DUE 3/3

Latonya

Ethical Failure, Covenant, and Administrative Responsibility: Citizenship Verification in Housing Assistance

Case Study Overview

A contemporary ethical issue in public administration involves the enforcement of citizenship verification requirements within federally funded housing assistance programs administered by local governments. Federal regulations require verification of eligible immigration or citizenship status for individuals receiving housing benefits funded through programs such as HOME and related assistance initiatives. While these requirements have existed in statutory and regulatory frameworks for years, renewed enforcement emphasis has required local agencies to operationalize policies that were previously inconsistently applied. Public administrators must therefore interpret federal mandates, develop verification procedures, and ensure compliance while continuing to serve vulnerable populations equitably.

This case reflects a real administrative context involving local housing agencies nationwide as they translate federal eligibility standards into daily practice. Stakeholders include program managers, local governments, federal oversight agencies, and low-income households seeking housing assistance. The ethical challenge arises not from the existence of law itself, but from how administrators implement requirements affecting access to essential services.

Ethical Issues and Administrative Responsibility

Plant (2018) argues that public administration ethics extend beyond procedural compliance because administrators operate within morally complex environments. Citizenship verification requirements may be legally mandated, yet ethical questions emerge regarding proportionality, fairness, administrative burden, and potential unintended exclusion of eligible participants.

Herbert Simon’s distinction between administrative “is” and “ought” is particularly relevant. Policies define what administrators must do, but ethical judgment guides how implementation occurs in practice (Simon, 1997). Rules alone cannot anticipate the lived realities of families navigating documentation barriers, language differences, or bureaucratic complexity. Ethical administration therefore requires discretion informed by both legality and moral reasoning.

Fischer’s (2010) covenantal framework further clarifies administrative responsibility. Authority is entrusted rather than possessed; public servants act as stewards responsible for the flourishing of those they serve. When implementation emphasizes enforcement without relational accountability, trust between citizens and government may erode. Ethical leadership requires balancing program integrity with compassion and transparency.

Organizational Culture and Ethical Practice

Organizational behavior plays a central role in ethical outcomes. Shafritz and Hyde (2017) emphasize that administrative systems shape individual behavior through incentives, norms, and institutional expectations. During policy transitions, agencies must develop shared interpretations of new requirements to avoid inconsistent or inequitable application. Fischer’s discussions of individual behavior and workplace motivation similarly highlight that ethical climates emerge through leadership modeling and organizational learning processes (Fischer, 2010).

Government-wide ethics laws and guidance from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics reinforce principles of impartiality, accountability, and public trust, reminding administrators that lawful action must also maintain public confidence (U.S. Office of Government Ethics, n.d.).

Ethical Judgment

As a public administrator overseeing federally funded affordable housing programs at the county level, I recognize similar ethical tensions emerging in practice. Increased emphasis on verification requirements has required administrators to translate regulatory language into operational procedures while agencies are still learning what verification looks like in practice. Questions arise concerning acceptable documentation standards and how to ensure fairness for households unfamiliar with bureaucratic systems.

Simon’s (1997) “is” versus “ought” distinction becomes visible at the frontline level, where administrators must interpret rules within human contexts. Fischer’s covenantal perspective suggests administrators must exercise stewardship that protects both legal compliance and human dignity (Fischer, 2010). Ethical leadership in such situations requires patience, transparency, and procedural consistency so that compliance strengthens, rather than undermines, public trust.

Ethical Assessment

This case demonstrates that ethical public administration requires more than rule enforcement. From an ethical standpoint, the administrative actions themselves are not inherently unethical because they derive from lawful federal mandates. However, ethical risk emerges when implementation lacks clarity, consistency, or safeguards against disproportionate harm. Ethical administration therefore depends less on the policy’s existence and more on how discretion is exercised during implementation.  Einolf (2014) notes that ethical behavior develops through moral formation supported by institutional structures. Administrators act ethically when implementation reflects justice, proportionality, and respect for persons.

If placed in this situation, ethical statesmanship would involve clear communication, staff training, accessible verification processes, and safeguards against unintended exclusion. The goal is neither resistance to law nor blind enforcement, but faithful stewardship balancing accountability with equity.

