The BACB Ethics Code, in Plain English

The BACB’s Ethics Department processed 1,454 Notices of Alleged Violation in 2025 and reports issuing a final decision — no further action, disciplinary determination, or interim determination — on average within 22 days. That figure comes from the February 2026 BACB Newsletter.

This is an explainer, not legal advice, and it is not a substitute for reading the Code. Where a standard matters we quote it, because the BACB’s own guidance is that “when interpreting and applying a standard, it is critical to attend to its specific wording and function.”

What the Code is and who it binds

The Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts went into effect January 1, 2022, replacing the Professional and Ethical Compliance Code for Behavior Analysts (2014). Per the BACB’s Ethics Codes page, it “outlines the ethics standards to which BCaBA and BCBA certificants and applicants and Authorized Continuing Education providers must adhere.” RBTs follow a separate document, the RBT Ethics Code (2.0), which took effect the same day.

Two scope points are commonly missed. First, the Code covers far more than direct service: it “applies to behavior analysts in all of their professional activities, including direct service delivery, consultation, supervision, training, management, editorial and peer-review activities, research,” across settings and delivery modes including phone, email, text, and video. Second, it can reach personal conduct — but only where “it is determined that the behavior clearly poses a potential risk to the health and safety of clients, stakeholders, supervisees, or trainees.”

The BACB also states that “the BACB does not have separate jurisdiction over organizations or corporations.” Enforcement lands on the individual certificant, which is why several standards tell you what to do when your employer is the problem.

The structure

Four core principles sit above the standards: behavior analysts should benefit others, treat others with compassion, dignity, and respect, behave with integrity, and ensure their own competence. These are interpretive, not separately enforceable: “Behavior analysts should use these principles to interpret and apply the standards in the Code.”

Below them are 85 numbered standards in six sections:

Section	Title	Standards
1	Responsibility as a Professional	16 (1.01–1.16)
2	Responsibility in Practice	19 (2.01–2.19)
3	Responsibility to Clients and Stakeholders	16 (3.01–3.16)
4	Responsibility to Supervisees and Trainees	12 (4.01–4.12)
5	Responsibility in Public Statements	11 (5.01–5.11)
6	Responsibility in Research	11 (6.01–6.11)

Two framing rules bracket the whole document. “Lack of awareness or misunderstanding of an ethics standard is not a defense against an alleged ethics violation.” And the list is not exhaustive: “the absence of a particular behavior or type of conduct from the Code standards does not indicate that such behavior or conduct is ethical or unethical.”

Where practitioners actually get caught

The BACB’s most recent published enforcement breakdown is A Summary of Ethics Violations and Code-Enforcement Activities: 2019–2021. One caveat matters a great deal: that period predates the current Code. It covers the PECC, so the standard numbers in it do not map onto today’s numbering. It is still the best published evidence of what behavior draws enforcement.

In that window, 1,263 Notices met the criteria for processing. Of the 91 fully processed disciplinary matters involving BCaBAs and BCBAs, the most common substantiated categories were:

Violation category	Substantiated violations
Professionalism and integrity	66
Failure to report or respond to the BACB as required	39
Improper or inadequate supervision or delegation	22
Failure to maintain adequate or accurate records	21
Responsibility to clients	14
Nonsexual multiple or exploitive relationship	7
Inaccurate or dishonest information in obtaining or maintaining certification	7
Improperly discontinuing or transitioning services	5

The report notes that “although there were only 91 Notices, many of them included multiple violations.” Separately, in the lower-severity Education System, BCBAs and BCaBAs most often received coaching or required actions for improper discontinuation or transition of services, improper or inadequate supervision or delegation, nonsexual multiple or exploitative relationships, lack of professionalism and integrity, failure to report critical events, improper use of testimonials, and failure to maintain client confidentiality.

Read against the current Code, four clusters account for most of that.

Multiple relationships (1.11–1.14)

Standard 1.11 does not merely discourage dual relationships. It requires behavior analysts to “avoid entering into or creating multiple relationships, including professional, personal, and familial relationships with clients and colleagues,” to communicate the risks, and to “continually monitor for the development of multiple relationships.” When one arises and cannot be resolved immediately, the requirement is safeguards plus a plan to eventually resolve it — and “behavior analysts document all actions taken in this circumstance and the eventual outcomes.”

The specific rules people trip over:

• 1.12 sets a hard dollar figure. No gifts to or from clients, stakeholders, supervisees, or trainees “with a monetary value of more than $10 US dollars,” and clients must be told about this at the onset of the professional relationship. Repeated small gifts can still violate the standard if they “become a regularly expected source of income or value.”
• 1.14 sets waiting periods: no romantic or sexual relationships with current clients, stakeholders, trainees or supervisees; a minimum of two years after the professional relationship ends for former clients or stakeholders; for former supervisees or trainees, until the parties can document all professional duties are complete; and no accepting a former romantic partner as a supervisee “until at least six months after the relationship has ended.”
• 1.13 prohibits coercing or exploiting “persons over whom they have authority (e.g., evaluative, supervisory).”

