2009 city of chicago compliance and integrity survey

8/14/2019 2009 City of Chicago Compliance and Integrity Survey

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/2009-city-of-chicago-compliance-and-integrity-survey 1/59

1

2009 City of ChicagoCompliance and Integrity Survey

City of Chicago Report of Overall Findings

December 15, 2009



2

Roadmap

Background Survey Results Review of Findings and NextSteps



3

About ERCThe Ethics Resource Center is a private, nonprofit organizationdevoted to independent research and the advancement of highethical standards and practices in public and private institutions.

Established in 1922.

ERC provides the benchmark on

compliant/ethical conduct in the USworkforce:

National Workplace Ethics Survey –independent, objective research studyon compliance/ethics violations, strengthof compliant/ethical cultures and theimpact of organizational compliance/

ethics programs across the country.Published every two years for government, business and nonprofitsectors.

ERC also issues regular whitepapers and research reports based onanalysis of national surveys and our

survey database.

Research

Confidential employee surveys –

conducted within individualorganizations to gather baseline data or to measure the impact of acompliance/ethics program effort.Gauges levels of misconduct, tone fromthe top, strength of compliant/ethicalculture and program impact.

ERC is the leading source of surveysand benchmarks for corporations,government and nonprofits. Surveyfindings are compared to national andpeer data.

Benchmarking

Opportunities for CEOs, policymakers

and senior government officials toidentify emerging compliance/ethicsissues.

ERC Fellows – A forum for research,publishing and the exchange of ideasamong scholars and senior compliance/ethics executives and public officials.

ERC professionals appear as keynotespeakers and participate in panels andseminars around the country.

Online resources via www.ethics.org

Publications – Ethics Today e-newsletter; white papers; national

workplace surveys.

Public Education



4

Survey ObjectivesTo inform senior officials as to the current perceptions of

compliance and integrity* among City of Chicago employeesTo identify strengths and areas of opportunity in the City’s fairlynew program

To provide external, U.S. Local Government Average, measures**(averages of responses of employees who work in localgovernments) against which the City can compare its results

To provide critical information and insight necessary to not onlyformulate and implement an effective compliance and integrity

program, but also to establish priorities among limited resourcesFirst time survey of City employees to provide baseline informationfor future comparisons

**The data are collected in ERC’s 2007 National Workplace Ethics Survey,® a nationally representative poll of a random sample of employees at all levelsacross the United States. The survey provides insight into how employees view compliance and ethics at work.

*The terms: compliance and integrity, compliance and ethics, and compliance/ethics are used interchangeably throughout this report.



5

Sampling and MethodologyManaged by Office of ComplianceSurvey Instruments

OnlineApproximately 150 questions plus 8 demographics

Stratified Sample and Census Survey of All

Departments: 7,928 of 37,858 employeesDistribution Method

3,002 email invitations to online survey4,926 paper invitations to online survey, mailed to home addresses

Participation Rate and Margin of Error 1,840 valid responses from 7,928 invited to participateResponse rate: 23.2%Margin of error: +/- 2.2%

Survey Conducted in August – September 2009



6

Selected Terms and Definitions Used in Survey*Compliance Standards

The written guidelines, policies, rules, regulations, court orders, and federal, state, and local lawsincluding federal mandated consent decrees and mayoral executive orders that guide City of Chicago employees on proper workplace behavior (following the rules).

Ethical StandardsThe City of Chicago guidelines and/or organizational standards that help define right from wrongbehavior.

MisconductConduct that violates the City of Chicago’s compliance standards, ethical standards, and/or thelaw.

Ethical workplace conduct / Ethical behavior Following the compliance and ethical standards of the City of Chicago.

Employee GroupingsTop Management: Mayor, City Council, Commissioner and Deputy level employeesMiddle Management: Supervising personnel except Commissioners, Deputies, and immediatesupervisors

Non-management Employees: Non-supervising personnel*Definitions were developed in conjunction with City Office of Compliance and other departments; and were provided to survey participants.



