1

2009 City of Chicago

Compliance and Integrity Survey

City of Chicago Report of Overall Findings

December 15, 2009

2

Roadmap

Survey ResultsReview of Findings and Next

Background
Steps
3
 The Ethics Resource Center is a private, nonprofit organization
devoted to independent research and the advancement of high
ethical standards and practices in public and private institutions.
 Established in 1922.
Research
ERC provides the benchmark on
compliant/ethical conduct in the US
workforce:
National Workplace Ethics Survey –
independent, objective research study
on compliance/ethics violations, strength
of compliant/ethical cultures and the
impact of organizational compliance/
ethics programs across the country.
Published every two years for
government, business and nonprofit
sectors.
ERC also issues regular whitepapers
and research reports based on
analysis of national surveys and our
survey database.
About ERC
Benchmarking
Confidential employee surveys –
conducted within individual
organizations to gather baseline data or
to measure the impact of a
compliance/ethics program effort.
Gauges levels of misconduct, tone from
the top, strength of compliant/ethical
culture and program impact.
ERC is the leading source of surveys
and benchmarks for corporations,
government and nonprofits. Survey
findings are compared to national and
peer data.
Public Education
Opportunities for CEOs, policymakers
and senior government officials to
identify emerging compliance/ethics
issues.
ERC Fellows – A forum for research,
publishing and the exchange of ideas
among scholars and senior compliance/
ethics executives and public officials.
ERC professionals appear as keynote
speakers and participate in panels and
seminars around the country.
Online resources via www.ethics.org
Publications – Ethics Today e-
newsletter; white papers; national
workplace surveys.
4

Survey Objectives
 To inform senior officials as to the current perceptions of
compliance and integrity* among City of Chicago employees
 To identify strengths and areas of opportunity in the City’s fairly
new program
 To provide external, U.S. Local Government Average, measures**
(averages of responses of employees who work in local
governments) against which the City can compare its results
 To provide critical information and insight necessary to not only
formulate and implement an effective compliance and integrity
program, but also to establish priorities among limited resources
 First time survey of City employees to provide baseline information
for future comparisons
*The terms: compliance and integrity, compliance and ethics, and compliance/ethics are used interchangeably throughout this report.
**The data are collected in ERC’s 2007 National Workplace Ethics Survey,® a nationally representative poll of a random sample of employees at all levels
across the United States. The survey provides insight into how employees view compliance and ethics at work.
5

Sampling and Methodology

 Managed by Office of Compliance
 Survey Instruments
 Online
 Approximately 150 questions plus 8 demographics
 Stratified Sample and Census Survey of All
Departments: 7,928 of 37,858 employees
 Distribution Method
 3,002 email invitations to online survey
 4,926 paper invitations to online survey, mailed to home addresses
 Participation Rate and Margin of Error
 1,840 valid responses from 7,928 invited to participate
 Response 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 laws
including federal mandated consent decrees and mayoral executive orders that guide City of
Chicago employees on proper workplace behavior (following the rules).

 Ethical Standards
 The City of Chicago guidelines and/or organizational standards that help define right from wrong
behavior.

 Misconduct
 Conduct that violates the City of Chicago’s compliance standards, ethical standards, and/or the
law.

 Ethical workplace conduct / Ethical behavior

 Following the compliance and ethical standards of the City of Chicago.

 Employee Groupings
 Top Management: Mayor, City Council, Commissioner and Deputy level employees
 Middle Management: Supervising personnel except Commissioners, Deputies, and immediate
supervisors
 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 Results

 Compliance Program in Nascent Stage
 This is a relatively new office within the City of Chicago and will
require time to be fully integrated with day-to-day operations

 Baseline Data Collection Initiative

 The City of Chicago has not implemented this type of employee
survey related to employee ethics in the past so this effort will provide
a baseline to measure performance in the future

 Data Collected During a Transition Period

 Like many other organizations, the City of Chicago was conducting
layoffs as a result of the recession and this can impact how
employees perceive their place of employment
8

Executive Summary
 Early Rollout of the Compliance Program Has Raised
Awareness
 High awareness of formal program elements, with all measures higher
than 2007 Local Government Average
 82% of employees found training to be applicable, although only 57%
cited training as valuable
 Nearly one in five employees (17%) believe the City of Chicago
rewards employees who follow compliance standards