Social media and public statements (5.02, 5.07, 5.08, 5.10, 5.11)

Standard 5.10 draws a line most clinicians can act on immediately. Client information and digital content may never go on a personal account or website. On a professional account, four things are required for every single publication: informed consent obtained beforehand; a disclaimer that consent was obtained and that the content “should not be captured and reused without express permission”; publication “in a manner that reduces the potential for sharing”; and efforts to prevent and correct misuse, “documenting all actions taken and the eventual outcomes.” The standard also requires frequent monitoring of your own accounts for accuracy.

5.11 extends the consent-and-disclaimer requirement to any digital content shared publicly, and adds the employer clause: if your organization violates the standard, you must make “reasonable efforts to remediate the situation, documenting all actions taken.”

5.07 bans soliciting testimonials from current clients or stakeholders for advertising, “because of the possibility of undue influence and implicit coercion.” Unsolicited reviews you cannot control are not violations, but “such content should not be used or shared by the behavior analyst.” 5.08 permits soliciting former-client testimonials only if they are labeled solicited or unsolicited, state the relationship accurately, and the person is told where and how the testimonial will appear and what the risks are.

5.03 adds a rule that catches clinicians answering questions in Facebook groups: behavior analysts “do not provide specific advice related to a client’s needs in public forums.”

A related risk appears in the February 2026 newsletter, which reports an increase in credential misuse traced to celebratory posts. Shared images of BACB IDs and score reports have been “copied and altered by others to falsify credentials,” and scam exam-prep operations have reused them without permission. The BACB “strongly advise[s] certificants and applicants to avoid sharing images or documents that include BACB IDs, official BACB correspondence, or certificates.”

Supervision (4.01–4.12)

Supervision is where the Code creates affirmative documentation duties that are easy to skip.

4.03 requires behavior analysts to “take on only the number of supervisees or trainees that allows them to provide effective supervision and training,” reassessing continually — and when the threshold is reached, “they document this self-assessment and communicate the results to their employer or other relevant parties.” Declining a caseload is not enough; the assessment has to exist on paper.

4.05 sets the retention rule: supervision documentation kept “for at least 7 years,” with the same instruction passed to supervisees and trainees, and maintained so supervisory oversight can transition if necessary.

4.10 requires ongoing self-evaluation of supervisory practice using feedback and outcomes, with those self-evaluations documented. 4.02 limits supervision to your scope of competence and only “after obtaining knowledge and skills in effective supervisory practices.” 4.09 requires confirming competence before delegating a task.

Documentation and confidentiality (2.03, 2.05, 2.11, 3.11)

3.11 requires “detailed and high-quality documentation” maintained “in a manner that allows for timely communication and transition of services, should the need arise.” 2.05 governs storage, transport, retention and destruction — and includes a point that surprises departing employees: “When a behavior analyst leaves an organization these responsibilities remain with the organization.”

2.03 defines confidentiality broadly enough to cover “service delivery (e.g., live, teleservices, recorded sessions); documentation and data; and verbal, written, or electronic communication.” 2.11 puts the burden of “explaining, obtaining, reobtaining, and documenting required informed consent” on the behavior analyst, along with obtaining assent from clients where applicable.

Revisions: what has and has not been announced

There is no announced 2026 or 2027 revision to the Ethics Code for Behavior Analysts.

The BACB’s Recent & Upcoming Changes table — which lists scheduled changes out to 2032 for degree, coursework, fieldwork, continuing education, ACE providers, and international eligibility — contains no entry for an ethics code revision. The revision history published on the Ethics Codes page records one edit since the Code was issued: on September 6, 2021, a definition of “assent” was added to the glossary. The current PDF carries a footer reading “Updated 08/2024.”

Two things that do change in 2027 touch ethics indirectly. From January 1, 2027, BCBA continuing education requires 4 supervision CEUs rather than 3, and the Ethics CEU category expands to include “events related to cultural/contextual responsiveness.” Both are documented in the March 2025 Newsletter.

The disclaimer that matters

This page summarizes a public document. It is not legal advice, and it is not an ethics consultation. The Code interacts with state licensure law, funder requirements, mandated reporting duties and organizational policy, and the BACB explicitly requires compliance with all of them. Where the Code and this summary differ, the Code governs — read it at the BACB’s Ethics Codes page, alongside the Code-Enforcement Procedures document that describes how allegations are actually processed.