Ultimately, public administration legitimacy depends upon integrating competence with character. Ethical governance occurs when administrators implement policy in ways that uphold both the rule of law and the dignity of those served. From an ethical standpoint, denying or limiting housing assistance to otherwise eligible citizens solely because they reside with a noncitizen household member raises serious concerns of proportionality and distributive justice. While administrators are obligated to enforce federal eligibility requirements, ethical public administration requires careful attention to unintended harms that may fall upon legally eligible participants. When policy implementation produces outcomes in which vulnerable citizens lose access to essential housing stability due to household composition rather than individual eligibility, administrators must critically evaluate whether enforcement practices align with principles of fairness, stewardship, and public trust.

References

Einolf, C. J. (2014). The uses of literature in the exploration of public administration ethics. Public Integrity.

Fischer, K. (2010). A biblical-covenantal perspective on organizational behavior & leadership. Liberty University Faculty Publications and Presentations.

Plant, J. F. (2018). Responsibility in public administration ethics. Public Integrity, 20(sup1), S33–S45.

Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde, A. C. (2017). Classics of public administration (Chapter 13; Chapter 41). Cengage Learning.

Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). Free Press.

U.S. Office of Government Ethics. (n.d.). Government-wide ethics laws.  https://www.oge.gov/Links to an external site..

JOSEPH E

Case Study: Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

A look into innovation and artificial intelligence (AI) as it influences public administration services is the topic of choice for Popescu, Sabie, and Trusca (2023). Their article,  “The contribution of artificial intelligence to stimulating the innovation of educational services and university programs in public administration,” takes a deep dive into issues such as: the integration of AI into curriculum, envisioning the possibilities of a fully integrated AI environment, considering the ethical concerns AI brings in the early stages of development, and using feedback to prevent bias during the implementation process (Popescu, Sabie, and Trusca 2023).

Popescu et al (2023) surveyed six academics who oversaw projects which use AI-powered chatbots. The projects were located in universities in the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, and Romania. The study was a two-prong approach focusing on the challenges of implementing AI and the advantages it produces as a service mechanism. The researchers found that the AI produced a diverse array of questions dealing with standard routine questions to more complex ones. AI chatbots contributed to effectiveness and efficiency of student services, merely supplementing standard routine questions which human personnel would typically take (Popescu, Sabie, and Trusca 2023). Since the chatbot worked twenty-four hours a day, seven-days a week, and provided help in multiple languages, universities were able to provide greater services to international students and improved accessibility. The outcome of the studies greatly increased enrollment at the participating institutions with the expanded services AI provided.

With the benefits of artificial intelligence comes the drawbacks. The case study gleaned ethical concerns that should be considered for future study. One major concern is the distrust of the public, and in this case the distrust students have toward AI having their personal information collected and used. Students’ feedback informed researchers of the usefulness of the chatbots; the marketing use of that information and the lack of transparency leave much to question about the chatbot’s ethical values and its ability to recognize the need to act ethically. The researchers closed their study stating that maintaining the trust of students and the public would be their greatest priority moving forward and in any future development to come.

Other ethical considerations are the bias researchers may have in conducting the study on chatbots with students’ personal information. This is a common ethical dilemma for most studies, especially when there is an imbalance of power such as the case of academic professionals (researchers) to students. Academics have power over students’ academic standing. It must be considered in forming academic policies that there is this power imbalance and should be a disclaimer with third-party audits to prevent questions of abuse (Marini, 1992). Regardless, the study of artificial intelligence’s impact on academia and public services is paramount to future innovation (O’Reilly, 2011).

Having over thirteen years of law enforcement (LEO) experience and civil service, ethical values are at the core of everything one does as an LEO. Law enforcement officers have power over the public and must exercise ethical consciousness when dealing with the public, regardless of their role as a victim, bystander, or offender. Personal beliefs and issues have no place in the handling of law enforcement services. Officers have the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, a pledge of moral and ethical conduct, to uphold. A violation of that ethical code constitutes dereliction of duty (U.S. Department of the Interior, July 2024).

