We Know it, We Just Have to Do it: Perceptions of Ethical Work in Prisons and Jails

• Author: MISTY KIFER,MARY SCHOELER,CRAIG HEMMENS,MARY K. STOHR
• Date: 01 June 2000
• Published date: 01 June 2000
• DOI: 10.1177/0032885500080002002
• Subject Matter: Articles

THE PRISON JOURNAL / June 2000Stohr et al. / ETHICAL WORK IN PRISONS AND JAILS

WE KNOW IT, WE JUST HAVE TO

DO IT: PERCEPTIONS OF ETHICAL

WORK IN PRISONS AND JAILS

MARY K. STOHR

CRAIG HEMMENS

MISTY KIFER

MARY SCHOELER

Boise State University

Determining what the appropriate behavior is in any given circumstance is not

always clear in corrections work, given the natureof the tasks, the composition of the

clientele, and the structureof the organization. In an effort to determine what correc-

tional staff regarded as ethical behavior, the authors developed and administered a

questionnaire to correctional staff in severalprisons and jails in a western state. In

this article, the authors report their findingsfrom the effort to quantify the degree to

which staff agreeand disagree in their perceptions of ethical choices. Theyfound that

jail and prison staffs are more likelythan not to perceive their work from an ethical

perspective. The findings also indicate that although both types of facilities werein

the top range of possible responseson the ethics summary variable, the jail staff were

morelikely to score higher.Finally, ageincreased the likelihood that a respondent had

a higher ethical rating in jails, and being female increased such a score in prisons.

There are some who argue that pursuing an ethical path in life is difficult

because it is not always clear what the right thing is in every situation. Of

course, this is true at times, given the variety of activities and choices that

human beings confront. But we would argue that within the narrower param-

eters of the workplace, such as in corrections, the right thing is often both

The authors would like to thank the staff and administrators of the western state department

of corrections, the two county jails, and the jail training academy who generously facilitated and

participated in this research. Wewould also like to thank Gary Barrier, Joe Klauser, and Lance

Sanders for their assistance, and our colleagues Andrew Giacomazzi and Anthony Walsh for

their insightful suggestions. This research was funded in part by the Undergraduate Research

Initiativeat Boise State University. The authors bear sole responsibility for all opinions and con-

clusions offered and for any errors of omission or commission in the manuscript.

THE PRISON JOURNAL, Vol. 80 No. 2, June 2000126-150

© 2000 Sage Publications, Inc.

126

knowable and doable for staff, although it may not alwaysbe the easy course

to take.

Ethical decision making has been the subject of study in criminal justice,

but the primary focus has been on the police. Ethics in corrections is a subject

that has been rarely studied, although it has receivedconsiderable attention in

the press and in practitioner-oriented journals such as American Jails and

Corrections Today. The American Jail Association and the American Cor-

rectional Association both have codes of ethics, as do many corrections

departments and jails.

Yet, the nature of ethical decision making in corrections is often guessed

at and rarely quantified. In this article, we first review the somewhat sparse

literature on ethics in corrections. Wethen report our findings from our effort

to quantify the degree to which staffagree and disagree in their perceptions of

ethical choices by using an ethics instrument created by the authors and

administered at three prisons, two jails, and one jail academy training class in

a largely rural, mountain state. Wefound that in general, staff in these various

institutions tend to agree more than disagree in their perceptions of ethical

behavior, and that the levelof agreement with what we would regard as ethi-

cal perceptions was quite high for all facilities. However, we also found some

differences between and among staff in different facility types and between

categories of staff.

THE LITERATURE

Most scholars who study ethics in public service work promote the devel-

opment of an ethical code and training as a means of standardizing perfor-

mance and delivery of services (Bowman & Williams, 1997; Braswell,

McCarthy, & McCarthy, 1991; Cederblom & Spohn, 1991; Menzel, 1997;

Pollock, 1993, 1994; VanWart, 1996; Zajac, 1997). Implicit in these recom-

mendations is the understanding that agreement can be reached, vis-à-vis a

code, that promotes ethical behavior and discourages unethical behavior.

Moreover, such scholars would lead us to believe that not only can we know

an ethical choice when we see it, but we can preventethical lapses with train-

ing and other personnel management practices (e.g., performance appraisal,

promotion decision making) that promote ethical practices in the workplace.

Much of the literature on ethics has been devoted to the philosophical

bases for making ethical choices (Braswell et al., 1991; Pollock, 1994; Rohr,

1978; Solomon, 1996; Souryal, 1992; Souryal & McKay, 1996). These

philosophical touchstones—such as conceptions of natural law, ethical for-

malism, utilitarianism, the ethics of virtue, the ethics of care, and ethical

Stohr et al. / ETHICAL WORK IN PRISONS AND JAILS 127