Portal Submission:

Relevant background: “If an RBT's niece wants to receive services can they attend services in the clinic if they are not on the same team providing services? I've worked at other centers where families worked there and were related to or knew the kiddo they were serving. We’ve recommended they go elsewhere, but the second clinic is not feasible for them to travel to.”

Possible solutions: The submitter notes that a referral was suggested but acknowledges that an alternative clinic is not a feasible option for the client. They raise the question of whether ethical concerns arise if the RBT is not on the same treatment team and do not indicate any direct involvement in the client’s services. No specific BACB codes were cited.

Credentialing: Not reported

Committee Input (e.g., considerations for pathways forward, potential barriers, potential solutions):

Based on the information provided, it is unclear whether client services have been negatively impacted by the RBT’s familial relationship with the client receiving services at the same clinic. The committee acknowledges the potential ethical concerns that may arise when a behavior technician has a close personal relationship with a client served by the same organization, including risks related to confidentiality, dual relationships, and perceived bias in treatment (BCBA Ethics Codes 1.11, 2.03, 2.04, 3.01).

Although the RBT is reportedly not assigned to the case, their familial relationship with the client introduces a potential conflict of interest that must be actively managed. Even when roles do not formally overlap, incidental exposure to protected information (e.g., shared digital platforms, clinic space, or staff discussion) may result in unintended breaches of confidentiality (2.03, 2.04) or the appearance of preferential treatment (1.03, 3.01).

The committee recognizes that there is no specific prohibition in the BACB Ethics Code that prevents a family member of an employee from receiving services at the same clinic. However, it is the responsibility of the supervising LBA and the organization to ensure that clear boundaries are defined and enforced to protect the integrity of service delivery. If this relationship cannot be adequately managed, reassignment or referral should be considered in the client’s best interest (2.01, 2.19, 3.01).

Considerations for exploration:

The committee encourages the organization to implement the following safeguards:

• The RBT should not hold any supervisory or lead responsibilities over staff assigned to the client’s case.
• If possible, RBT and niece should not be scheduled at the clinic at the same time.
• The supervising LBA should not oversee both the RBT and the client whenever feasible.
• Access to records and documentation must be restricted and audited regularly.
• Clinic staff should receive guidance on how to navigate and report potential dual relationships.

If these measures are clearly documented, reviewed with staff, and monitored for fidelity, it may be possible to support this arrangement while upholding ethical standards. However, if concerns arise or the RBT’s relationship to the client interferes with objectivity or service quality, further steps should be taken to resolve the multiple relationship and ensure stakeholder protection (1.11, 2.19, 3.01).

The committee also notes that if this client has limited access to services elsewhere (e.g., geographic, transportation, or financial barriers), this context must be considered. In such cases, it is especially important that the organization demonstrate how client interests are being protected, and that appropriate protocols are in place to address ethical risks.

Additionally, it may be important to assess and document whether mitigating the situation is necessary due to the client’s right to access care—for example, if there are no other available providers based on scope of competence, geographic limitations, or other relevant factors. Alternatively, the organization should consider whether a referral to another provider would better support the client’s best interests and reduce potential ethical or employment concerns.

Ethics Codes (specific standards that could apply to support/oppose):

●       BACB Ethics Code 1.03 Accountability, 1.10 Awareness of Personal Biases and Challenges, 1.11 Multiple Relationships, 2.01 Providing Effective Treatment, 2.03 Protecting Confidential Information, 2.04 Disclosing Confidential Information, 2.19 Addressing Conditions Interfering with Service Delivery, 3.01 Responsibility to Clients

●       RBT Ethics Code 1.09 Awareness of Personal Biases or Challenges, 1.10 Avoiding Multiple Relationships, 2.08 Protecting Confidentiality and Privacy, 2.10 Sharing Confidential Information Only When Permitted

●       A.R.S. § 32-2091.12: (e), (o)

Additional Resources::

●       BACB Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts

●       BACB RBT Ethics Code 2.0

●       BACB Reporting Guidance

●       Arizona Behavior Analyst Licensure Statute A.R.S. § 32-2091

·        Council of Autism Service Providers’ ABA Practice Guidelines (Version 3.0)