situational decision, which means that one and the same person may be able to decide on a place of residence but not on the mode of treatment, and this ability may vary over time). Th e Australian Code even exhaustively defi nes the possible causes of such reduced capacity due to vulnerability, disability, age, dependence, language, religion, or culture of the client. Th e purpose is to protect the clientespecially his or her rights (AASW), interests (AASW, Akademikerförbundet), and safety (AASW, BASW). Th e Czech Code, in section 2.1.4, deals with the possibility of limiting the client's right to privacy and the confi dentiality of his or her statement. It refers to the situation of persons who do not have full legal capacity (especially minors). It therefore works with concepts that no longer exist legally as a result of the amendment to the Civil Code.

Forms of Control
Controlling actions (to which social workers may be entitled) may be defi ned in general terms -such as the client is subject to oversight and limitation (Akademikerförbundet), limitation of legal and civil rights (BASW, CASW, AASW), legal or other coercion (AASW), legal measures, standards of practice and workplace policy (CASW, SEK) -without specifi cation of what kind of rights, restrictions, supervision, or coercion it is. Th e Australian Code mentions the concept of control as 'the use of informal power or coercive power' which indicates that control does not necessarily have to derive from legitimate authorisations (but what is meant by informal power is not clarifi ed). As a rule, the defi nition of control is given in the introduction of passages dedicated to control. Later, restrictions on specifi c rights, which can be limited in defi ned cases, are more specifi cally formulated. From the point of view of the above defi ned three categories of control (given by Janebová and Truhlářová), 61 control was understood in the sense of the least directive concept -as a speech act not wanted by a client. It was implicitly discussed only in the Swedish and Slovak Codes in two senses. In the Swedish Code, this was done in relation to the value of sincerity. It is written there that not all things which one can say has to be said. Th e need to say some things must always be judged according the situation. Th us, control may take the form of a speech act (in the form of questions or comments) which draws the attention of the client to the values and standards of the Swedish state.
As control in terms of providing unsolicited information, it is sometimes possible to understand situations where it is necessary to familiarise the client with the conditions and obligations that must be met in order to obtain available resources (SEK, Akademikerförbundet). Clients are not always interested in such information, so it can be understood in Úlehla's 62 sense as clarifi cation.
Most codes allow, in defi ned situations, the restriction of the right to self-determination (CASW, Akademikerförbundet, IFSWa, IFSWb, AASW). Self-determination can be seen as the key value of social work. It concerns the right of the client to self-determination and freedom of choice without the intervention of others (CASW). Th e limited right of self-determination can be described in various ways. For example, through negotiation without the client's consent -in the case of self-harm (AASW) or in the case of a risk of greater harm to the client (BASW), or as 'acting in the name of the client' , that is, in his or her interest (AASW). It can be related to a hearing without closed informed consent or against the agreement. Th e term 'informed consent' has a wider meaning in English than in Czech, where it is understood as a form of consent to perform a particular act, to provide a service, 63 and to process personal data in accordance with Act No. 101/2000 Coll., On the protection of personal data. It rather corresponds to the Czech expressions used for an agreement or contract. Th e Canadian Code defi nes it as a voluntary agreement that has been reached with a competent client and it is based on information about the foreseeable risks and benefi ts associated with this agreement. Restrictions on self-determination are also understood as limited participation (Akademikerförbundet, AASW), limited autonomy (AASW), or limited decision-making (CASW). Th e notion of participation is more about the decision-making process as seen in an earlier version of the IFSWa Code, which defi nes it as the 'full involvement and participation of people using social work services which lead to their empowerment in all aspects of decision-making and activities infl uencing their lives' . On the other hand, the term autonomy is not explained in the codes but, with the use of theory, it can be defi ned as the ability of the client to function independently and as independence from inadmissible infl uence or control by others. 64 Consequently, this concept refers to the target state -specifi cally to the behaviour of the client and it is therefore appropriate to distinguish limited self-determination in relation to participation and in relation to autonomy. Th e third control approach is expressed through an 'involuntary client' (CASW, AASW). Involuntary clients are considered to be people who have not voluntarily decided to use the service or who are actively refusing to use a service ordered by the court which results in some other legal punishment (AASW). Th is point is also addressed by the Slovak Code, which mentions possible restrictions resulting from the denial of service. Certain forms of control were more diffi cult to classify into the three categories created by Janebová and Truhlářová. 65 For example, the Swedish Code permits the possibility of limiting the freedom of the client but does not specify this option. Th is right overlaps, to a certain extent, with the right to self-determination but while the value of self-determination is more related to the right to decide, freedom restrictions can apply not only to freedom of decision but also to measures restricting the movement of the client. As the Swedish Code deals with the question of control in correctional facilities, it may refer to the second meaning. Similarly, the Australian and Czech codes assume the possibility of privacy restrictions but none of them further specifi es this area. Privacy can thus be perceived as a specifi c limitation of the client's self-determination in this one area. Th e situation where it is necessary to break confi dentiality can also be understood as control (ČEK, CASW, IFSWa, IFSWb, SEK). For example, the Canadian Code accepts such behaviour when there is a risk of delay in the case of self-harm, or current mental or health conditions. However, this kind of control can also be related to a limited self-determination when it is acted without consent or against an arrangement with the client in a specifi c area of confi dentiality. Th e forms of control found in the codes of ethics examined are shown in Table 2. It compares them to the categories found by Janebová and Truhlářová. 66 Control as ordered cooperation. Control as ordered cooperation: Regulation requiring one to use the social work service, Sanctions linked to the refusal of cooperation.
-Control as a restriction on freedom of movement.
-Control as a privacy limitation. -