7

Context for Interpreting ResultsCompliance Program in Nascent Stage

This is a relatively new office within the City of Chicago and willrequire time to be fully integrated with day-to-day operations

Baseline Data Collection InitiativeThe City of Chicago has not implemented this type of employeesurvey related to employee ethics in the past so this effort will providea baseline to measure performance in the future

Data Collected During a Transition PeriodLike many other organizations, the City of Chicago was conductinglayoffs as a result of the recession and this can impact howemployees perceive their place of employment



8

Executive SummaryEarly Rollout of the Compliance Program Has Raised

AwarenessHigh awareness of formal program elements, with all measures higher than 2007 Local Government Average82% of employees found training to be applicable, although only 57%cited training as valuable

Nearly one in five employees (17%) believe the City of Chicagorewards employees who follow compliance standards

Next Priority for the City Is a Focus on CultureApproximately two-thirds of employees (62%) perceive the City

overall has a strong compliance and integrity cultureOf the four ERC compliance and integrity culture components,supervisor reinforcement scored most favorably (69%) whilecompliance and integrity leadership scored least favorably (50%)Employees perceive that various levels of management communicateregarding compliance and integrity conduct but employees are notnecessarily satisfied with what they hear



9

Executive Summary (continued)

Metrics the Office of Compliance Needs to Monitor onan Ongoing Basis

Pressure to compromise standards (9%) lower than 2007 LocalGovernment Average (16%), with greatest source of pressure comingfrom supervisors (77%)

Although City of Chicago employees observe less misconduct (28%)compared to the 2007 Local Government Average (34%), half of these observations go unreported (50%)The primary reason for not reporting observed misconduct is belief that no corrective action would be taken (81%)

City of Chicago employees cite a higher perception of experiencingretaliation for reporting (26%) than the 2007 Local GovernmentAverage (20%)



10

Survey Results



11

ERC Model of a Well-Implemented Program

– Written standards of conduct – Advice line – Anonymous or confidential reporting

mechanism – Training on compliance/ethics standards – Discipline system – Evaluation of compliance/ethics conduct

Awareness**

– Employees seek compliance/ethics advice – Receipt of positive feedback for

compliant/ethical conduct – Employee preparedness for misconduct – Mgmt can be questioned without fear – Rewards for following compliance/ethics

standards – Questionable means NOT rewarded

Implementation**

Based on the perceptions of government respondents tothe 2007 NGES survey, just under two in ten perceive their organization to have a well-implemented compliance and

ethics program*

71%

11%

18%

PRESENCE OF WELL-IMPLEMENTEDCOMPLIANCE & ETHICS PROGRAM

Well-Implemented Program

Little/No Program Implementation

Poorly Implemented Program

*Data is from ERC’s 2007 National Government Ethics Survey

**Blue text indicates that the question (or a similar version) was asked in the City of Chicago Compliance and Integrity Survey



12

Awareness of All Program Elements Higher than2007 Local Government Averages

PercentAware of…

Compliance and Integrity Program Elements

Compliance and Integrity Program Awareness across City of Chicago

* Local Government Average asked a single question about obtaining advice about workplace ethics issues

2009 City of Chicago

2007 LocalGovernment Average

93% 92% 92% 92% 93% 91%

71%

82%

90%

68%

85%**85%**

68%*68%*

50%

75%

100%

Advice Line(for

compliance)

Advice Line(for

misconduct)

AnonymousReporting for ComplianceStandards

AnonymousReporting for Misconduct

ComplianceStandardsTraining

Discipline for Violators

Evaluation of compliant/ethical

Conduct

** Local Government Average asked a single question about reporting violations of ethics standards



13

82% of Employees Find Training to BeApplicable to Their Jobs

Training Utilization

Employee Utilization of Training across City of Chicago2009 City of Chicago

PercentAgreeing

82%

74% 68%

57%

0%

50%

100%

Applicability of training Effectiveness of Codeof Conduct training

Effectiveness of compliance training

Compliance trainingvaluable



14

Seventeen Percent of Chicago EmployeesBelieve the City of Chicago Rewards Employees

Who Follow Compliance Standards

PercentAgreeing



Compliance and Integrity Program Incentives across City of Chicago

Compliance and Integrity Program Incentives

* n/a - Question not asked

53%59% 54%

17%

61%54%

n/an/a*0%

50%

100%

City of Chicago doesnot reward

questionable actionsif they get results

Supervisor does notreward questionable

actions if they getresults

Coworkers do notshow respect for those who use

questionable actionsto get results

City of Chicagorewards employees

who followcomplianceStandards



15

Measuring a Strong Compliance and Integrity Culture

– Compliance and Integrity Leadership: tone at the topand belief that leaders can be trusted to do the rightthing.