 Next Priority for the City Is a Focus on Culture

 Approximately two-thirds of employees (62%) perceive the City
overall has a strong compliance and integrity culture
 Of the four ERC compliance and integrity culture components,
supervisor reinforcement scored most favorably (69%) while
compliance and integrity leadership scored least favorably (50%)
 Employees perceive that various levels of management communicate
regarding compliance and integrity conduct but employees are not
necessarily satisfied with what they hear
9

Executive Summary (continued)

 Metrics the Office of Compliance Needs to Monitor on
an Ongoing Basis
 Pressure to compromise standards (9%) lower than 2007 Local
Government Average (16%), with greatest source of pressure coming
from 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 experiencing
retaliation for reporting (26%) than the 2007 Local Government
Average (20%)
10

Survey Results
 11

ERC Model of a Well-Implemented Program

PRESENCE OF WELL-IMPLEMENTED Awareness**
COMPLIANCE & ETHICS PROGRAM – Written standards of conduct
Based on the perceptions of government respondents to – Advice line
the 2007 NGES survey, just under two in ten perceive their – Anonymous or confidential reporting
organization to have a well-implemented compliance and mechanism
ethics program*
– Training on compliance/ethics standards
18%
71% – Discipline system
– Evaluation of compliance/ethics conduct
11%

Implementation**
– Employees seek compliance/ethics advice
– Receipt of positive feedback for
Well-Implemented Program compliant/ethical conduct
– Employee preparedness for misconduct
Little/No Program Implementation
– Mgmt can be questioned without fear
Poorly Implemented Program – Rewards for following compliance/ethics
standards
– Questionable means NOT rewarded
*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 than

2007 Local Government Averages

Compliance and Integrity Program Awareness across City of Chicago

100%
2009 City of Chicago
93% 92% 92% 92% 93%
91% 90%
2007 Local
85%** 85%** Government Average
82%

75% 71%
Percent 68%* 68%* 68%
Aware of…

50%
Advice Line Advice Line Anonymous Anonymous Compliance Discipline for Evaluation of
(for (for Reporting for Reporting for Standards Violators compliant/ethical
compliance) misconduct) Compliance Misconduct Training Conduct
Standards

Compliance and Integrity Program Elements

* Local Government Average asked a single question about obtaining advice about workplace ethics issues
** Local Government Average asked a single question about reporting violations of ethics standards
13

82% of Employees Find Training to Be

Applicable to Their Jobs

Employee Utilization of Training across City of Chicago

2009 City of Chicago

100%
82%
74%
68%
57%
50%
Percent
Agreeing

0%
Applicability of training Effectiveness of Code Effectiveness of Compliance training
of Conduct training compliance training valuable

Training Utilization
14

Seventeen Percent of Chicago Employees

Believe the City of Chicago Rewards Employees
Who Follow Compliance Standards
Compliance and Integrity Program Incentives across City of Chicago

2009 City of Chicago

2007 Local
100%
Government Average

61% 59%
53% 54% 54%
Percent 50%
Agreeing

17%
n/a* n/a
0%
City of Chicago does Supervisor does not Coworkers do not City of Chicago
not reward reward questionable show respect for rewards employees
questionable actions actions if they get those who use who follow
if they get results results questionable actions compliance
to get results Standards

Compliance and Integrity Program Incentives

* n/a - Question not asked

 15

Measuring a Strong Compliance and Integrity Culture

Strength of Compliance and Integrity Culture
Drives Down Compliance/Ethics Risk Compliant/ethical culture is the “unwritten
100%
86% code” that tells employees how to think and act
– how things are ‘actually done around here’*
Percent observing misconduct and reporting misconduct

Culture Strength
50% 42%
– Compliance and Integrity Leadership: tone at the top
19%
and belief that leaders can be trusted to do the right
11% thing.

0%
– Supervisor Reinforcement: individuals directly above
Observed Misconduct
100% the employee in the company hierarchy set a good
88%
85% example and encourage compliant/ethical behavior.
69%
60% – Peer Commitment to Compliance and Integrity:
compliant/ethical actions of peers support employees
50%
who “do the right thing.”

