Describe your reporting policy and reviewers. Makeform creates an ethics complaint form with incident facts, people involved, files, contact preferences, and an acknowledgment.
Send reports to email, Google Sheets, Slack, and Zapier.
Sample prompts for the builder
Choose a scenario, tailor the wording, or send the prompt to the builder. The structure is an example, not an investigation process.
Audience
Employees reporting suspected policy violations
Format
Guided report with optional identity
Prompt size
229 chars
Example form structure
Guided report with optional identity
Name and preferred contact
What type of concern are you reporting?
When and where did this happen?
What happened in order?
Supporting files
Suggested routing tags
Conflict of interest
Misuse of resources
Retaliation concern
Ask for dates, locations, witnesses, and separate incidents. Neutral fact questions work better than one large narrative box.
Step 1
Receive
facts, dates, people, and files
Step 2
Triage
scope, urgency, conflict, and owner
Step 3
Review
follow-up questions and investigation notes
Step 4
Close
status communication and retained record
Better intake
A generic inbox invites incomplete narratives. A structured ethics complaint form asks neutral questions, preserves attachments, and supports consistent triage.
Separate fields for conduct, dates, locations, people, and witnesses help reviewers understand what is alleged without forcing the reporter to know investigative terminology.
Explain who reviews submissions, how follow-up may happen, and what reporters should use for emergencies. Avoid promising anonymity or outcomes the process cannot ensure.
Categories such as conflicts, resource misuse, retaliation, and financial concerns give the intake team a consistent first sorting signal.
Reporting contexts
Keep fact questions consistent, then adjust scope notices, contact options, and routing for your reporting audience.
Collect department, employment relationship, prior internal reporting, and a safe method and time for follow-up.
Identify the member or official involved, the relevant policy area, jurisdiction questions, and meeting or decision dates.
Use plain-language scope guidance and let residents, clients, vendors, or partners provide context without internal jargon.
Capture an existing reference number and new facts without making a reporter repeat every detail from the initial submission.
Build the workflow
Start with the reviewers and decisions behind the form. Then ask only for information that supports scope checks, safe follow-up, and a fair investigation handoff.
Describe who can report, which conduct the process covers, whether identity is optional, and which channel handles emergencies or matters outside scope.
Replace conclusions with fact prompts: what occurred, who was present, when it happened, how often, and which records may support the report.
Direct notifications to the designated intake role. Plan a separate route when a complaint names the usual reviewer or creates another conflict.
Submit sample reports with and without contact information, check conditional fields, confirm attachments arrive, and verify the reporter sees realistic next-step language.
Choose the intake method
Reporters need narrative space; reviewers need consistent dates, people, categories, and files.
Field guide
These six sections help a reviewer understand the allegation, contact the reporter when possible, preserve useful context, and triage the report without prejudging it.
Reporter options
Ask for identity, organizational relationship, and a safe follow-up channel. If identity is optional, explain that missing contact details may limit follow-up.
Concern classification
Use plain categories without asking reporters to prove a breach. Include an other option for uncertain classifications.
Incident facts
Separate personal observations from secondhand information. Ask when and where each event occurred and whether it is ongoing.
People and evidence
Collect witnesses, document descriptions, and files. Remind reporters not to obtain records they cannot access, and ask what each file shows.
Prior reporting
Ask whether the matter was raised before, through which channel, and what changed. This links related intake without assuming a conclusion.
Notices and acknowledgment
Name the intake recipient, avoid promising a finding, and direct emergencies elsewhere. Ask reporters to confirm accuracy to the best of their knowledge.
Related tools
Use focused forms when a report belongs to a narrower employee, discrimination, incident, or general feedback process.
Offer a complaint path that does not require reporter identity, with wording that avoids promising untraceable anonymity.
Open toolCollect workplace complaint facts, people involved, prior reporting, and requested follow-up details.
Open toolCreate focused intake for reported discriminatory conduct and the events surrounding it.
Open toolRecord a specific event, its timeline, participants, immediate response, and supporting files.
Open toolCollect routine employee suggestions and experiences that do not require complaint intake.
Open toolBuild a human-resources complaint workflow for employment concerns and internal follow-up.
Open toolFAQ
Practical answers for ethics officers, board administrators, HR teams, and other designated intake reviewers.
It is structured intake for suspected misconduct. It captures people, conduct, dates, locations, witnesses, records, prior reporting, and optional follow-up details.
Ask what happened, who was involved, when and where it occurred, who witnessed it, and which records support it. Add category, contact, prior-report, and acknowledgment fields.
Follow your policy. Mark identity fields as optional when applicable and explain that missing contact details can limit follow-up. Do not promise anonymity your process cannot support.
Limit them to designated intake staff and name an alternate for conflicts. Test access and notifications. Direct emergencies to an immediate-response channel.
Yes. Add allowed file fields and ask what each item shows. Tell reporters not to obtain or submit material they cannot access.
Ask for observed words, actions, decisions, dates, and sources instead of conclusions. Treat every allegation as intake, not a finding.
Yes. Makeform is unlimited free for generating, editing, and publishing forms. The paid tier removes the Makeform badge. Review recipients, notices, and access before sharing.
Confirm receipt, provide a reference if available, and state realistic next steps. Internally, assign an owner, screen scope and conflicts, and preserve the original submission.
Make difficult reports easier to submit clearly.