– Supervisor Reinforcement: individuals directly abovethe employee in the company hierarchy set a goodexample and encourage compliant/ethical behavior.

– Peer Commitment to Compliance and Integrity: compliant/ethical actions of peers support employeeswho “do the right thing.”

– Embedded values: compliance/ethics values promotedthrough informal communication channels arecomplementary and consistent with a company’s officialvalues.

Culture Strength

Observed Misconduct

Percentobservingmisconductandreportingmisconduct

Strong CultureStrong Leaning

Weak LeaningWeak Culture

Reporting

Strength of Compliance and Integrity CultureDrives Down Compliance/Ethics Risk Compliant/ethical culture is the “unwritten

code” that tells employees how to think and act – how things are ‘actually done around here’*

42%

86%

19%11%

0%

50%

100%

69%

60%

85%88%

0%

50%

100%

Note: Data shown is from ERC’s 2007 National Government Ethics Survey (Federal, State, and Local combined)*Treviño, Weaver, Gibson and Toffler. (1999) Managing Ethics and Compliance: What Works and What Hurts. California Management Review, 41 (2).

**Treviño, L.K., Hartman, L.P., and Brown, M.. (2000) Moral Person and Moral Manager: How Executives Develop a Reputation for Ethical Leadership.California Management Review, 42 (4).

Tone at the top is one’s moral reputation and thedemonstration of moral behavior.**



16

Measuring a Strong Compliance and Integrity Culture

– Top management talks about importance of doingthe right thing

– Satisfied with information from top management – Top management sets a good example – Trust top management to keep promises and

commitments

– Top management supports employees – Top management does not tolerate retaliation – Top management would be held accountable

Compliance and IntegrityLeadership

A compliant/ethical environment is formed and created through the perceptions that employees at all levels are engaging in compliant/ethical actions and behaviors

– Direct supervisor talks about importance of doingthe right thing

– Satisfied with information from direct supervisor – Direct supervisor sets a good example – Trust direct supervisor to keep promises and

commitments

– Direct supervisor supports employees – Direct supervisor would be held accountable

Supervisor Reinforcement

– Coworkers talk about importance of doing the rightthing

– Coworkers set a good example – Trust coworkers to keep promises and

commitments – Coworkers support employees – Coworkers consider compliance issues

Peer Commitment

– When employees in my company make businessdecisions they consider the effect on:

– Society and community – The environment – Employee well-being – Future generations

Embedded Values



17

Two-thirds of Employees Perceive the City of Chicago Overall Has a Strong Compliance and

Integrity CultureOverall Compliance and Integrity Culture Strength City of Chicago

Culture Strength

62%

80%

0%

45%

90%

2009 Cityof Chicago


18



18

Compliance and Integrity Culture Dashboard

Compliance andIntegrity Leadership

Supervisor Reinforcement

Peer Commitment Embedded Values

69%80%

0%

45%

90%

2009 City of Chic ago 2007 Loc alGovernment Average

67%

80%

0%

45%

90%


53%68%

0%

45%

90%


50%

74%

0%

45%

90%


CultureStrength

CultureStrength

CultureStrength

CultureStrength

19



19

Although 67% of Employees Perceive TopManagement Communicates Importance of

Following the Rules, Less than Half Satisfiedwith the Information They Receive



Elements of Compliance and Integrity Leadership

PercentAgreeing

Elements of Compliance and Integrity Leadership across City of Chicago

Who Do Employees Consider to Be Top Management?34% Immediate Supervisor 19% Deputy Commissioner 30% Commissioner

