ARPXXX10.1177/0275074019885629The American Review of Public AdministrationWest and Bowman 885629research-article2019 Article American Review of Public Administration 1–14 Whistleblowing Policies in American © The Author(s) 2019 Article reuse guidelines: States: A Nationwide Analysis sagepub.com/journals-permissions https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019885629DOI: 10.1177/0275074019885629 journals.sagepub.com/home/arp 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 Introduction To investigate whistleblowing sections in state laws and codes, documentary and attitudinal data were gathered. The Codifying ethics in the government has long been controver- research question is given as follows: sial, as skeptics doubt its utility while advocates believe it can enhance employee and organizational behavior (see, for exam- Research Question: What is the scope, content, and per- ple, Bowman & West, 2018). Despite their contentious nature, ceived effectiveness of these provisions? many jurisdictions—and all states—have codes and statutes that can provide a standard against which conduct can be The premise is that whistleblowing clauses have value, assessed. Yet, while state-by-state corruption varies, it remains albeit uncertain, in the practice of public administration. common in subnational public administration (The Center for Content analysis is supplemented with online survey and Public Integrity, Global Integrity, & Public Radio International, interview data. The discussion that follows presents the 2012; Wilcox & Krassner, 2012). Given the low visibility and results of this comprehensive up-to-date study of state-level high complexity of public organization operations, detection of whistleblowing provisions.2 wrongdoing often rests with government employees. When confronted with fraud, waste, or abuse, civil ser- vants have many alternative ways to respond: exit (resign), Background voice (work toward change, engage in administrative sabo- Laws, codes, and whistleblowing play a role in the bond of tage, blow the whistle), or loyalty (do nothing, go-along to trust and confidence between citizens and their government. get-along, or become directly complicit) (Nielsen, 1987; To assure democratic accountability and responsibility, laws, O’Leary, 2013; Olson, 1971). But, it is undeniable that the codes, and whistleblowing also reflect the need to balance an whistleblower—someone who reveals information about ille- employee’s duty to the public as well as duty to her employer. gal, immoral, or inefficient action that endangers public In the case of aspirational ethics codes and regulatory health, safety, or freedom—plays a significant role in democ- 1 conduct codes, opinions about them range from pointless and racy. Although not all disclosures become headline news, unnecessary to useful and important (Bruce, 1996). At their employees have been responsible for revealing problems in best, they promote objectivism (the belief in transcendental areas such as regulatory corruption, merit system abuses, dan- gers to public well-being, and conflict of interest regulations 1 University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL, USA (Bowman & West, 2018; for an extensive list of whistleblow- 2Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA ers since 1773, see https://www.whistleblower.org/timeline- us-whistleblowers/). Such incidents demonstrate that officials Corresponding Author: Jonathan P. West, Department of Political Science, University of Miami, can be held to account by those willing to “speak truth to 1300 Campo Sano Avenue, Coral Gables, FL 33146, USA. power.” Email: [email protected] 2 American Review of Public Administration 00(0) values), community (the notion that moral conduct is not Miceli, Near, & Dworkin, 2008; Stanger, 2019) contain simply a matter of private behavior, as personal integrity is many normative studies, as well as empirical work, but the subject to communal judgment), and courage (the idea that current whistleblowing sections of state laws and codes have codes can foster valiant action) (Chandler, 1983). At their not been subjected to close analysis (see Note 2). worst, such canons are general and vague (especially aspira- tional codes), proscriptive instead of prescriptive (notably Method conduct codes), and lack relevance to actual problems. They can trivialize ethics, reduce it to staying out of trouble, and Content analysis of documents was used to examine the type fail to challenge and inspire. Both code types are more likely of whistleblower protections in the codes and laws of the 50 to have indirect, rather than direct, effect as they can serve states (and District of Columbia). Unlike previous studies as: a “sign post,” leading employees to consult colleagues that assessed state codes (Blac, Grob, Potenski, Reed, & and organizational policies; a “shield,” allowing personnel to Walsh, 1998; Hays & Gleissner, 1981), this research focuses better confront dubious actions; and an “alarm,” encouraging specifically on whistleblower clauses in codes. Although the individuals to report wrongdoing (Schwartz, 2011, p. 280). existing literature includes content analysis of corporate With respect to whistleblowing laws, they serve similar whistleblowing protections (e.g., Hassink, Vries, & Bollen, purposes and go further by providing protection to employees 2007; Lewis & Kender, 2007, 2010; Moberly & Wylie, who detect and disclose immoral or illegal behavior that vio- 2011), no similar work has been done recently on American lates the public trust. Whistleblowing is the single most sig- states. Prior private sector–focused research often used ques- nificant source for detecting and preventing crime—more so tionnaires to gather policy documents with whistleblowing than government regulators, law enforcement personnel, and protection provisions (Hassink et al., 2007; Lewis & Kender, program auditors combined (Association of Fraud Examiners, 2007, 2010). This investigation used a data collection strat- 2016; PricewaterhouseCoopers, 2007; U.S. Department of egy similar to Moberly and Wylie (2011) by first examining Justice, Civil Division, Commercial Litigation Branch, 2010). public documents (for each of the states plus the District of The federal government, for instance, recovers US$7 for Columbia), but was then complemented by an attitudinal sur- every US$1 spent fighting fraud, much of which comes from vey and interviews. whistleblowing (Kennedy, 2012). Yet, the majority of whis- The whistleblowing statutes reviewed here are laws of tleblowers exist in obscurity and never receive vindication. general application to public or private employees (or Those who are vindicated “are the rare exception, and even both), protecting those who uncover suspected wrongdoing most of them pay a horrible price with lifelong scars” (Devine in their workplaces. These laws do not restrict coverage to & Maassarani, 2011, p. 18; see also Kolhatkar, 2019). The those disclosing violations of a single statute and are dis- ideal situation—where the cause is just, all administrative tinct from other statutes containing anti-retaliation provi- appeals have been exhausted, responsibility is openly sions providing protection to employees who report accepted, and the dissenter is above reproach—is unusual. wrongdoing prohibited by specific statutes (e.g., occupa- Overall, robust laws and codes provide behavioral guid- tional safety and health, labor laws, and civil rights) and ance, cover a wide variety of roles in the profession, and con- from those protecting individuals in particular industries tain enforcement mechanisms (Pugh, 1991, p. 28). Likewise, (e.g., health care). a best practice standard, based on national laws and interna- A subject inventory containing multiple variables, compa- tional organization policies, contains 20 specific criteria rable with those used in the corporate studies by Hassink and organized by: colleagues (2007) and Moberly and Wylie (2011), was devel- oped. The state codes and laws, accordingly, were assessed •• the scope of whistleblowing coverage (the presence or based on the: absence of loopholes), •• the forum for whistleblower cases (adjudication bod- •• general content, scope, and tone, ies that afford fair process), •• nature of the violations that whistleblowers are •• rules needed to prevail (realistic burdens of proof and instructed to report, statutes of limitations), •• officials to whom wrongdoing should be filed (in the •• scope of relief (victim obtains benefit and wrongdoer channels category shown below), held accountable), and •• reporting guidelines or formats prescribed, •• making a difference