– Embedded values: compliance/ethics values promoted

through informal communication channels are
0% complementary and consistent with a company’s official
Reporting values.
Weak Culture Weak Leaning Tone at the top is one’s moral reputation and the
demonstration of moral behavior.**
Strong Leaning Strong Culture
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).
 16

Measuring a Strong Compliance and Integrity Culture

A compliant/ethical environment is formed and created through the perceptions that
employees at all levels are engaging in compliant/ethical actions and behaviors
Compliance and Integrity Supervisor Reinforcement
Leadership
– Top management talks about importance of doing – Direct supervisor talks about importance of doing
the right thing the right thing
– Satisfied with information from top management – Satisfied with information from direct supervisor
– Top management sets a good example – Direct supervisor sets a good example
– Trust top management to keep promises and – Trust direct supervisor to keep promises and
commitments commitments
– Top management supports employees – Direct supervisor supports employees
– Top management does not tolerate retaliation – Direct supervisor would be held accountable
– Top management would be held accountable

Peer Commitment Embedded Values

– Coworkers talk about importance of doing the right – When employees in my company make business
thing decisions they consider the effect on:
– Coworkers set a good example – Society and community
– Trust coworkers to keep promises and – The environment
commitments – Employee well-being
– Coworkers support employees – Future generations
– Coworkers consider compliance issues
17

Two-thirds of Employees Perceive the City of

Chicago Overall Has a Strong Compliance and
Integrity Culture
Overall Compliance and Integrity Culture Strength City of Chicago

90%
80%

62%

Culture Strength 45%

0%
2009 City 2007 Local
of Chicago Government Average
18

Compliance and Integrity Culture Dashboard

Compliance and Supervisor Reinforcement

Integrity Leadership
90% 90% 80%
74%
69%

50%
45% 45%
Culture Culture
Strength Strength

0% 0%
2009 City of Chicago 2007 Local 2009 City of Chicago 2007 Local
Government Average Government Average

Peer Commitment Embedded Values

90% 80% 90%
67% 68%
53%
45%
Culture Culture 45%
Strength Strength

0% 0%
2009 City of Chicago 2007 Local 2009 City of Chicago 2007 Local
Government Average Government Average
19

Although 67% of Employees Perceive Top

Management Communicates Importance of
Following the Rules, Less than Half Satisfied
with the Information They Receive
Elements of Compliance and Integrity Leadership across City of Chicago
2009 City of Chicago

100% 2007 Local

Government Average
82% 80%
77% 75% 78%
70% 73%
67%
61% 60%
54% 57%
Percent
50% 42%
Agreeing 38%

0%
Top mgmt Satisfied with Top mgmt Trust top mgmt Top mgmt Top mgmt Top mgmt
communicates information sets a good to keep supports does not Is held
importance from example promises and following tolerate accountable
of following the top mgmt commitments standards retaliation
rules Who Do Employees Consider to Be Top Management?
34% Immediate Supervisor
Elements of Compliance and Integrity Leadership 19% Deputy Commissioner
30% Commissioner
7% Mayor
10% Mayor’s Office and/or City Council
20

Seventy-Seven Percent of Employees Believe

Supervisors Communicate Importance of
Following the Rules Though Only 57% Are
Satisfied with the Message
Elements of Supervisor Reinforcement across City of Chicago
2009 City of Chicago

100% 2007 Local

82% 83% 85% Government Average
77% 80%
76%
80%
76% 78% 82%
64%
57%
50%
Percent
Agreeing

0%
Supervisor Satisfied with Supervisor Trust Supervisor Supervisors
communicates information sets a good supervisor to supports are held
importance of from example keep promises following accountable
following the supervisor & standards
rules commitments

Elements of Supervisor Reinforcement

21

Sixty-one Percent of Employees Trust

Coworkers to Keep Promises and Commitments

Elements of Peer Commitment across City of Chicago

2009 City of Chicago

2007 Local
Government Average

100% 87%
84% 81% 84% 79%
74% 72% 70%
65% 61% 65%
Percent
50%
Agreeing

n/a*
0%
Coworkers/ Coworkers/ Trust Coworkers/ Coworkers/ Coworkers/
peers talk peers set a coworkers to peers support peers peers are held
about good example keep following consider accountable
importance of promises & standards compliance
following the commitments stds in
rules decision-
making

