Seeking Public Comments by March 31, 2026, for NASW Standards of Care for Suicide Prevention

This is a very needed and well-thought out document to spell out the role of suicide prevention and intervention for the field of social work. Thank you for all the work that went into this.

The document explicitly states "Although postvention is temporally and conceptually related to suicide prevention, assessment, and intervention, addressing grief, loss, bereavement, traumatic stress, posttraumatic growth, suicide contagion, and other issues requires a different set of standards than those outlined in this document." However it goes on to address the issue of postvention in several places such as "Social workers in administrative or leadership roles should be aware of safe messaging guidelines (bestpractices for communication about suicide) as well as variables associated with the risk of
suicide contagion and the components of postvention strategies". The resources it does provide for clinician survivors and postvention are limited, as the field is limited. This is a missed opportunity for Social Work to develop standards for postvention and how to help clinician survivors following suicides or exposure to suicide. We know that half the population has exposure to suicide. It is likely many social workers will lose a client or someone close to them. Standards for how to conceptualize suicide exposure and postvention are necessary.
-Julie Cerel, PhD
Professor, College of Social Work, University of Kentucky
Director, Suicide Prevention & Exposure Lab

This is a very needed and well-thought out document to spell out the role of suicide prevention and intervention for the field of social work. Thank you for all the work that went into this.

The document explicitly states "Although postvention is temporally and conceptually related to suicide prevention, assessment, and intervention, addressing grief, loss, bereavement, traumatic stress, posttraumatic growth, suicide contagion, and other issues requires a different set of standards than those outlined in this document." However it goes on to address the issue of postvention in several places such as "Social workers in administrative or leadership roles should be aware of safe messaging guidelines (bestpractices for communication about suicide) as well as variables associated with the risk of
suicide contagion and the components of postvention strategies". The resources it does provide for clinician survivors and postvention are limited, as the field is limited. This is a missed opportunity for Social Work to develop standards for postvention and how to help clinician survivors following suicides or exposure to suicide. We know that half the population has exposure to suicide. It is likely many social workers will lose a client or someone close to them. Standards for how to conceptualize suicide exposure and postvention are necessary.
-Julie Cerel, PhD
Professor, College of Social Work, University of Kentucky
Director, Suicide Prevention & Exposure Lab

Thank you all for your thoughtful and valuable work in an area of significant support and focus. Below, I have outlined several recommendations for improving the NASW Standard of Care for Suicide Prevention.

Personal Statement:
I would like to express my heartfelt appreciation for this timely document, which I am using to advocate for suicide reform. Tragically, my son died by suicide on October 7th, 2025. For professionals who work with individuals grappling with thoughts and feelings of suicide, the impact can be profound. However, as a parent, words cannot adequately convey the magnitude of loss and its effects. Despite this, I hope to transform this preventable tragedy into a source of advocacy, healing, and support for those who work with and struggle with suicidal thoughts.

Standards

Social Justice
When considering the role of social workers beyond the micro-level, I strongly recommend centering the role of social workers around advocacy for the enforcement of suicide prevention policies in our governmental institutions. Embracing reforms and interventions is crucial for systemic change and for advancing awareness, approaches, and knowledge. Unfortunately, suicide prevention efforts are compromised when policies are not followed or enforced. For example, when state agencies or organizations, such as county jails, fail to implement their suicide prevention policies, suicides occur. This underscores the need for increased advocacy for adherence to national suicide prevention standards, along with improved accountability and transparency.

Diverse Population Considerations (Section 4)

Military and Veteran Community

Members of the military and veteran communities face heightened suicide risk. While they receive basic training in responding with lethal force during conflict, they do not receive equivalent training when transitioning out of the military on how to adapt and readjust to civilian, non-violent life. This gap increases vulnerability and should be addressed in suicide prevention standards.

Older Adults (75 and Older)
I recommend adding protective factors for older adults, including access to animal support and green spaces. These resources can improve mood, provide a sense of meaning, and encourage physical activity, which are all important for suicide prevention.
Furthermore, I believe the person-in-environment perspective should be expanded to explicitly include the physical natural environment and its impact on mental health. Considerations such as indoor and outdoor air quality, access to green space, and animal-assisted therapy should be recognized as protective factors in suicide prevention.

