BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE
The American Counseling Association (ACA) Graduate Student Ethics Awards for Doctoral Degree Students recognize exceptional, demonstrable understanding of the ACA Code of Ethics — the foundation of ethical professional counseling practice. 

SUBMISSION DEADLINE
January 31, 2025 | 11:59 p.m. ET 

AWARD NOTIFICATION
To be announced

JUDGES
Members of the ACA Ethics Committee

PRIZE
The names of the team members and the names of the institutions of the winning teams will be published in Counseling Today and CT Online.

  • First Place Award: $100 honorarium and a certificate of recognition for each student team member. Complimentary registration for the 2025 ACA Conference and Expo, March 27–29, 2025 in Orlando, FL, and recognition during the event. Winners will receive further information at the time of award notification. The essay will be posted online.
  • Second Place Award: $75 honorarium and a certificate of recognition for each student team member.
  • Third Place Award: $50 honorarium and a certificate of recognition for each student team member.
  • Honorable Mention Award: Certificate of recognition for each student team member. 

 

Sponsor: The American Counseling Association Foundation

Apply Now

ELIGIBILITY, RULES AND CRITERIA

  • Each student team member must be currently enrolled in good standing in a doctoral degree program in counseling or counselor education and must be enrolled for a minimum of three credits during the term when the competition will take place. 
  • Each student and faculty member on a team must be a member of the American Counseling Association. 

Expand lists below to read detailed criteria for doctoral student candidates

  • A counseling or counselor education program may have one team of doctoral degree students and one team of master's degree students in the competition.
  • Doctoral degree and master's degree teams will be judged separately. Teams must be made up of students in the same level of a degree program. This is not a mixed-level competition.
  • Counseling or counselor education programs with separate and distinct campuses may have a doctoral degree team representing each campus. Separate and distinct campuses are considered those that have stand-alone programs.
  • A single counseling or counselor education program that has multiple satellite campuses is not eligible for multiple doctoral degree team submissions. (These campuses would have one dedicated representative in an accreditation process, representing the multiple satellite campuses.) 
  • Teams are limited to a minimum of three and a maximum of four students. 
  • Each team must have a faculty member who will serve as an administrative contact person for the counseling or counselor education program.
  • The role of the faculty contact person is to represent the team’s counseling or counselor education program only.
  • Faculty members should not act as consultants in the awards competition.
  • The faculty member’s email address must be their own, not that of a student. 
  1. Identification of the Dilemma: The team clearly identified the ethical dilemma(s) including conflicting factors, dimensions and variables included in the professional quandary. The dilemma was described in relationship to ethical standards, laws and professional ideas or aspirations.
  2. Proposed Ethical Action: The team proposed action it would take including having: (a) clearly articulated professional interventions; (b) persuasive justification for proposed action; and (c) a description of the professionally recognized decision-making model or process used to arrive at decisions.
  3. Use of the ACA Code of Ethics: The team cited appropriate sections of the ACA Code of Ethics (2014) and, if appropriate, other ethical guidelines considered in rendering their arguments. In addition, the team provided a clear rationale regarding selected sections of the 2014 ACA Code of Ethics and any other ethical guidelines cited.
  4. Use of the Proposed Model: The steps of the group's decision-making model were clearly followed and skillfully applied to the case.
  5. Overall: A thorough yet concise paper addressing details of the case and (a) the case study included proper citation of sources throughout the paper using the Publication manual of the American Psychological Association 7th edition for the reference list; (b) the paper was well organized and written, and information was presented clearly and concisely; (c) the paper cited the appropriate scholarly literature relevant to solving the ethical dilemma; and (d) the paper is no longer than 10 pages. 

HOW TO APPLY

  • Submit an essay addressing this year's essay prompt, found below.
  • Each team member must provide their American Counseling Association member number at the time of submission to enter the awards program. Incomplete submissions will not be accepted.
  • Registering on the American Counseling Association website to generate an ID number does not constitute membership. For membership information, contact the membership department or call 800-347-6647.
  • By submitting an essay, teams and team members agree to allow their names and essay responses to be posted on CT Online.

Expand list below to read essay prompt for doctoral student candidates

Sandy is a doctoral-level graduate student in a counselor education and supervision program. She recently completed her final course and is ABD. She is teaching two master’s level counseling courses for a CACREP-accredited program as she finishes her dissertation. Her teaching is being supervised by one of her current professors, Dr. Z.  Sandy is well-liked by her students, and she typically gets outstanding evaluations by the students in her courses.

Jill, one of Sandy’s students in a current class, invites Sandy to join her socials as a “friend”. At first, Sandy is reluctant to join Jill’s social media invite, but after discussing the situation with another doctoral student, decides it will be ok because they are both still students. After a few weeks, Sandy notices that Jill is engaging in “too familiar” conversations with her during class and citing conversations they had over social media.  Sandy notices that other students in the class are also noticing the dynamic between Sandy and Jill.  Sandy decides to speak with Jill privately after class to address the issue.

Sandy lets Jill know that she is feeling uncomfortable with how Jill is speaking to her during class. Jill is shocked by what Sandy is saying because Jill thought she and Sandy were friends. Jill says, “I didn’t realize we couldn’t be friends in class…and only on social media.”  Sandy lets Jill know that they are not really “friends” and that being added to someone’s socials is not the same as having a real friendship and that she is Jill’s professor and therefore, cannot be her friend.  Jill becomes visibly upset and leaves.

Jill decides to post on one of her socials that Sandy has decided to “end their friendship” and she is upset that a professor would act that way towards a student. Upon seeing Jill’s post, Sandy decides to respond to Jill’s post publicly and says, “Jill, I am sorry you are upset with me, but we were never friends because I am your professor. I agreed to be “friends” with you on social media platforms as an additional way to be supportive of you as one counseling student to another.” Jill does not respond further to Sandy’s post.

During the next class, Jill ignores Sandy during class discussions and on her phone during lecture. When Jill’s classmates ask her what is wrong, Jill states, “Sandy has decided that we are no longer friends, and I don’t know how I am going to get through this class.  I just hope she does not give me a failing grade because she no longer likes me.” Jill’s classmates are confused because Sandy has not “friended” them on their socials, and they are wondering why Jill is “friends” with Sandy on her socials. Jill becomes increasingly worried that she has done something wrong in her relationship with Sandy. Jill starts to have high anxiety over how the friendship on social media ended with Sandy. Jill decides she should speak with her faculty advisor about the situation because she does not want this incident to jeopardize her standing in the counseling program.

Sandy is scheduled to meet with Dr. Z for their bi-weekly supervision meeting and she is unsure of how to proceed. She is not sure this is something that should be brought up in supervision.