Elements of Peer Commitment

* n/a - Question not asked
22

More than 60% of Employees Perceive that

Employees Consider Effects on Society when
Making Decisions
Embedded Values across City of Chicago 2009 City of Chicago
100% 2007 Local
85% Government Average
73%
65% 69%
63%
56% 59%

50% 46%
40%
Percent
Agreeing

n/a*
0%
Consider effects Consider effects Consider effects Consider effects Consider effects
on society on employee on environment on future on quality of
well-being generations products and
services

Embedded Values

* n/a - Question not asked

 23

Program Targets (Outcomes) in the ERC Model

Observed Misconduct

More
Observations High profile corporate debacles, followed
-
by passage of SOX (2001-2002)

Rate of Misconduct
combined with
Fewer

Rate of Reporting
Observations

NBES 2000 NBES 2003 NBES 2005 NBES 2007

helps identify

Reporting of Observed Misconduct

Level of Compliance/
Ethics Risk
100%
70%
60% 62%
58%
The level of compliance/ethics risk is considered
50% along a continuum. A severe risk is presented when
a behavior happens frequently and usually goes
unreported; high risk is presented when a behavior
0% happens often and often goes unreported; and a
NBES 2000 NBES 2003 NBES 2005 NBES 2007 guarded risk is presented when a behavior happens
less frequently and may go unreported.

Note: All data shown is from ERC’s 2007 National Government Ethics Survey (Federal, State, and Local combined)
24

Compliance/Ethics Risk Dashboard

Perceived Pressure Observed Misconduct

25% 50%

16% 34%
28%
13% 9% 25%

0% 0%
2009 City 2007 Local 2009 City 2007 Local
of Chicago Government Average of Chicago Government Average

Reporting of Retaliation for a Report

Misconduct 67%
70% 30% 26%
50% 20%

35% 15%

0% 0%
2009 City 2007 Local 2009 City 2007 Local
of Chicago Average Government of Chicago Government Average
25

Supervisors Are Perceived to Be the

Greatest Source of Pressure

Perceived Sources of Negative Pressure across City of Chicago,

of the 9% Who Perceived Pressure to Violate Standards or the Law

2009 City of Chicago

2007 Local
100% Government Average
83%
77%
71% 68% 69% 69% 65% 62% 59%
54%
Pressure 44% 44%
50%
Felt (%)

0%
Supervisory Keeping my Meeting Saving others' Demands Advancing my
pressure job performance jobs from outside own career or
goals stakeholders financial
interests

Sources of Pressure
26

Observation of Discrimination Almost Twice

that of 2007 Local Government Average
Observation of Specific Forms of Misconduct in the Workplace across City of Chicago Overall
2009 City of 2007 Local Gov't
Behaviors
Chicago 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
Lying to External Stakeholders 9% 16%
Sexual Harassment 9% 9%
Substance Abuse 7% n/a
Misuse of City's Confidential Info 6% 6%
Alteration of Documents 6% 7%
Falsification of Reports or Records 5% 6%
Violation of Environmental Regulations 5% 12%
Bribes/Kickbacks/Gifts 4% 4%
Stealing/theft 4% 10%

Note: n/a - Question not asked

27

Sexual Harassment, Improper Hiring Practices,

and Computer Abuse Least Reported Forms of
Misconduct
Observation and Reporting of Specific Forms of Misconduct in the Workplace across City of Chicago Overall

Observed 2009 Reported 2009 Reported 2007

Behaviors
City of Chicago City of Chicago Local Gov't Avg
Falsification of Reports or Records 5% 62% 58%
Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct 10% 59% n/a
Safety Violations 13% 57% 69%
Poor Service/Product Quality 11% 55% 65%
Alteration of Documents 6% 55% 67%
Other 12% 52% n/a
Violation 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/a
Substance Abuse 7% 40% n/a
Stealing/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%

Note: n/a - Question not asked

28

Employees Cite Not Believing Corrective Action

Would Be Taken as Primary Reason Not to
Report
2007 Local
2009 City of
Reason for Non-Reporting Gov't
Chicago
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%

Note: n/a - Question not asked

29

‘Compliance/Ethics Risk’ Increases with More Frequent

Observation Coupled with Decreased Reporting
‘Compliance/Ethics Risk’ across City of Chicago Overall