7% Mayor 10% Mayor’s Office and/or City Council

42%

61% 57% 60%

82% 77% 75%70%

80%73%

78%

38%

54%

67%

0%

50%

100%

Top mgmtcommunicates

importanceof following the

rules

Satisfied withinformation

from

Top mgmtsets a good

example

Trust top mgmtto keep

promises andcommitments

Top mgmtsupportsfollowing

standards

Top mgmtdoes nottolerate

retaliation

Top mgmtIs held

accountabletop mgmt

20



20

Seventy-Seven Percent of Employees BelieveSupervisors Communicate Importance of

Following the Rules Though Only 57% AreSatisfied with the Message



Elements of Supervisor Reinforcement

PercentAgreeing

Elements of Supervisor Reinforcement across City of Chicago

57%

76% 78%82% 80% 83% 80%85%

82%77% 76%64%

0%

50%

100%

Supervisor

communicatesimportance of following the

rules

Satisfied with

informationfrom

supervisor

Supervisor

sets a goodexample

Trust

supervisor tokeep promises

&commitments

Supervisor

supportsfollowing

standards

Supervisors

are heldaccountable

21



21

Sixty-one Percent of Employees TrustCoworkers to Keep Promises and Commitments



Elements of Peer Commitment

PercentAgreeing

Elements of Peer Commitment across City of Chicago


65%72%

61%70% 65%

87%84% 81% 84% 79%

n/a*

74%

0%

50%

100%

Coworkers/peers talk

aboutimportance of following the

rules

Coworkers/peers set a

good example

Trustcoworkers to

keeppromises &

commitments

Coworkers/peers support

followingstandards

Coworkers/peers

consider compliance

stds indecision-making

Coworkers/peers are heldaccountable

22



22

More than 60% of Employees Perceive thatEmployees Consider Effects on Society when

Making Decisions



Embedded Values

PercentAgreeing

Embedded Values across City of Chicago


63%56%

46%40%

59%

85%

65% 69%

n/a*

73%

0%

50%

100%

Consider effectson society

Consider effectson employee

well-being

Consider effectson environment

Consider effectson future

generations

Consider effectson quality of

products andservices

23



23

Program Targets (Outcomes) in the ERC Model

High profile corporate debacles, followedby passage of SOX (2001-2002)

-

Fewer Observations

MoreObservations

NBES 2000 NBES 2003 NBES 2005 NBES 2007

60%62%

58%

0%

50%

100%

NBES 2000 NBES 2003 NBES 2005 NBES 2007

70%

Observed Misconduct

Reporting of Observed Misconduct

Rate of Misconductcombined with

Rate of Reportinghelps identify

Level of Compliance/Ethics Risk

Note: All data shown is from ERC’s 2007 National Government Ethics Survey (Federal, State, and Local combined)

The level of compliance/ethics risk is consideredalong a continuum. A severe risk is presented when

a behavior happens frequently and usually goesunreported; high risk is presented when a behavior

happens often and often goes unreported; and aguarded risk is presented when a behavior happens

less frequently and may go unreported.

24



24

Compliance/Ethics Risk Dashboard

Observed Misconduct

Reporting of Misconduct

Retaliation for a Report

Perceived Pressure

9%

16%

0%

13%

25%

2009 Cityof Chicago


28%34%

0%

25%

50%

2009 Cityof Chicago


50%

67%

0%

35%

70%

2009 Cityof Chicago

2007 LocalAverage Government

26%

20%

0%

15%

30%

2009 Cityof Chicago


25



25

Supervisors Are Perceived to Be theGreatest Source of Pressure

Perceived Sources of Negative Pressure across City of Chicago,of the 9% Who Perceived Pressure to Violate Standards or the Law

Sources of Pressure

PressureFelt (%)



77%71% 69% 65% 62%

54%

83%

68% 69%

44%

59%

44%

0%

50%

100%

Supervisorypressure

Keeping my job

Meetingperformance

goals

Saving others' jobs

Demandsfrom outsidestakeholders

Advancing myown career or

financialinterests

26



26

Observation of Discrimination Almost Twicethat of 2007 Local Government Average

Observation of Specific Forms of Misconduct in the Workplace across City of Chicago Overall

Note: n/a - Question not asked

Behaviors2009 City of

Chicago2007 Local Gov't

Average

Abusive Behavior 27% 26%

Lying to Employees 21% 22%

Discrimination 20% 12%

Conflicts of Interest 15% 26%

Improper Hiring Practices 15% 17%

Safety Violations 13% 17%

Email/Internet Abuse 12% 23%

Misuse of City's Services or Property 12% n/a

Other 12% n/a

Misreporting Hours Worked 11% 18%

Poor Service/ Product Quality 11% 10%

Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct 10% n/a

Ly ing t o Ex ternal St ak eholders 9% 16%

Sexual Harassment 9% 9%

Substance Abuse 7% n/a

M isuse of Cit y's Confident ial Info 6% 6%

Alteration of Documents 6% 7%

Falsi ficat ion of Reports or Records 5% 6%

Violation of Environmental Regulations 5% 12%

Bribes/Kickbacks/Gifts 4% 4%

Stealing/theft 4% 10%

27



27

Sexual Harassment, Improper Hiring Practices,and Computer Abuse Least Reported Forms of

