You are on page 1of 14

Richard M.

Daley Mayor

Department of Police' City of Chicago 3510 S. Michigan Avenue' Chicago, Illinois 60653

Jody P. Weis Superintendent of Police

Date: January 26, 2011

Jim Bosco

Near West Investigations, Inc. 740 W. Fulton Market, Suite C1 Chicago, IL 60661


REQUEST DATE: January 12, 2011

FOIA F!LE NO.: 11-0153

Dear Mr. Bosco:

The Chicago Police Department ("Department") is in receipt of your Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") request which states the following:

"I hereby request any collated, cross-tabulated, summarized, or other compilation of data which contains the results of the morale survey of Chicago police officers. Said compilation should indicate the entire number of responses to each question of said survey together with statistical summary of the responses to each question. Any "open field" or text responses should been [sic] provided separately by convenient means.

It is imaged that this data exists in a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet, MS Access database, or other common file format. The delivery of such data-file would be preferred. If unable as such, then this information is requested via other common electronic format .. "

Your request was reviewed by the undersigned. It was determined that your request is unduly burdensome pursuant to Section 5 ILCS 140/3(g) of the Illinois Freedom of Information Act. Specifically, the wording of your request is vague and ambiguous. Because of the broadness of the phrasing used in your request, as well as your presumptions as to what the record should indicate or provide, the language could potentially include various categories of records, and is open to interpretation. Thereby, as your FOIA request is currently written, the dedication of staff and/or resources is unduly burdensome on the daily operations of the Department.

For your information, while the Department did engage in a survey of employee stress and morale levels, the survey data was collected solely for inclusion in a larger analysis of work schedule pilot programs. Furthermore, the stress and morale data were only two of more than a dozen dimensions included in the work schedule analysis. Therefore, there is no existing "morale survey" per se.

At this time, the Department shall provide you with a copy of the relevant sections of the work schedule analysis from a document entitled "Evaluation - Work Schedule Pilot Programs." The relevant sections consist of Appendix A (pages 12-13), Appendix B (pages 15-19) and Appendix C (pages 20-24). In regard to Appendix A and B, information regarding the dimensions of employee stress and/or employee morale has been left intact, whereas unrelated dimensions are redacted. Appendix C is provided in its entirety. It is the Department's position that these sections are responsive to your request in that they contain the compilation

Emergency and TTY: 9-1-1 . Non Emergency and TTY: (within city limits) 3-1-1' Non Emergency and TTY: (outside city limits) (312) 746-6000

E-mail: . Website:

and evaluation of the results of the survey in regard to the dimensions of stress and morale. Please find a copy of the documents (12 pages in total) enclosed with this notice. There is no duplication cost.

Please note that under FOIA, the Department is only required to provide existing public records. FOIA does not require public bodies to answer questions, or create records, or compile information for the purpose of creating a public record. The Court, in Kenyon v. Garrels, 184 III. App. 3rd 28 (4th Dist. 1989) noted that FOIA "does not compel the agency to provide answers to questions posed by the inquirer." So, even though these documents may not contain all the information which you presume that they should indicate or provide, the Department is not required to reanalyze the data or create new documentation to satisfy your request.

If you feel that the documents being provided are not fully responsive to your request, you are invited to confer with the undersigned in an attempt to narrow your request to more specific and manageable proportions. Otherwise, we will be unable to further respond to your current request. If you decide to seek assistance in narrowing your request, you may contact me at (312) 745-5308, or by mail at the following address:

Chicago Police Department

Attn: Freedom of Information Officer Records Inquiry Section, Unit 163 3510 S. Michigan Ave.

Chicago, IL 60653

If you decide to narrow your request, you must submit a revised request to the undersigned either by mail, by facsimile to (312) 745-6948, or bye-mail to In either case, please be sure to reference your FOIA File number of 11-0153 in order to avoid any duplication of work or miscommunication.

The Department will take no further action or send you any further correspondence unless and until your current request is narrowed in writing. If we do not receive your revised request within fourteen (14) calendar days of the date of this letter, your current request will result in a denial under Section 5 ILCS 140/3(g). In the case of a denial, you have a right to have the denial reviewed by the Public Access Counselor (PAC) at the Office of the Illinois Attorney General. 5 ILCS 140/9.5(a). You can file your Request for Review with the PAC by writing to:

Public Access Counselor Office of the Attorney General 500 S. 2nd Street

Springfield, IL 62706

Fax: (217) 782-1396


You also have the right to seek judicial review of a denial by filing a lawsuit in the State circuit court. 5 ILCS 140/11.

If you choose to file a Request for Review with the PAC, you must do so within 60 calendar days of the date of this denial letter. 5 ILCS 140/9.5(a). Please note that you must include a copy of your original FOIA request and this denial letter when filing a Request for Review with the PAC.