Less
Frequently Increased
Reported Compliance/
Ethics Risk
Email/Internet Abuse
Sexual
Harassment Improper Hiring Practices
Stealing/theft Substance Abuse Lying to Employees
Misuse of City's Services
or Property Discrimination
Misuse of City's
50th Lying to External
Bribes/Kickbacks/Gifts Confidential Info
Stakeholders
Percentile for
Reporting
Misreporting Hours Worked Conflicts of Interest
Abusive Behavior

Violation of Environmental
Regulations Other

Poor Service/Product
Quality
Alteration of Documents
Safety Violations
Retaliation for Reporting Misconduct

More Falsification of Reports

or Records
Frequently
Reported
Less 50th More
Frequently Percentile for Frequently
Observed Observation Observed
30

Review of Findings and

Next Steps
31

Review of Findings and Next Steps

 Compliance Program Awareness and Use
 Program awareness high
 Consider adding a compliance and integrity dimension to performance
evaluations beginning with higher management
 Employees find training applicable and effective more than they find it
valuable
 Review current training methods to identify opportunities to increase
perception of its value
 Identify employee groups where additional job-specific compliance/ethics
training might be applicable
 One in five perceives that the City rewards following the standards, and
somewhat more than half do not perceive that questionable practices are
rewarded or respected
 Conduct further inquiry to understand employee perceptions about
rewards. Develop messaging that achieving organizational goals need
not 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 culture
 Perceptions about immediate supervisors’ compliant/ethical behavior more
favorable than about top management’s
 One-third perceive that top management is their immediate supervisor
 Less than half (42%) satisfied with the information they receive from top
management
 Train managers on techniques for modeling compliant/ethical behavior
and bringing the compliance and integrity dialogue into the workplace
in everyday situations
 City of Chicago management might publicize its efforts to model
compliant/ethical behavior by speaking about efforts to do the right
thing, issuing printed or online announcements of compliant/ethical
actions, making known decisions that involve complex
compliant/ethical choices
33

Review of Findings and Next Steps (cont.)

 Program Targets
 Perceived pressure to violate standards less than the 2007 Local
Government Average, with greatest pressure coming from supervisors
 Work with supervisors and managers to help them distinguish normal
workplace pressures from improper pressures and to develop ways to
convey organizational demands to employees with the objective of
limiting potential misperceptions
 Although observation of misconduct is below the 2007 Local Government
Average, only half of observed misconduct is reported
 Develop campaign to highlight multiple reporting channels that are
available to employees
 Belief that no corrective action would be taken is the primary reason cited
for not reporting
 Strengthen mechanisms to respond to reports of misconduct, while
also protecting confidentiality of those involved
 Provide 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 experiencing
retaliation 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 ARRA
Compliance Program Training
 Provide Compliance and Integrity training and support for City M/WBE
Program participants
 Compliance and Integrity focus groups can include City Departments
as well as Delegate Agencies
35

For More Information

Ethics Resource Center

www.ethics.org

703-647-2185

Ethics@ethics.org
36

Appendix
Additional Findings
37

Additional Findings
 Compliance Program Awareness and Use
 Employees less likely to seek guidance from the Office of Compliance than
from other City of Chicago resources
 Slightly more employees perceive the City compliance and integrity culture
to be compliance rather than value oriented
 Compliance and Integrity Culture
 About 40% of employees trust top management to keep their promises and
commitments, and a little over half feel that top management sets a good
example
 Perceptions about compliant/ethical behaviors of middle management
employees 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 risk
 More 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 to
be similarly useful
 30% of non-management employees perceive retaliation for reporting
compared to 8% of middle management employees perceiving retaliation
 Satisfaction with the City of Chicago’s response to reported misconduct
greatest 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 Prepared

to Handle Questionable Compliance/Ethics/Legal
Situations than Local Government Average
Perceived Overall Compliance and Integrity Program Effectiveness across City of Chicago

100% 2009 City of Chicago

85% 89%
2007 Local
70% Government Average
63% 65%

50% 40%
Percent
Agreeing

n/a* n/a
0%
Employees seek Employees seek Feel prepared to Confident in ability to
guidance from Office guidance from own handle situations recognize
of Compliance department, Board of compliance/ethical
Ethics, Law, or other issues
City department

