Active Bystandership as a Framework for Navigating Ethical Challenges in Correctional Psychology

An unprecedented wave of executive orders in 2025 has created conflicts between institutional mandates and the ethical principles that guide psychologists. While applicable to all specialists, these challenges are notably salient in correctional settings, where researchers, clinicians, and consultants must uphold integrity and well-being despite directives that may directly contradict the American Psychological Association (APA) Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct (APA, 2017) and the Specialty Guidelines for Forensic Psychology (APA, 2013). This article, an adaptation of a presentation delivered at the APA’s 2025 annual convention, introduces the concept of active bystandership as a framework for navigating these ethical dilemmas. More than simply refusing to engage in unethical acts, active bystandership requires learning and practicing the skills to intervene, advocate, and support others when harm arises. Ervin Staub (2019) defines a bystander as a person who witnesses potential or actual harm, recognizes that positive action is needed, and is in a position to take that action. Active bystandership occurs when such a bystander chooses to intervene to prevent harm.  Rooted in collective responsibility, it shifts us from individual compliance to active engagement grounded in professional values.

Challenges in Correctional Research 

Conducting rigorous research in correctional settings is complex, involving bureaucratic hurdles, collaboration with multiple stakeholders, and vulnerable populations (Batastini et al., 2025). Recent government directives have introduced new and formidable barriers threatening the very foundation of this work. Most significant has been abrupt decreases in federal funding. Formerly a source of funding on policy-relevant research (e.g., the relationship between immigration and crime; Eno Louden et al., 2025), the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) suspended all calls for applications for 2025. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has cancelled grants focused on topics related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion—a topic of immense importance given racial and ethnic health disparities in the criminal legal system. This reduction of funding, coupled with the slashing of indirect rates for federal grants, has created a climate of uncertainty for universities and research institutions, threatening the pipeline of future researchers dedicated to addressing critical issues within corrections.

Further, an anti-science sentiment has been growing among the public and political leaders, which may make correctional administrators hesitant to engage in research. The Restoring Gold Standard Science Executive Order 14303 (2025) holds researchers to near impossible standards (e.g., exploratory research does not have falsifiable hypothesis; longitudinal studies may not be fully reproducible due to funding), clearing the way for policymakers to ignore research findings that conflict with their goals (Center for Open Science, 2025). Correctional research is challenging in the best of times (Batastini et al., 2025)—the current climate discourages research precisely when it is most needed.

The APA’s Code of Conduct obligates psychologists to conduct research that contributes to the welfare of society (Standard 1.04). By limiting funding and discouraging research on disparities, these policies directly impede our ability to fulfill this ethical obligation. The core ethical principle of Justice, which calls for psychologists to be aware of and guard against biases that might limit the application of their work to specific populations, is also directly challenged.

Active bystandership calls for psychologists to think creatively and persist. This may involve seeking alternative funding sources or engaging in advocacy to educate policymakers and the public on the importance of this work. Even if psychologists cannot convince policymakers using arguments surrounding social justice, policymakers may be swayed by the argument that effective practices are often more cost effective than their alternatives. Active bystanders in this context are not just researchers but also advocates who defend the scientific process and the ethical imperative to study all populations, particularly those who are marginalized.

Impact in Correctional Psychology 

These policy shifts have created a climate ripe for moral injury, a concept typically associated with military and correctional staff (Gangemi & Dysart, 2024; Ricciardelli et al., 2024; Williamson et al., 2025). Moral injury occurs when a person feels they have violated their own deeply held values—or been required to act in a way that betrays their moral compass. For correctional psychologists, this might mean being ordered to enforce a policy that causes harm, which has become an increasingly common experience.

For example, Executive Order 14168 (2025), “Defending women from gender ideology extremism and restoring biological truth to the federal government,” directly targets the care of transgender individuals in federal facilities. The order mandated the removal of all policies that allow for gender identity and prohibited federal funding for medical procedures and treatments for gender affirmation. The Bureau of Prisons (BOP) was directed to rescind its policies leading to drastic changes and uncertainty. Psychologists witnessed the removal of gender-affirming undergarments and other provisions. This resulted in a rise in self-injurious behavior and increased suicide risk assessments for transgender inmates.

The withdrawal of gender-affirming care conflicted with the APA’s Code of Conduct, which mandates respect for the dignity and worth of all people (Principle E). On June 3, 2025, a court injunction in Kingdom v. Trump required the BOP to restore access to pre-existing medical and mental health care for transgender inmates while litigation continued. Plans are in place to rewrite BOP policy to mimic restrictive state policies, suggesting these ethical conflicts are far from over. Additionally, we’ve heard from our colleagues that state and local agencies are also impacted, either through direct mandates or through the ripple effect of federal policy.

The Elimination of DEI EO 14151 (2025) (“Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”) created another layer of ethical conflict. A DOJ Memo banned DEI training and even the use of language related to gender and other common inclusive terms. This conflicts with APA standards that emphasize cultural competence and an understanding of diversity. For post- and pre-doctoral trainees, this executive order has been particularly damaging. Psychologists who remain in these institutions are asked to “do the same with less,” or to reframe essential training under a new, politically palatable name.

What We Learned: A Call to All Psychologists

The ethical challenges facing correctional staff are a microcosm of systemic shifts that affect all psychologists, regardless of specialization. Before the panel, we realized that the threats to our professional ethics were more interconnected than we initially thought. For example, a new executive order, “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” (EO 14321, 2025), which encourages involuntary civil commitment, highlights how political mandates can create deep ethical conflicts between federal policy and local, client-centered practice. This policy, which reallocates funding away from harm-reduction and “housing first” models, increases stigma and raises the broader risk of criminalizing mental health and substance use disorders. It also directly impacts justice-involved individuals, raising the specter of a return to the “get-tough” policies of the 1990s and in direct contrast with the First Step Act established in 2018 (First Step Act, 2018).

It is critical we resist falling into an us versus them mindset. The reality is that correctional staff are also impacted by these policies—sometimes profoundly. Their experiences of moral injury are real, and if we ignore that, we miss an essential piece of the ethical landscape. Avoiding this mindset starts with listening and learning about the pressures corrections professionals face—the impossible choices, the chronic resource shortages, the policies that conflict with both their training and their conscience. When we understand how these stressors affect correctional workforces, we can better connect, collaborate, and advocate. We can use science and skills not just for people who are incarcerated, but also to educate and support those tasked with their custody and care, to find common ground.

Active Bystandership: A Framework for Ethical Action

Given the prevalence of ethical challenges across specializations, active bystandership is a universal and essential framework for navigating institutional pressure and preventing ethical harm. Active bystandership training elevates everyone in the system to prevent harm before it occurs. Rooted in the social science of Dr. Ervin Staub, it gives people the skills and permission to act. Active bystandership is a set of learned skills that empowers individuals to interrupt a harmful situation, speak up against injustice, or offer support to someone in need (Staub, 2019). It is a proactive response to ethical dilemmas, moving beyond simply observing harm to actively intervening. This framework helps psychologists uphold their values by providing concrete, actionable strategies for advocating for change, rather than remaining isolated or paralyzed by the complexity of the situation.  Learning and practicing active bystandership as a skill is essential for psychologists to act ethically amidst pressures. The erosion of ethics in one setting creates a dangerous precedent for the entire field. 

To address these systemic issues, we suggest the following: