CONTROLLING CORRUPTION
First of all, it must be recognized that corruption is a regular feature of gov
ernment processes. The problem of corruption will always be hovering in the background and can probably never be eradicated; however, certain steps may be taken to reduce and control the problem (Gardiner, 1970:93). In this section, we will examine several strategies that a correctional administrator may adopt to address the problem of corruption within a correctional agency.
CHAPTER 15 • KEEPING AN EYE ON THE KEEPER: PRISON CORRUPTION AND ITS CONTROL 277
278 JUSTICE, CRIME, AND ETHICS
A first step in dealing with the problem of corruption is to develop and enforce a strict, zerotolerance policy on corruption, and implement and com municate a strong and forceful anticorruption policy. This policy should define specifically what the agency means by corruption as well as specify the penalties associated with such practices. (See Ward and McCormack, 1978, for an example of developing an anticorruption policy for police departments). Once this policy has been formulated, it needs to be dissem inated to all workers. Training should also be provided to employees regarding the nature, causes, impact, and consequences of corrupt practices. This training should be integrated into both preservice and inservice training modules. Without enforcement, these policies will have no impact. For deterrence to work, these policies must be enforced. Employees charged with corruption should be investigated and prosecuted if warranted—not merely asked to resign.
Second, the correctional agency should develop a proactive mechanism to detect and investigate corrupt practices. This includes the establishment of an internal affairs unit and processes that encourage employees, inmates, and civilians to report allegations of staff misconduct. A whistleblower hotline is used by many states to deal with governmental misconduct, and this can be extended to prison systems. In addition, the use of routine and special audit procedures on a random basis will ensure the proper expenditure of funds. In one state, statelevel investigators randomly target prisons and conduct interdiction investigations to search for contraband. Inmates, staff, and civilians are subject to searches and drug testing, including a drugdetection system known as Ionscan. In one year these searches resulted in the seizure of a large quantity of drugs (powder cocaine, crack cocaine, and marijuana) and weapons, including 13 firearms and 280 rounds of ammunition in one state system (Florida Department of Corrections, 1997). Drug testing of employees and the screening of correctional employees as they enter and leave institutions should also be considered.
Third, correctional administrators should attempt to improve manage ment of material practices in the prison. This internal reform is directed at improving the control of the organization. In prior studies of corruption, where it was shown that leadership and control of persons were weak, the potential for corruption increased (Gardiner, 1970). Management must take affirmative steps toward reducing the opportunities for corruption. One step in this direction is to structure the use of discretion and make the visibility of lowlevel decisionmakers more public and subject to review. Guidelines for the use of discretionary rewards and punishments should be public. For example, specific criteria and a review process should be established to review cell changes, job assignments, and transfers or temporary releases. In addition, the disciplinary process should be opened up to review. These decisions should be periodically reviewed by supervisors to ensure the accountability of decisionmakers. An example of the misuse and abuse of the disciplinary process occurred a few years ago in the state of Massa
Figure 15.1 Zero Tolerance Memo
State of California Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
Memorandum Date February 17, 2004
‘fo All California Department of Corrections Employees
Subject ZERO TOLERANCE REGARDING THE “CODE OF SILENCE”
The California Department of Corrections (CDC) is only as strong as the values held by each of its employees, sworn and nonsworn. How we conduct oursel v es inside our institutions and in the Central Office is a reflection of those values.
The “Code of Silence” operates to conceal wrongdoing. One employee, operating alone. can foster a Code of Silence. The Code of Silence also arises because of a conspiracy among staff to fail to report violations of policy, or to retaliate against those employees who report wrongdoing. Fostering the Code of Silence includes the failure to act when there is an ethical and professional obligation to do so.
Every time a correctional employee decides not to report wrongdoing, he or she harms our Department and each one of us by violating the public’s trust. As members of law enforcement, all Correctional Officers must remain beyond reproach. The public ‘ s trust in this Department is also violated by retaliating against, ostracizing, or in anyway undermining those employees who report wrongdoing and/or cooperate during i n v estigations. There is no excuse for fostering a Code of Silence.
Your hard fought efforts to protect the public deserve recognition. Recently, however, the public’s trust has been undermined by the operation of a Code of Silence within the CDC. To correct this problem we are taking steps to ensure the Department exemplifies integrity and instills pride. Part of this effort is the immediate implementation of a zero tolerance policy concerning the Code of Silence. We will not tolerate any form of silence as it pertains to misconduct, unethical. or illegal behavior. We also will not tolerate any form of reprisal against employees who report misconduct or unethical behavior, including their stigmatization or isolation.
Each employee is responsible for reporting conduct that violates Department policy. Each supervisor and manager is responsible for creating an environment conducive to these goals. Supervisors are responsible for acquiring information and immediately conveying it to managers. Managers are responsible for taking all appropriate steps upon receipt of such information, including initiating investigations and promptly disciplining all employees who violate departmental policy.
Any employee, regardless of rank. sworn or non.sworn. who fails to report violations of policy or who acts in a manner that fosters the Code of Silence. shall be subject to discipline up to and includin g terminatioon.
! ü E J
RI HARD RIMMER to RICR (~ HlCKIvIAN Director (A) A g ency Secretary California Department of Cor r ections Youth and Adult Correctional Agency
CHAPTER 15 • KEEPING AN