MisconductObservation and Reporting of Specific Forms of Misconduct in the Workplace across City of Chicago Overall


BehaviorsObserved 2009City of Chicago

Reported 2009City of Chicago

Reported 2007Local Gov't Avg

Falsification of Reports or Records 5% 62% 58%Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct 10% 59% n/aSafety Violations 13% 57% 69%Poor Service/Product Quality 11% 55% 65%Alteration of Documents 6% 55% 67%Other 12% 52% n/aViolation of Environmental Regulations 5% 52% 52%Abusive Behavior 27% 50% 61%Conflicts of Interest 15% 47% 50%Misreporting Hours Worked 11% 47% 55%Bribes/Kickbacks/Gifts 4% 45% 56%Misuse of City's Confidential Info 6% 43% 62%Lying to External Stakeholders 9% 42% 40%Discrimination 20% 41% 50%Misuse of City's Services or Property 12% 41% n/aSubstance Abuse 7% 40% n/aStealing/theft 4% 40% 59%Lying to Employees 21% 39% 62%Sexual Harassment 9% 37% 66%Improper Hiring Practices 15% 37% 55%Email/Internet Abuse 12% 35% 52%

28



28

Employees Cite Not Believing Corrective ActionWould Be Taken as Primary Reason Not to

ReportReason for Non-Reporting


2007 LocalGov't

Average

I didn't believe corrective action would be taken 81% 59%

I didn't trust that my report would be kept confidential 64% 67%

I feared retaliation from management 60% 28%I feared retaliation from coworkers 41% 26%

I did not think it was significant enough to report 41% n/a

I didn't know whom to contact 36% 15%

I would have to report it to the person involved 36% 30%

I did not believe it was my responsibility 35% n/a

I did not want to get someone fired 34% n/a

The issue had been addressed my someone else 26% 49%

I thought someone else would report it 25% 21%

It was to my advantage not to report 23% n/a

I resolved the issue myself 21% 47%


29



29

‘Compliance/Ethics Risk’ Increases with More FrequentObservation Coupled with Decreased Reporting

50th50thPercentile for Percentile for

ObservationObservation

50th50thPercentile for Percentile for

ReportingReporting

MoreMoreFrequentlyFrequently

ReportedReportedLessLessFrequentlyFrequentlyObservedObserved

LessLessFrequentlyFrequently

ReportedReported

MoreMoreFrequentlyFrequentlyObservedObserved

‘Compliance/Ethics Risk’ across City of Chicago Overall

IncreasedIncreasedCompliance/Compliance/

Ethics RiskEthics RiskEmail/Internet Abuse

Improper Hiring PracticesSexual

Harassment

Lying to Employees

DiscriminationMisuse of City'sConfidential InfoBribes/Kickbacks/Gifts

Conflicts of Interest

Other

Poor Service/Product

QualitySafety Violations

Falsification of Reportsor Records

Substance AbuseStealing/theftMisuse of City's Services

or PropertyLying to External

Stakeholders

Misreporting Hours Worked

Abusive Behavior

Violation of EnvironmentalRegulations

Alteration of Documents

Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct

30



30

Review of Findings and

Next Steps

31



Review of Findings and Next StepsCompliance Program Awareness and Use

Program awareness highConsider adding a compliance and integrity dimension to performanceevaluations beginning with higher management

Employees find training applicable and effective more than they find itvaluable

Review current training methods to identify opportunities to increaseperception of its value

Identify employee groups where additional job-specific compliance/ethicstraining might be applicable

One in five perceives that the City rewards following the standards, andsomewhat more than half do not perceive that questionable practices arerewarded or respected

Conduct further inquiry to understand employee perceptions aboutrewards. Develop messaging that achieving organizational goals neednot occur at the expense of compliant/ethical behavior