The dynamic between academic professionals and students embodies the importance of covenantal relationships. Covenantal management is the relation between leader and follower that engenders trust, fairness, and mutuality. It is best said in Micah 6:8 about moral foundations that, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8, New International Version, 2011). These traits Micah speaks of are the core of what should be enforced in the use of artificial intelligence and the covenantal relationship of leaders and followers. Artificial intelligence although void of human values is a designed by humans, and thus should reflect the

The relationship between students and university administrators mirrors this same covenantal expectation. Fischer (2010) describes covenantal management as a relationship built on trust, fairness, and mutual responsibility. Micah 6:8 reinforces this moral foundation: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8, New International Version, 2011). Justice, humility, and mercy are essential values when considering the ethical use of AI and the responsibilities of covenantal leadership. Because AI is created by human beings, its design must reflect human rights, accountability, and fairness. Without these elements, neither AI systems nor human leaders can earn public trust.

The case study by Popescu, Sabie, and Trusca (2023) ultimately demonstrates how covenantal management principles—trust, informed consent, fairness, and nonmaleficence—apply directly to AI integration in higher education (Fischer 2010). As AI becomes increasingly prevalent across industries, its role in public administration will only grow. Ensuring that AIdriven university services uphold these ethical values is essential for fostering positive, equitable, and effective public administration outcomes. Ultimately, the value of any technology is measured by the benefits it delivers to the people it is meant to serve.

References

Fischer, K. (2010). A biblical-covenantal perspective on organizational behavior & leadership. Faculty Publications and Presentations, 523. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/523

Marini, F. (1992). The uses of literature in the exploration of public administration ethics: The example of Antigone. Public Administration Review, 52(5), 420–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/976801

New International Version. (2011). The Holy Bible. Zondervan.

O'Reilly, P. (2011). Herbert Simon: “Is’s” and “Oughts” After Sixty Years. Public Integrity, 13(4), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922130405

Popescu, R., Sabie, O. M., & Trusca, M. I. (2023). The contribution of artificial intelligence to stimulating the innovation of educational services and university programs in public administration. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 19(70 E), 85-108. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.70E.5

U.S. Department of the Interior. (July 2024). Government-wide ethics laws. https://www.doi.gov/ethics/government-wide-ethics-laws

Latonya

Ethical Failure, Covenant, and Administrative Responsibility: Citizenship Verification in Housing Assistance

Case Study Overview

A contemporary ethical issue in public administration involves the enforcement of citizenship verification requirements within federally funded housing assistance programs administered by local governments. Federal regulations require verification of eligible immigration or citizenship status for individuals receiving housing benefits funded through programs such as HOME and related assistance initiatives. While these requirements have existed in statutory and regulatory frameworks for years, renewed enforcement emphasis has required local agencies to operationalize policies that were previously inconsistently applied. Public administrators must therefore interpret federal mandates, develop verification procedures, and ensure compliance while continuing to serve vulnerable populations equitably.

This case reflects a real administrative context involving local housing agencies nationwide as they translate federal eligibility standards into daily practice. Stakeholders include program managers, local governments, federal oversight agencies, and low-income households seeking housing assistance. The ethical challenge arises not from the existence of law itself, but from how administrators implement requirements affecting access to essential services.

Ethical Issues and Administrative Responsibility

Plant (2018) argues that public administration ethics extend beyond procedural compliance because administrators operate within morally complex environments. Citizenship verification requirements may be legally mandated, yet ethical questions emerge regarding proportionality, fairness, administrative burden, and potential unintended exclusion of eligible participants.

Herbert Simon’s distinction between administrative “is” and “ought” is particularly relevant. Policies define what administrators must do, but ethical judgment guides how implementation occurs in practice (Simon, 1997). Rules alone cannot anticipate the lived realities of families navigating documentation barriers, language differences, or bureaucratic complexity. Ethical administration therefore requires discretion informed by both legality and moral reasoning.

Fischer’s (2010) covenantal framework further clarifies administrative responsibility. Authority is entrusted rather than possessed; public servants act as stewards responsible for the flourishing of those they serve. When implementation emphasizes enforcement without relational accountability, trust between citizens and government may erode. Ethical leadership requires balancing program integrity with compassion and transparency.

Organizational Culture and Ethical Practice

Organizational behavior plays a central role in ethical outcomes. Shafritz and Hyde (2017) emphasize that administrative systems shape individual behavior through incentives, norms, and institutional expectations. During policy transitions, agencies must develop shared interpretations of new requirements to avoid inconsistent or inequitable application. Fischer’s discussions of individual behavior and workplace motivation similarly highlight that ethical climates emerge through leadership modeling and organizational learning processes (Fischer, 2010).

