24. Management communicates incidents of fraud to all staff at my organisation.

Public Sector Fraud Awareness Survey - Findings: Fraud response.

Observation:

Pie chart of Question 24: Management communicates incidents of fraud to all staff at my organisation.

Communication of fraud incidents is poor (with 70.8% of respondents answering “No” or “Don’t know”) at all levels and across all sectors.

Organisations that had communicated previous incidents of fraud to staff, in general, suffered fewer incidents of fraud.

What some respondents have said:

“We report to our governance, but not necessarily to our staff. This is due to a number of the incidents quickly becoming linked to employment processes and their confidentialities. But, the informal grapevine is well fed, in my observation.”

PwC comment:
Management should consider communicating instances of fraud when they occur (subject to any legal constraints) to help promote the message that fraud and associated misconduct is taken seriously and appropriate action has and will be taken.

“I am aware, through indirect sources, (whispered chit-chat with colleagues) that there has been recent serious fraud against the organisation from an external source. However, I am not sure of the details or what eventuated. I understand it was reported somewhere in the media but I didn't see it and haven't heard anything further.”

“We do not publish details of fraud cases where staff privacy may be compromised nor do we report cases in detail that give staff details out.”

“We introduced a new fraud and corruption policy two years ago. We made the decision at that time that any future fraud detected would be communicated widely to staff.”

  Yes No Don’t know Total Count
Chief Executive Officer/Managing Director/Principal 169 44% 140 37% 73 19% 382
Member of the senior executive/leadership team or equivalent 148 30% 202 41% 139 28% 489
Line manager (if not one of the above) 31 14% 105 48% 83 38% 219
Administration/Support Services 45 23% 54 27% 101 51% 200
Operational staff (e.g. Teacher, Analyst, Advisor, Technician, Officer, Engineer, Accountant) 23 17% 45 33% 68 50% 136
Total 416 29% 546 38% 464 33% 1,426
  Yes No Don’t know Total Count
Central Government              
Autonomous Crown Entities 19 35% 18 33% 17 31% 54
Central Government - Other 19 42% 14 31% 12 27% 45
Crown Agents or Companies 31 36% 33 38% 23 26% 87
Crown Research Institutes 10 26% 8 21% 20 53% 38
District Health Boards 19 27% 34 49% 17 24% 70
Government Departments 32 22% 66 46% 47 32% 145
Independent Crown Entities 8 22% 9 24% 20 54% 37
Māori Trust Boards 6 55% 3 27% 2 18% 11
Rural Education Activities Programmes 7 64% 0 0% 4 36% 11
State-Owned Enterprises 12 26% 25 53% 10 21% 47
Tertiary Education Institutions 12 13% 49 54% 30 33% 91
Sub-Total 175 28% 259 41% 202 32% 636
  Yes No Don’t know Total Count
Local Government              
Airports 7 37% 5 26% 7 37% 19
Council Controlled Organisations or Council Controlled Trading Organisations 33 44% 12 16% 30 40% 75
Energy Companies 12 43% 12 43% 4 14% 28
Fish and Game Councils 6 75% 1 13% 1 13% 8
Licensing and Community Trusts 5 56% 4 44% 0 0% 9
Local Authorities 43 25% 78 46% 48 28% 169
Local Government - Other 5 45% 2 18% 4 36% 11
Port Companies 0 0% 1 50% 1 50% 2
Sub-Total 111 35% 115 36% 95 30% 321
               
Schools 130 28% 172 37% 167 36% 469
Total 416 29% 546 38% 464 33% 1,426

Observation:

PwC comment:
We believe communicating instances of fraud when they occur (subject to any sub judice or suppression constraints) helps staff have confidence in management’s treatment of fraud.  It is also a way of acknowledging that no organisation can be immune to the  risk of fraud.

Organisations that had communicated previous incidents of fraud to staff, in general, suffered fewer incidents of fraud.

Graph of Question 24: Management communicates incidents of fraud to all staff at my organisation.

page top