Free Harassment Survey

This question helps determine how widespread harassment is within your organization. It establishes a baseline for targeted interventions.

Comfort levels reveal trust in leadership and reporting channels. Low comfort suggests a need to strengthen communication and support.

Policy awareness and effectiveness are crucial for prevention. This insight shows if existing guidelines resonate with employees.

Frequency tracking highlights cultural tolerance for low-level harassment. Consistent occurrences signal a broader issue to tackle.

Physical boundaries are a core component of respect and safety. This question flags any violations requiring immediate attention.

Perceived leadership response shapes reporting behavior. Acknowledging concerns quickly builds employee confidence.

Clarity in procedures ensures victims know what to do next. It also reduces confusion and delays in investigations.

Resource effectiveness measures actual support availability. It guides enhancements for victim assistance programs.

Understanding culture perception indicates whether values align with anti-harassment goals. Positive culture reduces risky behavior.

Willingness to recommend reflects employee advocacy and trust. It serves as a final gauge of overall safety climate.

Attendance rates show program penetration across the workforce. Low participation may signal scheduling or communication issues.

Relevance ensures participants can apply lessons in context. High relevance drives engagement and retention of key concepts.

Format effectiveness influences learning outcomes. Interactive sessions typically yield better understanding and recall.

Concrete examples help clarify policy boundaries. They reduce ambiguity about what constitutes harassment.

Confidence levels indicate skill acquisition. Low confidence may require additional modules or refreshers.

Practical guidance bridges theory and action. Clear steps encourage timely and proper reporting.

Bystander intervention reduces incidents and supports victims. This question checks if it's covered adequately.

Post-training access reinforces learning over time. Accessible materials encourage reference and continuous improvement.

Follow-up evaluations ensure knowledge retention. They also identify areas needing reinforcement.

Soliciting suggestions drives continuous enhancement. Employee feedback is key to evolving effective training.

Perceived risk of retaliation deters victims from coming forward. Understanding this can strengthen non-retaliation policies.

Gossip or anecdotal reports shape organizational trust. This question uncovers indirect evidence of retaliation.

Policy clarity ensures everyone knows protections in place. Ambiguity can undermine faith in the system.

Anonymous options often boost reporting rates. Safety in anonymity encourages honest feedback.

Confidentiality is the cornerstone of safe reporting. Lack of trust here can stall the entire process.

Visible enforcement demonstrates commitment. It reassures employees that policies are more than words.

Protection from career harm is critical for honest dialogue. Without it, employees may choose silence.

Timely investigations show respect for complainants. Delays can increase anxiety and distrust.

Willingness to recommend indicates process credibility. It also reflects overall satisfaction with handling.

Perceived corrective action validates policy effectiveness. It closes the loop between report and resolution.

This question measures initial exposure and prevalence. It sets the stage for deeper frequency analysis.

Frequency data highlights patterns and hotspots. It guides targeted safety interventions.

Location-specific insights inform prevention efforts. They help allocate resources to high-risk areas.

Perceived safety impacts daily routines and mental health. Low scores indicate a need for community action.

Behavior changes reveal real-world impact on mobility. This underscores the urgency for public safety measures.

Reporting rates show trust in law enforcement and public systems. Low reports may reflect barriers or skepticism.

Coping mechanisms shed light on resilience and resource gaps. They can inform support programs.

Community effort assessments guide future programming. They reveal which initiatives resonate with residents.

Perceived campaign value shows if messaging is impactful. It helps shape outreach strategies.

Support levels indicate public backing for policy changes. Strong support can drive legislative action.

This establishes the scope of digital harassment among your audience. It forms the basis for more detailed analysis.

Platform identification helps allocate moderation resources. It also highlights areas needing stricter policies.

Frequency tracking shows persistent threats versus occasional incidents. Data can drive timely countermeasures.

Reporting tool usage reflects user trust and awareness. Low usage suggests gaps in visibility or functionality.

Effectiveness feedback measures policy enforcement quality. It helps advocate for stronger moderation frameworks.

Doxxing represents a severe breach of privacy and safety. Identifying its prevalence guides urgent protective measures.

Post-report support impacts user confidence in platform governance. Positive experiences foster safe digital communities.

Understanding emotional impact drives holistic support services. It emphasizes the human cost of online abuse.

Interest in training indicates demand for preventive education. It can justify investment in user-focused courses.

Regulatory support levels inform policy advocacy efforts. They reflect public appetite for systemic change.