Compliance and Integrity Program Effectiveness Measures

* n/a - Question not asked

41

Slightly More than Half (55%) of Employees

Believe the City of Chicago Emphasizes Its
Values and Principles
Organization Emphasis for City of Chicago

2009 City of Chicago

2007 Local
Government Average

100%
Percent
Agreeing

Emphasis of Organization
42

Although Nearly Two-thirds of Employees Feel

Top Managers Emphasize Following the Rules,
Less than 40% Receive Positive Feedback
Additional Top Management Behaviors across City of Chicago

2009 City of Chicago

100%

64% 63%
52%
Percent 50% 39%
Agreeing

0%
Top mgmt Top mgmt provides Top mgmt holds all Top mgmt considers
emphasizes following positive feedback employees compliance
the rules even under accountable standards in decision-
pressure making

Top Management Behaviors

43

Less than Half of Employees Trust Middle

Management to Keep Promises and
Commitments
Middle Management Behaviors across City of Chicago
2009 City of Chicago

100%

72% 69%
63%
58%
50%
46% 46%
Percent
Agreeing

0%
Middle mgmt Satisfied with Middle mgmt Trust middle Middle mgmt Middle mgmt is
communicates information sets a good mgmt to keep does not held
importance of from middle example promises & tolerate accountable
following the mgmt commitments retaliation
rules

Middle Management Behaviors

44

Over 60% of Employees Believe Middle

Management Holds Other Employees
Accountable
Additional Middle Management Behaviors across City of Chicago
2009 City of Chicago

100%

65% 64%
57%
50% 44%
Percent
Agreeing

0%
Middle mgmt Middle mgmt provides Middle mgmt holds Middle mgmt
emphasizes following positive feedback other employees considers compliance
the rules even under accountable standards in decision-
pressure making

Middle Management Behaviors

45

Almost 70% of Employees Perceive Immediate

Supervisors Do Not Tolerate Retaliation

Additional Immediate Supervisor Behaviors across City of Chicago

2009 City of Chicago

100%
76%
70% 71% 68%
62%

50%
Percent
Agreeing

0%
Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor holds Supervisor Supervisor does
emphasizes provides positive other employees considers not tolerate
following the feedback accountable compliance retaliation
rules even under standards in
pressure decision-making

Immediate Supervisor Behaviors

46

Slightly More Than Half of Coworkers Provide

Positive Feedback

Additional Peer Behaviors across City of Chicago

2009 City of Chicago

100%

66%
58% 60%
53% 50%
50%
Percent
Agreeing

0%
Coworkers/peers Coworkers/peers Coworkers/peers Coworkers/peers Satisfied with
emphasize provide positive hold other do not tolerate information from
following the feedback employees retaliation coworkers/peers
rules even under accountable
pressure

Peer Behaviors
47

Forty-four Percent of Employees Trust Non-

management to Keep Promises and
Commitments
Non-management Behaviors across City of Chicago
2009 City of Chicago

2007 Local
100% Government Average
89%
80%

55% 57%
51%
50% 41% 44%

Percent
Agreeing
n/a* n/a n/a n/a n/a
0%
Non-mgmt Satisfied with Non-mgmt Trust non- Non-mgmt Non-mgmt
empl info from non- empl set a mgmt empl to empl do not employees are
communicates mgmt empl good example keep promises tolerate held
importance of & retaliation accountable
following the commitments
rules

Non-management Employee Behaviors

* n/a - Question not asked

48

About Half of Employees Perceive Non-

management Employees Consider Compliance
Standards when Making Decisions
Additional Non-Management Behaviors across City of Chicago

2009 City of Chicago

60%
53% 53%
49%

37%

30%
Percent
Agreeing

0%
Non-mgmt empl Non-mgmt empl Non-mgmt empl hold Non-mgmt empl
emphasize following provide positive others accountable consider compliance
the rules even under feedback standards in
pressure decisions

Non-Management Employee Behaviors

49

About Half of City of Chicago Employees Perceive

Exposure to Compliance/Ethics/Legal Risk, with
Immediate Supervisors Citing Least Exposure
Perceived Exposure to Compliance/Ethics/Legal Risk across City of Chicago

70%

55% 54%
51% 50%
45% 45%

Perceived 35%
Exposure
to Risk (%)

0%
2009 City 2007 Local Top Middle Immediate Non-
of Chicago Government Management Management Supervisor Management
Average
Managerial Level
Employee Group
50