If I can be of further assistance, please feel free to contact me.


yo ,V/~tUbJ

P.O. Matthew Sandoval #12963 Freedom of I nformation Officer Department of Police

Record Services Division



113 ,_

lJ) o






tj) m

c o (f) C ill



ill OJ m 0..

CI) -
CI:l c
... ::J
0 -
... 0
- a,
.2 -
a, 0
Q) CJ)
:::I 0.
"'0 >-
Q) I-
o >-
II) .0
~ VI
0 'iii
~ >-
1« ro
s::: X c
o ._ ct
:::I "'
-is. CJ)
rn 0.
Jj« ..Q
I- Q) 0) ro 0....



III ...

Ol o



] 0: ~

:::l' "0 Q)

..c: u CI)

~ ...





III C :::l' Q)

'iii 0. >0.. UJ<t



o LO


Q) OJ co 0..


E e

OJ o



Q) OJ cu 0....



0. ~

:::I "t:I III ..c e en




'OJ .!: >< 0._

+''0 <tI s:::: ::l Ql -a.

~o.. W«



11l ....




Q) 0) ill 0..

:::I (fJ Q)

III 0::

E e

Cl o



I.{) N '+-




(]) 01 m o,

l:; o

(/j n:::
I'i:I C
OJ .2
a ><
.- .-
..... "C
I'tI C
> 0.
woe:( L() N





Q) O'J m 0..

Evaluation - Work Schedule Pilot Programs Appendix C

Appendix C - Stress and Morale Data

In order to evaluate stress and morale, Research & Development enlisted the assistance of the University of Illinois at Chicago (UJC) in administering the survey electronicalJy. The belief was that department members might feel more secure taking a survey about stress and morale if it was administered by a third party, and thus ensure a higher response rate.

The survey was available from 13 May 2009 - 12 June 2009 via a link on the Department's intranet to the outside survey site (Survey Monkey). Participants were required to enter their PC numbers in order to access the survey. PC numbers were required in order to verify the respondent as a department member and to provide a field to match demographic data to survey responses (thus eliminating the need to ask additionai demographic questions). UIC matched survey responses with demographic data and provided de-identified data back to the Department (PC numbers were deleted to ensure survey respondent anonymity). Additionally, the unit and rank of respondents was aggregated to ensure that no individual respondent could be identified through the combination of their race, gender, years on the job, rank and unit of assignment. For example, the administrative units of both Assistant Superintendents and all Divisions within the Superintendent's Office were coded with a "dummy" unit indicator rather than the actual unit number, thus eliminating data that would indicate an individual worked in News Affairs. Ranks were recoded as civilian (any rank), PO, Sergeant, or Sworn Lieutenant or above.

The total number of usable responses received was 2,3004• Police Officers and Sergeants accou nted for 92% (2,115) of all survey responses received . For the purposes of this evaluation, we included only Police Officers and Sergeants in the analysis because those are the only ranks that are eligible to work an alternate work schedule. Therefore, the response rate is 16% (2,115 responses from 12,835 POs and Sergeants in the Department).

By gender, survey respondents closely mirrored the Department make-up.

Table 1: CPO Population of Police Officers and Sergeants Compared to those who Responded to the Survev bv Gander

~ " - - - - ----
PO &Sgt
CPD POs & Sgts Res{l_ondents
# % of Total # % of Total
Female 3,088 24.1% 525 24.8%
Male 9,747 75.9% 1,590 75.2%
TOTAL 12,835 100.0% 2,115 100.0% 4 2716 cases were downloaded from survey website by UIC of which 315 were unusable (duplicate or invalid PC numbers). Additionally, 104 cases were excluded from the analysis because they were missing a substantial number of item responses, leaving 2300 cases for analysis.

Page 20 of 25

Evaluation - Work Schedule Pilot Programs Appendix C

However, by race, survey respondents were more likely to be white than the general population of CPD Sergeants and Police Officers.

Table 2: CPO Population of Police Officers and Sergeants Compared to those who

Responded to th S b R

e urvey y ace
PO &Sgt
CPO POs & Sgts Respondents
# % of Total # % afTatal
Black 3,324 25.9% 349 16.5%
White 6,787 52.9% 1,414 66.9%
Hispanic 2,369 18.5% 319 15.1%
Indian or
Asian 355 2.8% 33 1.6%
TOTAL 12,835 100.0% 2,115 100.0% Finally, by rank, a greater percentage of Sergeants responded to the survey than their relative population within the Department.