Government-wide ethics laws and guidance from the U.S. Office of Government Ethics reinforce principles of impartiality, accountability, and public trust, reminding administrators that lawful action must also maintain public confidence (U.S. Office of Government Ethics, n.d.).

Ethical Judgment

As a public administrator overseeing federally funded affordable housing programs at the county level, I recognize similar ethical tensions emerging in practice. Increased emphasis on verification requirements has required administrators to translate regulatory language into operational procedures while agencies are still learning what verification looks like in practice. Questions arise concerning acceptable documentation standards and how to ensure fairness for households unfamiliar with bureaucratic systems.

Simon’s (1997) “is” versus “ought” distinction becomes visible at the frontline level, where administrators must interpret rules within human contexts. Fischer’s covenantal perspective suggests administrators must exercise stewardship that protects both legal compliance and human dignity (Fischer, 2010). Ethical leadership in such situations requires patience, transparency, and procedural consistency so that compliance strengthens, rather than undermines, public trust.

Ethical Assessment

This case demonstrates that ethical public administration requires more than rule enforcement. From an ethical standpoint, the administrative actions themselves are not inherently unethical because they derive from lawful federal mandates. However, ethical risk emerges when implementation lacks clarity, consistency, or safeguards against disproportionate harm. Ethical administration therefore depends less on the policy’s existence and more on how discretion is exercised during implementation.  Einolf (2014) notes that ethical behavior develops through moral formation supported by institutional structures. Administrators act ethically when implementation reflects justice, proportionality, and respect for persons.

If placed in this situation, ethical statesmanship would involve clear communication, staff training, accessible verification processes, and safeguards against unintended exclusion. The goal is neither resistance to law nor blind enforcement, but faithful stewardship balancing accountability with equity.

Ultimately, public administration legitimacy depends upon integrating competence with character. Ethical governance occurs when administrators implement policy in ways that uphold both the rule of law and the dignity of those served. From an ethical standpoint, denying or limiting housing assistance to otherwise eligible citizens solely because they reside with a noncitizen household member raises serious concerns of proportionality and distributive justice. While administrators are obligated to enforce federal eligibility requirements, ethical public administration requires careful attention to unintended harms that may fall upon legally eligible participants. When policy implementation produces outcomes in which vulnerable citizens lose access to essential housing stability due to household composition rather than individual eligibility, administrators must critically evaluate whether enforcement practices align with principles of fairness, stewardship, and public trust.

References

Einolf, C. J. (2014). The uses of literature in the exploration of public administration ethics. Public Integrity.

Fischer, K. (2010). A biblical-covenantal perspective on organizational behavior & leadership. Liberty University Faculty Publications and Presentations.

Plant, J. F. (2018). Responsibility in public administration ethics. Public Integrity, 20(sup1), S33–S45.

Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde, A. C. (2017). Classics of public administration (Chapter 13; Chapter 41). Cengage Learning.

Simon, H. A. (1997). Administrative behavior: A study of decision-making processes in administrative organizations (4th ed.). Free Press.

U.S. Office of Government Ethics. (n.d.). Government-wide ethics laws.  https://www.oge.gov/Links to an external site..

JOSEPH E

Case Study: Ethics of Artificial Intelligence

A look into innovation and artificial intelligence (AI) as it influences public administration services is the topic of choice for Popescu, Sabie, and Trusca (2023). Their article,  “The contribution of artificial intelligence to stimulating the innovation of educational services and university programs in public administration,” takes a deep dive into issues such as: the integration of AI into curriculum, envisioning the possibilities of a fully integrated AI environment, considering the ethical concerns AI brings in the early stages of development, and using feedback to prevent bias during the implementation process (Popescu, Sabie, and Trusca 2023).

Popescu et al (2023) surveyed six academics who oversaw projects which use AI-powered chatbots. The projects were located in universities in the United States, United Kingdom, Spain, and Romania. The study was a two-prong approach focusing on the challenges of implementing AI and the advantages it produces as a service mechanism. The researchers found that the AI produced a diverse array of questions dealing with standard routine questions to more complex ones. AI chatbots contributed to effectiveness and efficiency of student services, merely supplementing standard routine questions which human personnel would typically take (Popescu, Sabie, and Trusca 2023). Since the chatbot worked twenty-four hours a day, seven-days a week, and provided help in multiple languages, universities were able to provide greater services to international students and improved accessibility. The outcome of the studies greatly increased enrollment at the participating institutions with the expanded services AI provided.