Pressure to Commit a Compliance/Ethics/Legal

Violation Nearly Half 2007 Local Government
Average
Perceived Pressure to Commit a Compliance/Ethics/Legal Violation across City of Chicago

20%

16%
14%

10%
Perceived 10% 9%
8%
Pressure (%) 7%

0%
2009 City 2007 Local Top Middle Immediate Non-
of Chicago Government Management Management Supervisor Management
Average
Managerial Level
Employee Group
51

Top Management Cites Most Observed

Misconduct across Employee Groups

Observed Misconduct in the Workplace across City of Chicago

50%

36%
34% 33%
28% 28%
Observed 25%
Misconduct (%) 19%

0%
2009 City 2007 Local Top Middle Immediate Non-
of Chicago Government Management Management Supervisor Management
Average
Managerial Level
Employee Group
52

Half of All Observed Misconduct is Reported,

with Non-management Employees Least
Likely to Report
Reporting of Observed Misconduct in the Workplace across City of Chicago

100%

76%
67% 70%
64%

Reported 50%
50%
Misconduct (%) 40%

0%
2009 City 2007 Local Top Middle Immediate Non-
of Chicago Government Management Management Supervisor Management
Average
Managerial Level
Employee Group
53

Consistent with Local Government Average,

Most Reports Are Made to Supervisors

Sources Where Employees Report Observed Specific Violations across City of Chicago

60% 2009 City of Chicago

49% 2007 Local
Government Average
39%

30%
23%
Reporting 18% 19%
17%
Channel (%)
7% 7% 6% 5% 5%
3% 4%
n/a
0%
Supervisor Higher Inspector Someone Other Helpline Other
management General's outside City responsible (Office of
Office of Chicago person Compliance)

Locations for Reporting Specific Types of Misconduct

* n/a - Question not asked

54

Resources Used When Deciding Whether

to Report Misconduct All Found to Be
Similarly Useful
Perceived Usefulness of Resources When Deciding What to Do about Observed Misconduct across City of Chicago

80% 2009 City of Chicago

68%
65%
58% 60%
57%

40%

Found Resource
Useful (%)

0%
Ethical Compliance Ethics training Compliance Helpline (Office
standards standards training of Compliance)

Resource Referred to by Employee

* n/a - Question not asked

55

Overall, One-quarter of Those Who Reported

Observed Misconduct Perceived Experiencing
Retaliation
Reporters of Misconduct Who Perceived They Experienced Retaliation across City of Chicago

40%

30%
26%
21% 22%
20%
Perceived 20%
Retaliation (%)

8%

0%
2009 City 2007 Local Top Middle Immediate Non-
of Chicago Government Management Management Supervisor Management
Average
Managerial Level
Employee Group
56

One in Four (26%) of Those Who Reported

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

60%
50%

35% 33%
Satisfied w/
30% 26%
Response (%) 23%

0%
2009 City Top Middle Immediate Non-
of Chicago Management Management Supervisor Management

Managerial Level
Employee Group
57

More than Three-quarters of Employees at

All Levels Do not Perceive that Their Values
Conflict with Those of the Organization
Employees Who Do not Perceive Conflict between Their and Organization’s Values across City of Chicago

100%

77% 80% 77% 77%

76%
70%

50%

Values not
in Conflict (%)

0%
2009 City of 2007 Local Top Middle Immediate Non-
Chicago Government Management Management Supervisors management
Average

Managerial Level
Employee Group
58

Half (50%) Perceive that the Organization

Values Them as an Employee

Perception that Organization Values Employee across City of Chicago

100%
80%
69%
63%
57%
50% 47%
50%

Feel Valued
by Organization (%)

0%
2009 City of 2007 Local Top Middle Immediate Non-
Chicago Government Management Management Supervisors management
Average

Managerial Level
Employee Group
59

Sixty-four Percent of Employees Are Satisfied

Working for the City of Chicago

Employee Satisfaction w/ Organization across City of Chicago

100%
84%
76% 75%
71%
64% 61%

Satisfied w/ 50%
Organization (%)

0%
2009 City 2007 Local Top Middle Immediate Non-
of Chicago Government Management Management Supervisor Management
Average
Managerial Level
Employee Group