32



Review of Findings and Next Steps (cont.)Compliance and Integrity Culture

Two-thirds perceive City has a strong compliance and integrity culturePerceptions about immediate supervisors’ compliant/ethical behavior morefavorable than about top management’sOne-third perceive that top management is their immediate supervisor Less than half (42%) satisfied with the information they receive from top

managementTrain managers on techniques for modeling compliant/ethical behavior and bringing the compliance and integrity dialogue into the workplacein everyday situationsCity of Chicago management might publicize its efforts to modelcompliant/ethical behavior by speaking about efforts to do the rightthing, issuing printed or online announcements of compliant/ethicalactions, making known decisions that involve complexcompliant/ethical choices

33



Review of Findings and Next Steps (cont.)Program Targets

Perceived pressure to violate standards less than the 2007 LocalGovernment Average, with greatest pressure coming from supervisors

Work with supervisors and managers to help them distinguish normalworkplace pressures from improper pressures and to develop ways toconvey organizational demands to employees with the objective of

limiting potential misperceptionsAlthough observation of misconduct is below the 2007 Local GovernmentAverage, only half of observed misconduct is reported

Develop campaign to highlight multiple reporting channels that areavailable to employees

Belief that no corrective action would be taken is the primary reason citedfor not reporting

Strengthen mechanisms to respond to reports of misconduct, whilealso protecting confidentiality of those involvedProvide organization-wide, sanitized reports of cases that are being

handled by the City

34



Review of Findings and Next Steps (cont.)Program Targets (continued)

Of those that reported misconduct, 26% perceived experiencingretaliation as a result of their report

Use existing mechanisms, such as training or awareness campaigns,to remind employees that retaliation is not to be tolerated

Consider concurrent actions with other City Programs

Highlight City Compliance and Integrity Program components in ARRACompliance Program Training

Provide Compliance and Integrity training and support for City M/WBEProgram participants

Compliance and Integrity focus groups can include City Departmentsas well as Delegate Agencies

35



For More Information

Ethics Resource Center Ethics Resource Center

www.ethics.orgwww.ethics.org

703-647-2185703-647-2185

[email protected]@ethics.org

36



Appendix

Additional Findings

37



Additional FindingsCompliance Program Awareness and Use

Employees less likely to seek guidance from the Office of Compliance thanfrom other City of Chicago resources

Slightly more employees perceive the City compliance and integrity cultureto be compliance rather than value oriented

Compliance and Integrity CultureAbout 40% of employees trust top management to keep their promises andcommitments, and a little over half feel that top management sets a goodexample

Perceptions about compliant/ethical behaviors of middle managementemployees somewhat more favorable than those of top management

Strongest perceptions of accountability exist for supervisors

Almost 70% perceive supervisors do not tolerate retaliation

Slightly more than half of coworkers provide positive feedback

About half of employees (49%) perceive that non-management employees

consider compliance standards when making decisions

38



Additional Findings (continued)Program Outcomes

Fifty-one percent of employees perceive exposure to compliance/ethics riskMore in middle management feel pressure to violate standards than in top or non-management positions

Top management cites most observed misconduct compared to other employee groups

76% of top management reports misconduct compared to 40% of non-management employees reporting misconduct they perceive

Most reports made to immediate supervisors (39%) followed by higher management (23%)

Resources used when deciding whether to report misconduct all found tobe similarly useful

30% of non-management employees perceive retaliation for reportingcompared to 8% of middle management employees perceiving retaliation

Satisfaction with the City of Chicago’s response to reported misconductgreatest amongst top management (50%) and least amongst non-management employees (23%)

39



Additional Findings (continued)Program Outcomes (continued)

More than three-quarters of employees at all levels do not believe their personal values conflict with those of the City of Chicago

Fifty percent perceive that the organization values them as an employee,with more management than non-management employees concurring

Sixty-four percent of employees are satisfied working for the City of Chicago

40



A Smaller Percentage of Employees Feel Preparedto Handle Questionable Compliance/Ethics/Legal

Situations than Local Government Average

Compliance and Integrity Program Effectiveness Measures

Perceived Overall Compliance and Integrity Program Effectiveness across City of Chicago

PercentAgreeing




85%

63%

89%

70%

40%

n/a

65%

n/a*0%

50%

100%

Employees seekguidance from Office

of Compliance

Employees seekguidance from own

department, Board of Ethics, Law, or other

City department

Feel prepared tohandle situations

Confident in ability torecognize

compliance/ethicalissues

41



Slightly More than Half (55%) of EmployeesBelieve the City of Chicago Emphasizes Its

