Whistleblowing Policies in American States: A Nationwide Analysis

• Published date: 01 February 2020
• Author: James S. Bowman,Jonathan P. West
• Date: 01 February 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0275074019885629
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019885629

American Review of Public Administration

2020, Vol. 50(2) 119 –132

© The Author(s) 2019

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0275074019885629

journals.sagepub.com/home/arp

Article

Introduction

Codifying ethics in the government has long been controver-

sial, as skeptics doubt its utility while advocates believe it can

enhance employee and organizational behavior (see, for exam-

ple, Bowman & West, 2018). Despite their contentious nature,

many jurisdictions—and all states—have codes and statutes

that can provide a standard against which conduct can be

assessed. Yet, while state-by-state corruption varies, it remains

common in subnational public administration (The Center for

Public Integrity, Global Integrity, & Public Radio International,

2012; Wilcox & Krassner, 2012). Given the low visibility and

high complexity of public organization operations, detection of

wrongdoing often rests with government employees.

When confronted with fraud, waste, or abuse, civil ser-

vants have many alternative ways to respond: exit (resign),

voice (work toward change, engage in administrative sabo-

tage, blow the whistle), or loyalty (do nothing, go-along to

get-along, or become directly complicit) (Nielsen, 1987;

O’Leary, 2013; Olson, 1971). But, it is undeniable that the

whistleblower—someone who reveals information about ille-

gal, immoral, or inefficient action that endangers public

health, safety, or freedom—plays a significant role in democ-

racy.1 Although not all disclosures become headline news,

employees have been responsible for revealing problems in

areas such as regulatory corruption, merit system abuses, dan-

gers to public well-being, and conflict of interest regulations

(Bowman & West, 2018; for an extensive list of whistleblow-

ers since 1773, see https://www.whistleblower.org/timeline-

us-whistleblowers/). Such incidents demonstrate that officials

can be held to account by those willing to “speak truth to

power.”

To investigate whistleblowing sections in state laws and

codes, documentary and attitudinal data were gathered. The

research question is given as follows:

Research Question: What is the scope, content, and per-

ceived effectiveness of these provisions?

The premise is that whistleblowing clauses have value,

albeit uncertain, in the practice of public administration.

Content analysis is supplemented with online survey and

interview data. The discussion that follows presents the

results of this comprehensive up-to-date study of state-level

whistleblowing provisions.2

Background

Laws, codes, and whistleblowing play a role in the bond of

trust and confidence between citizens and their government.

To assure democratic accountability and responsibility, laws,

codes, and whistleblowing also reflect the need to balance an

employee’s duty to the public as well as duty to her employer.

In the case of aspirational ethics codes and regulatory

conduct codes, opinions about them range from pointless and

unnecessary to useful and important (Bruce, 1996). At their

best, they promote objectivism (the belief in transcendental

885629ARPXXX10.1177/0275074019885629The American Review of Public AdministrationWest and Bowman

research-article2019

1University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA

2Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jonathan P. West, Department of Political Science, University of Miami,

1300 Campo Sano Avenue, Coral Gables, FL 33146, USA.

Email: jwest@miami.edu

Whistleblowing Policies in American

States: A Nationwide Analysis

Jonathan P. West1 and James S. Bowman2

Abstract

American states have statutes with whistleblowing protection provisions for employees. These laws may focus on the duty to

divulge misconduct, procedures for reporting disclosures, and protection from retaliation. The research question is, “What

is the scope, content, and perceived effectiveness of these provisions?” The premise is that they have value, albeit uncertain,

in the practice of public administration. To investigate this subject area, documentary and attitudinal data were gathered.

This article presents the results of the first comprehensive study of state-level whistleblowing provisions. The importance of

this work is evident for two reasons. First, though corruption varies across state lines, overall it is common. Second, given

the low visibility and high complexity of organizational activities, detection of abuse rests in large part with the workforce.

Keywords

whistleblower protection, state laws, ethics codes