Control as a breach of confi dentiality.
Th e table does not seem to identify exhaustively all forms of control, and other similar analyses are likely to fi nd other types of control not recognised here. Th e individual forms of control cannot be perceived as distinctly separate. On the contrary, it can be assumed that one controlling action can, in many cases, belong to several of the forms mentioned here.

Conclusion and Discussion
Th e analysis has shown that the codes of ethics under review deal with control, mostly in terms of situations where control becomes legitimate, and in terms of possible forms of control. Much more attention is paid to control in countries where the tradition of social work has not been interrupted. Th e Czech and, to a large extent, Slovak Codes of Ethics do not deal with control in detail, which, in our opinion, also means that they may not fully fulfi l the purpose of the code of ethics -to be a support for social workers in ethically controversial situations. Given that the control area is signifi cantly riskier in terms of the consequences of ethical mistakes, we perceive the state of the Czech Code of Ethics as largely unsuitable. Th e formulation of the links between the type of the country and the access to the code of ethics requires caution. Th e following hypothesis should be considered somewhat loosely but it seems as if the explicit use of the term control was less acceptable in countries where social workers more refl ect the eff ects of neoliberal ideology on social work (Australia, Britain), and most acceptable in countries with an interrupted tradition of social work (Czech Republic, Slovakia). It could mean that social workers in Australia and Canada, who are renowned for their welfare surveillance policy, are aware of the infl uence of neoliberal ideology on their profession and designed the code as support against this ideology. On the contrary, in the Czech Republic and in Slovakia, where the refl ection of the infl uence of neoliberalism is minimal, the use of such a controversial term as control is not considered problematic. Th e outcome which says that neo-liberal countries such as Australia and Canada consider control to be legitimate if the client seriously threatens or damages society or collective interests may lead to a completely contradictory hypothesis. However, these legitimate control terms are quite vague and ambiguous (in legal terminology they are referred to as 'vague legal terms') so they can be misused in the interest of those who have power. At the same time, however, due to their fl exibility, they are the only possible way of describing complex interpersonal relationships and their precise defi nition could be even riskier in terms of the impact of those codes. Similar to legal terminology, the terminology of codes of ethics will probably have to rely on the fact that ethical interpretation requires a certain degree of freedom. 67 In the case of the Australian Code, it is also very questionable if it includes the client's culture among the possible causes of the reduced capacity of clients which legitimise control. Th is controversy is increasing, for example, in connection with the controversial income management programme (controlled consumption of benefi ts), 68 which includes the Australian native population, based on its cultural diversity. 69 On the other hand, control legitimised by collective interests and collective welfare is also a strong issue in the Swedish Code, which still strongly refl ects the character of the Swedish welfare state. It appears to be aff ected by the integration of people from other cultures into Swedish society more than by the eff ects of neoliberalism.
In the codes, relatively low explicit attention was paid to the risk of the misuse of control in Foucault's sense of control -in the sense of the control of normality and unsolicited moralising which aims to manipulate clients into the role of the investigator and potentially the cause of the problem. It is precisely the question of the delicate mechanisms of disciplinary power through which social workers distinguish between, for a neo-liberal state, the deserving and the undeserving people. In the end, the latter must either obey or be punished by exclusion from their entitlement. Th is question, in our view, should be refl ected in the codes more strongly. Th e question of whether the higher pressure of neoliberal ideology leads social workers (when dealing with control activities) towards resistance towards their code of ethics or, conversely, towards adaptation to their 'meal ticket' , we are not able to respond (due to the small size of our probe). In the control passages, it was not possible to fi nd demonstrable diff erences between the codes of ethics from diff erent ideological contexts. However, we can use it if we want to urge Czech social workers to think about the pressures they are increasingly exposed to when they innovate their Code of Ethics, and about the commitment of social work to clients. At the same time, perhaps the panic regarding the neoliberal revolution in social work should not paralyse them so much as to submit to the control in the Czech Code of Ethics completely. Control will always be a legitimate part of social work even from a critical perspective of social work. Th erefore, it should be dealt with in such a way that social workers can receive their guidance and support, and, at the same time, that social work can defend itself against exploitation and abuse in the interest of capital.