With the benefits of artificial intelligence comes the drawbacks. The case study gleaned ethical concerns that should be considered for future study. One major concern is the distrust of the public, and in this case the distrust students have toward AI having their personal information collected and used. Students’ feedback informed researchers of the usefulness of the chatbots; the marketing use of that information and the lack of transparency leave much to question about the chatbot’s ethical values and its ability to recognize the need to act ethically. The researchers closed their study stating that maintaining the trust of students and the public would be their greatest priority moving forward and in any future development to come.

Other ethical considerations are the bias researchers may have in conducting the study on chatbots with students’ personal information. This is a common ethical dilemma for most studies, especially when there is an imbalance of power such as the case of academic professionals (researchers) to students. Academics have power over students’ academic standing. It must be considered in forming academic policies that there is this power imbalance and should be a disclaimer with third-party audits to prevent questions of abuse (Marini, 1992). Regardless, the study of artificial intelligence’s impact on academia and public services is paramount to future innovation (O’Reilly, 2011).

Having over thirteen years of law enforcement (LEO) experience and civil service, ethical values are at the core of everything one does as an LEO. Law enforcement officers have power over the public and must exercise ethical consciousness when dealing with the public, regardless of their role as a victim, bystander, or offender. Personal beliefs and issues have no place in the handling of law enforcement services. Officers have the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics, a pledge of moral and ethical conduct, to uphold. A violation of that ethical code constitutes dereliction of duty (U.S. Department of the Interior, July 2024).

The dynamic between academic professionals and students embodies the importance of covenantal relationships. Covenantal management is the relation between leader and follower that engenders trust, fairness, and mutuality. It is best said in Micah 6:8 about moral foundations that, “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8, New International Version, 2011). These traits Micah speaks of are the core of what should be enforced in the use of artificial intelligence and the covenantal relationship of leaders and followers. Artificial intelligence although void of human values is a designed by humans, and thus should reflect the

The relationship between students and university administrators mirrors this same covenantal expectation. Fischer (2010) describes covenantal management as a relationship built on trust, fairness, and mutual responsibility. Micah 6:8 reinforces this moral foundation: “He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God” (Micah 6:8, New International Version, 2011). Justice, humility, and mercy are essential values when considering the ethical use of AI and the responsibilities of covenantal leadership. Because AI is created by human beings, its design must reflect human rights, accountability, and fairness. Without these elements, neither AI systems nor human leaders can earn public trust.

The case study by Popescu, Sabie, and Trusca (2023) ultimately demonstrates how covenantal management principles—trust, informed consent, fairness, and nonmaleficence—apply directly to AI integration in higher education (Fischer 2010). As AI becomes increasingly prevalent across industries, its role in public administration will only grow. Ensuring that AIdriven university services uphold these ethical values is essential for fostering positive, equitable, and effective public administration outcomes. Ultimately, the value of any technology is measured by the benefits it delivers to the people it is meant to serve.

References

Fischer, K. (2010). A biblical-covenantal perspective on organizational behavior & leadership. Faculty Publications and Presentations, 523. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/gov_fac_pubs/523

Marini, F. (1992). The uses of literature in the exploration of public administration ethics: The example of Antigone. Public Administration Review, 52(5), 420–426. https://doi.org/10.2307/976801

New International Version. (2011). The Holy Bible. Zondervan.

O'Reilly, P. (2011). Herbert Simon: “Is’s” and “Oughts” After Sixty Years. Public Integrity, 13(4), 371–384. https://doi.org/10.2753/PIN1099-9922130405

Popescu, R., Sabie, O. M., & Trusca, M. I. (2023). The contribution of artificial intelligence to stimulating the innovation of educational services and university programs in public administration. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 19(70 E), 85-108. https://doi.org/10.24193/tras.70E.5

U.S. Department of the Interior. (July 2024). Government-wide ethics laws. https://www.doi.gov/ethics/government-wide-ethics-laws