Values and PrinciplesOrganization Emphasis for City of Chicago

Emphasis of Organization

PercentAgreeing



100%

42



Although Nearly Two-thirds of Employees FeelTop Managers Emphasize Following the Rules,

Less than 40% Receive Positive Feedback

Top Management Behaviors

PercentAgreeing

Additional Top Management Behaviors across City of Chicago


39%

52%63%64%

0%

50%

100%

Top mgmtemphasizes followingthe rules even under

pressure

Top mgmt providespositive feedback Top mgmt holds allemployeesaccountable

Top mgmt considerscompliancestandards in decision-

making

43



Less than Half of Employees Trust MiddleManagement to Keep Promises and

Commitments

Middle Management Behaviors

PercentAgreeing

Middle Management Behaviors across City of Chicago2009 City of Chicago

72%

46%

63%

46%58%

69%

0%

50%

100%

Middle mgmt


rules

Satisfied with

informationfrom middle

mgmt

Middle mgmt

sets a goodexample

Trust middle

mgmt to keeppromises &

commitments

Middle mgmt

does nottolerate

retaliation

Middle mgmt is

heldaccountable

44



Over 60% of Employees Believe MiddleManagement Holds Other Employees

Accountable

Middle Management Behaviors

PercentAgreeing

Additional Middle Management Behaviors across City of Chicago2009 City of Chicago

44%

57%64%65%

0%

50%

100%

Middle mgmtemphasizes followingthe rules even under

pressure

Middle mgmt providespositive feedback

Middle mgmt holdsother employees

accountable

Middle mgmtconsiders compliancestandards in decision-

making

45



Almost 70% of Employees Perceive ImmediateSupervisors Do Not Tolerate Retaliation

Immediate Supervisor Behaviors

PercentAgreeing

Additional Immediate Supervisor Behaviors across City of Chicago2009 City of Chicago

62%68%71%70%76%

0%

50%

100%

Supervisor emphasizesfollowing the

rules even under pressure

Supervisor provides positive

feedback

Supervisor holdsother employees

accountable

Supervisor considers

compliancestandards in

decision-making

Supervisor doesnot tolerateretaliation

46



Slightly More Than Half of Coworkers ProvidePositive Feedback

Peer Behaviors

PercentAgreeing

Additional Peer Behaviors across City of Chicago2009 City of Chicago

53% 50%60%58%

66%

0%

50%

100%

Coworkers/peersemphasize

following therules even under

pressure

Coworkers/peersprovide positive

feedback

Coworkers/peershold other employees

accountable

Coworkers/peersdo not tolerate

retaliation

Satisfied withinformation fromcoworkers/peers

47



Forty-four Percent of Employees Trust Non-management to Keep Promises and

Commitments2009 City of Chicago


Non-management Employee Behaviors

PercentAgreeing

Non-management Behaviors across City of Chicago


55%41%

57%44%

51%

80%

n/a*

89%

n/an/an/an/a0%

50%

100%

Non-mgmtempl


rules

Satisfied withinfo from non-mgmt empl

Non-mgmtempl set a

good example

Trust non-mgmt empl tokeep promises

&commitments

Non-mgmtempl do not

tolerateretaliation

Non-mgmtemployees are

heldaccountable

48



About Half of Employees Perceive Non-management Employees Consider Compliance

Standards when Making Decisions


Non-Management Employee Behaviors

PercentAgreeing

Additional Non-Management Behaviors across City of Chicago

53%

37%

53%49%

0%

30%

60%

Non-mgmt emplemphasize followingthe rules even under

pressure

Non-mgmt emplprovide positive

feedback

Non-mgmt empl holdothers accountable

Non-mgmt emplconsider compliance

standards indecisions

49



About Half of City of Chicago Employees PerceiveExposure to Compliance/Ethics/Legal Risk, with

Immediate Supervisors Citing Least ExposurePerceived Exposure to Compliance/Ethics/Legal Risk across City of Chicago

Employee Group

PerceivedExposure

to Risk (%)