Table 3: CPD Population of Police Officers and Sergeants Compared to those who

Responded to th S b R k

e urvey ~y an
PO &Sgt
CPO POs & Sgts Respondents
# % of Total # % of Total
Officer 11,570 90.1% 1,696 80.2%
Sergeant 1,265 9.9% 419 19,8%
Sworn 12,835 100.0% 2,115 100.0% The number of survey respondents by unit are listed below.

Table 4: Pol" Off



h R

ddt th S

by Unit

Ice seers an ergean s w 0 espon e 0 e urvey
Unit Officer Sergeant Total
District 001 34 11 45
District 002 20 8 28
District 003 18 5 23
District 004 29 5 34
District 005 36 10 46
District 006 26 7 33
District 007 31 9 40
District 008 44 11 55
District 009 27 7 34
District 010 29 5 34
District 011 44 11 55
District 012 37 6 43
District 013 36 5 41
District 014 35 2 37 Page 21 of 25

Evaluation - Work Schedule Pilot Programs Appendix C

Unit Officer Serg_eant Total
District 015 27 10 37
District 016 21 7 28
District 017 35 14 49
District 018 21 12 33
District 019 31 5 36
District 020 56 13 69
District 021 31 8 39
District 022 27 9 36
District 023 44 6 50
District 024 48 8 56
District 025 29 10 39
Mobife Strike Force 54 12 66
Tarceted Response Unit 22 9 31
Juvenile Intervention and Support Center '7 " 7
Bureau of Patrol 79 26 105
Bureau of Professional Standards 79 28 107
Bureau of Investiqative Services 248 66 314
Bureau of Administrative Services 52 3 55
Area 1 Detective Division 51 8 59
Area 2 Detective Division 31 11 42
Area 3 Detective Division 66 9 75
Area 4 Detective Division 46 5 51
Area 5 Detective Division 110 29 139
SuperintendentlASO/ASA 35 9 44
TOTAL 1,696 419 2,115 Stress and Morale results were not prepared for JISC personnel due low number of responses (7 participants).

The analysis Included in this report does not include all questions administered in the survey. Rather, questions that measured specific dimensions were included: general, psychological, and physical stress and burnout. In order to be able to report analyze the data in a manner that could be included with the evaluation as a whole, responses are reported as a composite score.

The questions used in this analysis address different components of stress and morale and each question includes multiple items. All items were combined across the four questions into a single "stress and morale" composite. We combined all items because analysis indicated that results for each of the four individual questions were very similar. The questions and items are listed below. Notice that some items are positive statements and some items are negative statements. When creating the composite stress and moral total, we made sure to code all responses such that higher totals indicated greater stress / lower morale.

Question:. Think back to your experiences with the Chicago Police Department over the last month. How often are the following statements true?

Page 22 of 25

Evaluation - Work Schedule Pilot Programs Appendix C

1. I feel tired at the beginning of the shift even with adequate sleep.

2. I feel tired at the end of the shift even with adequate sleep.

3. I feel impatient or irritable over small problems at work.

4. I feel burned out by my job.

5. I feel that the public I deal with is unpredictable.

6. I find it difficult to concentrate on my job.

7. I feel like I want to be left alone at work.

Question: Think back to your experiences with the Chicago Police Department over the past month. How often do you feel the following:

1. My work has a positive influence on other peoples lives.

2. I feel emotionally drained because of work.

3. I feel all used up at the end of the day.

4. I am less enthusiastic about being a police officer.

5. I treat some victims like impersonal objects.

6. I have become less compassionate towards people since I became a police


7. I sometimes doubt the importance of my work.

8. I have accomplished many worthwhile things while performing my job.

9. I feel this job is hardening me emotionally. 10. J have become less interested in my work.

11.1 have become less enthusiastic about my work.

Question: We would like to know lf you have had any medical complaints and how your health has been in general, over the past month. Please answer the questions on the following pages simply by checking the answer which you think best applies to you.

1. Been able to concentrate on what you're doing.

2. Loss of sleep over worry.

3. Felt I was playing a useful part in things.

4. Felt capable of making decisions about things.

5. Felt constantly under strain.

6. Felt I couldn't overcome my difficulties.

7. Been able to enjoy my normal day-to-day activities.

8. Been able to face up to my problems.

9. Been feeling unhappy.

10. Been iosing confidence in myself.

11. Been thinking of myself as a worthless person.

12. Been feeling reasonably happy, all things considered.

Question: The following are some specific questions about your health over the past month. Please answer the questions on the following pages simply by checking the answer which you think best applies to you.

1. An upset stomach or nausea

2. Trouble sleeping

3. Chest pain

Page 23 of 25

Evaluation - Work Schedule Pilot Programs Appendix C

4. Headache

5. Acid indigestion or heartburn

6. Stomach cramps (not menstrual)

7. Heart pounding when not exercising

8. Loss of appetite

9. Tiredness or fatigue

Page 24 of 25