NCJ Number
166988
Date Published
1996
Length
38 pages
Annotation
This report presents the findings from a survey of Oregon State Police regarding police ethical values and the factors that influence them.
Abstract
Out of 780 current sworn personnel, 615 surveys were received. Included were 36 telephone interviews conducted with individuals who volunteered and were randomly selected within stations or assigned areas to obtain further clarification of the issues. The first section of the survey consisted of seven ethical scenarios that addressed the following issues: receiving discounts on merchandise, sexual harassment, personal relationships with persons met while conducting investigations, using department property for community-related activities, responsibility for intervention in "hot calls" without available back-up, reporting requirements for personal hunting violations, and on-duty responsibilities associated with encountering an off- duty, intoxicated fellow officer. The second section of the survey consisted of two sets of rating scales of behavior and attitudes regarding subgroups of Oregon State Police officers and officers from other jurisdictions, as well as individual behavior compared to other groups. The third section of the survey allowed respondents to state their own definitions of professional ethics, and the fourth section consisted of nine questions about personal beliefs regarding conduct and its appropriateness. The remaining two sections of the survey consisted of questions on the perceived risks for officers who engage in unethical conduct and the likelihood of such conduct, as well as four summary questions, including whether additional training in ethics should be provided. Major survey findings show that supervisory values matter and that rank plays a significant role in determining professional ethical stance. Also, management staff working at general headquarters rate their ethical values and behavior higher across the board. Among the implications of the findings are that the establishment of standards for professionalism and ethical behavior should clarify supervisory roles. Further, an opportunity for officers at all ranks to communicate more openly and directly may reduce the misunderstandings or disparity in perceptions about others' values and behaviors. Finally, communication between management staff at general headquarters and the rest of the department should be assessed. 7 tables and 4 references