Managerial Level

45%

54%

45%50%

55%51%

0%

35%

70%

2009 Cityof Chicago

2007 LocalGovernment

Average

TopManagement

MiddleManagement

ImmediateSupervisor

Non-Management

50



Pressure to Commit a Compliance/Ethics/LegalViolation Nearly Half 2007 Local Government

AveragePerceived Pressure to Commit a Compliance/Ethics/Legal Violation across City of Chicago

Employee GroupManagerial Level

9%

16%

10%

14%

7%8%

0%

10%

20%

2009 Cityof Chicago


Average

TopManagement

MiddleManagement

ImmediateSupervisor

Non-Management

PerceivedPressure (%)

51



Top Management Cites Most ObservedMisconduct across Employee Groups

Observed Misconduct in the Workplace across City of Chicago

Employee Group

ObservedMisconduct (%)

Managerial Level

28%34%

36%33%

19%

28%

0%

25%

50%

2009 Cityof Chicago


Average

TopManagement

MiddleManagement

ImmediateSupervisor

Non-Management

52



Half of All Observed Misconduct is Reported,with Non-management Employees Least

Likely to ReportReporting of Observed Misconduct in the Workplace across City of Chicago

Employee Group

ReportedMisconduct (%)

Managerial Level

50%

67%76%

70%64%

40%

0%

50%

100%

2009 Cityof Chicago


Average

TopManagement

MiddleManagement

ImmediateSupervisor

Non-Management

53



Consistent with Local Government Average,Most Reports Are Made to Supervisors

Locations for Reporting Specific Types of Misconduct

Sources Where Employees Report Observed Specific Violations across City of Chicago

ReportingChannel (%)




39%

7% 5% 3%

17%

49%

18% 19%

4% 5%

23%

7%n/a

6%

0%

30%

60%

Supervisor Higher management

Inspector General's

Office

Someoneoutside Cityof Chicago

Other responsible

person

Helpline(Office of

Compliance)

Other

54



Resources Used When Deciding Whether to Report Misconduct All Found to Be

Similarly Useful

Resource Referred to by Employee

Perceived Usefulness of Resources When Deciding What to Do about Observed Misconduct across City of Chicago

Found ResourceUseful (%)



58% 60%68%

57%65%

0%

40%

80%

Ethical

standards

Compliance

standards

Ethics training Compliance

training

Helpline (Office

of Compliance)

55



Overall, One-quarter of Those Who ReportedObserved Misconduct Perceived Experiencing

RetaliationReporters of Misconduct Who Perceived They Experienced Retaliation across City of Chicago

Employee Group

PerceivedRetaliation (%)

Managerial Level

26%

20% 21%

8%

22%

30%

0%

20%

40%

2009 Cityof Chicago


Average

TopManagement

MiddleManagement

ImmediateSupervisor

Non-Management

56



One in Four (26%) of Those Who ReportedWere Satisfied with the City of Chicago’s

Response

Employee Group

Managerial Level

Reporters of Misconduct Who Were Satisfied with Organization’s Response across City of Chicago

Satisfied w/Response (%)

50%

23%

33%35%

26%

0%

30%

60%

2009 Cityof Chicago

TopManagement

MiddleManagement

ImmediateSupervisor

Non-Management

57



More than Three-quarters of Employees atAll Levels Do not Perceive that Their Values

Conflict with Those of the OrganizationEmployees Who Do not Perceive Conflict between Their and Organization’s Values across City of Chicago

Employee Group

Values notin Conflict (%)

Managerial Level

70%80%77% 77% 76% 77%

0%

50%

100%



Average

TopManagement

MiddleManagement

ImmediateSupervisors

Non-management

58



Half (50%) Perceive that the OrganizationValues Them as an Employee

Employee Group

Feel Valuedby Organization (%)

Perception that Organization Values Employee across City of Chicago

Managerial Level

80%69%

47%57%

63%

50%

0%

50%

100%



Average

TopManagement

MiddleManagement

ImmediateSupervisors

Non-management

59



Sixty-four Percent of Employees Are SatisfiedWorking for the City of Chicago

Employee Group

Satisfied w/Organization (%)

Employee Satisfaction w/ Organization across City of Chicago

Managerial Level

71%61%

75%76%

64%

84%

0%

50%

100%

2009 Cityof Chicago


Average

TopManagement

MiddleManagement

ImmediateSupervisor

Non-Management