Integrity testing involves placing elected officials or employees of public or private organisations in situations that have been constructed in such a way that a clear opportunity to behave in a dishonest, negligent, or otherwise improper manner is available. Such situations occur routinely on a daily basis as part of the normal work environment of tested individuals, but their behaviour in those situations is not normally observed by management or by other responsible authorities. The essential purpose of integrity testing is to add the element of surveillance, without inducing or enticing a person to act improperly. Should a situation be constructed in such a manner that inducements to act improperly were present that are not a normal feature of the work environment, a court would most likely find that the test constituted entrapment and was therefore not legal (Prenzler and Renken 2001). Ideally, the situations and opportunities utilised in integrity testing are indistinguishable from those occurring 'naturally.' In the United States and some other countries, integrity testing is widely used as a tool by large organisations to check the behaviour of employees. Testing of public officials in the United States is by no means restricted to police, although the high visibility of police corruption in New York and other cities has ensured that testing of police has received a great deal of publicity (Anechiarico and Jacobs 1996; Marx 1992). An example of a random test used by the NYPD is to have a factory or shop set up with an open door, or to have it exhibit other signs that it has been burgled. The premises will be fitted with covert videos to monitor the actions of officers (Shawyer 1997: 4).
Police reform: Building integrity