Olabisi Oladipo, DSW, PhD (Social Work), Medical Social Worker, Nigeria
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comment on the NASW Standards of Care for Suicide Prevention. This document represents a significant and commendable effort to establish suicide prevention as a core responsibility of the social work profession. The integration of ethical principles, the person-in-environment perspective, and the NAASP framework offers a strong and evidence-informed foundation. Given the diversity of practice settings globally, including low- and middle-income country (LMIC) contexts, it would be helpful to acknowledge how these standards can be adapted in settings with varying resources and system capacity. This could strengthen their relevance and usability across different contexts. The following comments are offered to enhance clarity, feasibility, and applicability across diverse practice settings.

1. Minimum Competency (Page 4)
The document appropriately emphasizes that all social workers must possess a minimum level of competency in suicide prevention, reinforcing this as a universal professional responsibility. However, the concept of “minimum competency” is not clearly defined, which may lead to variability in interpretation across practice settings.

Suggestions: It would strengthen the document to include key areas of competency (e.g., suicide risk screening, identification of risk and protective factors, safety planning, and referral pathways) and to clarify expectations across different levels of practice (micro, mezzo, and macro). Alignment with social work education, supervision and continuing professional development frameworks would further support consistency and accountability.

Question: How does NASW define and operationalize “minimum competency” in suicide prevention across diverse practice settings and what measureable domains constitute this competency?

2. Scope Across Practice Levels (Pages 7–8)
The inclusion of micro, mezzo, and macro roles is a strength. However, the standards are primarily operationalized at the micro (clinical) and mezzo levels, with limited guidance for macro-level practitioners in roles such as policy and systems design.

Suggestion: Providing explicit guidance on how the six standards apply in macro and non-clinical roles (e.g., policy development, program evaluation) and including examples of system-level implementation would strengthen applicability across practice contexts. While micro and mezzo practitioners can implement the standards in direct and organizational practice, macro practitioners require guidance on how to embed these standards into policies, funding structures, and system-level interventions.

3. Postvention (Page 8)
Postvention is acknowledged but excluded from the scope of the standards. Are there plans to develop formal postvention standards or guidance?

Suggestion: Including core postvention principles or referencing forthcoming NASW guidance would strengthen the framework, given the importance of postvention in preventing contagion and supporting both clients and practitioners.

4. Ethical Tensions: Autonomy and Safety (Pages 13–15)
The emphasis on dignity, self -determination, and least restrictive care is appropriate. However, guidance is limited for situations where client autonomy conflicts with safety concerns.

Question: How does NASW support social workers in navigating tensions between autonomy and duty to protect?

Suggestion: Providing additional guidance or brief practice – based examples addressing refusal of care, capacity, and decision – making in high- risk situations would support real- world application.

5. Universal Screening and Feasibility (Pages 18 – 21)
The expectation that social workers ask all clients about suicide reflects best practice.

Suggestion: Acknowledging variability in practice settings and outlining how this expectation can be implemented across settings with different levels of resources and system capacity would strengthen feasibility while maintaining clinical integrity.

6. Collaborative Safety Plan (3.3 from Page 24 )
The collaborative safety planning model is clearly presented and reflects evidence-informed, person-centered practice. However, it assumes a level of client engagement and availability of supports that may not always be present in practice.

Suggestion: Providing guidance for situations involving ambivalence, limited supports, or acute distress—where full collaboration may not be immediately achievable—would strengthen applicability. Emphasizing the need for flexibility and adaptation of safety planning across diverse contexts would further support real-world implementation.

7. Implementation in Resource-Constrained and LMIC Contexts (Across Document)
The standards assume the availability of well – resourced systems, including trained personnel, supervision, and referral pathways.

Suggestion: Acknowledging variability in practice settings, including low- and middle-income country (LMIC) contexts and other resource-constrained settings, and outlining how these standards can be adapted across differing levels of system capacity would strengthen global applicability.


Question: How does NASW envision these standards being adapted or applied in settings with limited mental health infrastructure or workforce capacity? What guidance can be provided for social workers practicing in contexts where key resources, including mental health services and referral pathways, are limited or unavailable?

The NASW Standards of Care for Suicide Prevention represent a comprehensive, ethically grounded, and evidence-informed framework. Strengthening clarity around minimum competency, expanding guidance for diverse roles and settings, and addressing implementation realities particularly in LMIC will enhance the usability and impact of these standards across the full spectrum of social work practice.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this important work.