I have been a compliance officer since 1998. Throughout my career, I have set up, implemented and monitored many confidential reporting programs. While I know enough about this profession to avoid saying "I've heard it all," I sure have heard a lot when it comes to people's perception of a confidential hotline. Some comments are positive, some not so positive. And, while I'd like to be able to say that the negative comments are all false, depending on the culture within an organization or a department, there could be a grain of truth in them.
So, then, why do we have a confidential reporting mechanism? Why do we allow faculty and staff to anonymously report concerns?
The easy answer is "we have to." But, let's, for a moment though, suspend the "we have to" thought and let me tell you about my experience with confidential reporting mechanisms and why it may be one of the most important elements of your compliance program.
One of the most common complaints I've heard sounds something like this... The HelpLine is nothing more than a "tattle-" or "whine-line." First of all, let me tell you that this has not been my experience at all. Have I never seen the reporting mechanisms used like this? Sure. I've received calls complaining about parking. I've received emails about a co-worker who leaves dirty dishes in the sink and I've seen web reports about an employee who wears too much perfume. Thankfully, these kind of calls and reports are extremely...and I mean EXTREMELY... rare. I've received far more reports about legitimate concerns...about things that, if they went unreported, could have disastrous results.
If you still don't believe me, look at our data here at UVM. Our HelpLine has received 73 reports since it's inception in 2009. Out of those 73, 25 were unsubstantiated or not enough information was provided to be able to fully investigate; 72% of the unsubstantiated reports were made anonymously. That's just over 3 unsubstantiated anonymous reports per year. As in three. This has been my experience everywhere I've worked...not just here. The numbers just do not support the misconception that people misuse the reporting mechanisms, report excessively, or that they use the HelpLine as nothing more than an outlet for tattle-tailing or whining. Quite on the contrary... the majority of reports are made because the concerns are real.
When reports are made in bad faith (for example, it's dishonest or untrue), that report is, by itself, a violation of your Code of Conduct. In fact, your Code says, "Allegations of suspected violations made in bad faith may give rise to disciplinary action..." Bad faith reports also go against our UVM values. In Our Common Ground under Integrity, it says in part, "We value fairness, straightforward conduct, adherence to the facts, and sincerity." It says, "As stewards of the University of Vermont, we are honest and ethical in all responsibilities entrusted to us." Bad faith reports are not tolerated. This is VERY different from a report that is made in good faith but, after investigation, it is determined that a violation did not occur. We call these reports "unsubstantiated" rather than "bad faith." When the person making the report does so out of legitimate concern and honesty, when that person reports the facts and it turns out that there wasn't any wrongdoing, that's not a bad faith report. That is an unsubstantiated report. And, those reports we welcome. We also receive requests for guidance on difficult situations or when employees are faced with ethical dilemmas. The HelpLine is not just for reporting suspected wrongdoing. It's also a resource that employees and faculty can use to get additional information or clarification.
The thought that employees just continually call the HelpLine anonymously every time they disagree with a management directive or decision is simply false. I'm going to ask managers and supervisors to think about how many times in a day, week or month that someone comes to you with a concern or a problem. Now, compare this to the 3 reports per year mentioned under myth #2. Employees are not circumventing chains of command. They are given, however, the ability to report anonymously or elsewhere when and if they feel they need an alternative or if they feel their initial report to management is not addressed.
Also, when we receive a report in the compliance office, we are going to do some level of investigation. While there are many factors that go in to determining the investigation process, how deep the investigation goes depends on the severity of the issue, how much information we have, what we've learned at the early stages, etc.
When an investigation hits a certain point, we often need to interview others in that department. These interviews often include management or someone from leadership. When we do these interviews, managers/leaders are rarely unaware of the concern. Even when a report is made anonymously, the issues raised often do not come completely out of left field. Employees, for the most part, are not circumventing existing chains of command. More often, they are using the HelpLine because they're not sure where to go or because they feel they don't have another choice. We encourage staff to use existing chains of command whenever possible. But, when that isn't possible...for whatever reason...they need an alternative.
Why do people report anonymously? One reason is because of a fear of retaliation. According to a 2013 national survey conducted by the Ethics & Compliance Initiative, 34% of those who declined to report said they feared payback from senior leadership, 30% worried about retaliation from a supervisor and 24% said their co-workers might react against them. It is a legitimate concern for workers in all industries across the United States. While these are national statistics, our numbers here at UVM are in the same ballpark. Just under a quarter of respondents to our annual compliance survey (fall, 2015) said they had low confidence that they would be protected from retaliation if they reported a violation.
I think that statistic by itself is very telling. "Trust" and "fear of retaliation" do not go hand in hand. It begs the question...if someone fears retaliation, is the trust really there to begin with?
We are all different in our comfort level when it comes to reporting real or perceived wrongdoing. Everyone comes to the table with different skill sets, different personal histories and different comfort levels. This should not prevent someone from having a voice. Again, I turn to the three reports identified under Myth #2. People are not misusing the HelpLine. They are not turning to it routinely just to stir up problems or trouble. But, allowing for anonymous reporting gives everyone a voice regardless of their personal history or background. And, it gives the University the ability to investigate suspected wrongdoing and, as a result, reduce the risk of a government agency or law enforcement finding it first.
Whether or not you think our HelpLine is a good idea, a bad idea or you fall somewhere in the middle, the risk of not having one is too great. Employees at all levels need a place to turn without the fear of retaliation. Your HelpLine is available 24 hours a day, 365 days a year to all staff and all faculty. You always have a place to go if you suspect wrongdoing. You have someone to reach out to if you have questions about whether your concern really is wrongdoing or not. You have a place available at any time from any where if you are just not sure where to go for answers. You have a way to do all this anonymously if, for any reason, you need to.
I said earlier that I believe employees should be encouraged to use existing chains of command whenever possible. Employees should also feel comfortable identifying themselves when they report. But if, for whatever reason, you feel you can't use existing chains of command, your concerns still need to be heard. Even the staunchest skeptic should realize that it's better for us to know about something and correct it before an outside agency like the government or law enforcement discovers it.