WHISTLEBLOWERS

Key Practices for 

Congress to Consider 

When Receiving and 

Referring Information

Report to the Subcommittee on the 

Legislative Branch, Committee on 

Appropriations, House of 

Representatives

May 2019

GAO-19-432

United States Government Accountability Office
______________________________________ United States Government Accountability Office

May 2019

WHISTLEBLOWERS

Key Practices for Congress to Consider When 

Receiving and Referring Information

What GAO Found

The Congress receives whistleblower information in multiple ways. 

Congressional staff and advocacy groups said whistleblowers who contact the 

Congress typically reach out to oversight committees, the offices of their own 

representatives or senators, or authorizing committees. Congressional staff said 

some whistleblowers contact and work with multiple congressional offices 

simultaneously. Congressional office websites GAO reviewed included contact 

information to provide whistleblowers with multiple options for reporting 

suspected wrongdoing, including email links, hotlines, and web-based forms.

Congressional staff can access resources for guidance on working with 

whistleblowers including congressional advice and internal training on oversight, 

committee-specific training related to handling whistleblower cases, and training 

from external advocacy groups on techniques for working with whistleblowers. 

Staff from several committees said direct experience is important for building

skills to effectively work with whistleblowers.

GAO identified key practices the Congress could consider when receiving and 

referring whistleblower information to other committees and federal agencies.

These practices can serve as a resource for congressional offices and staff to 

intake, prioritize, refer, and follow-up with whistleblowers who contact their office 

or committee. For each step, GAO identified practices to help offices develop 

guidelines and procedures as well as for communication, including key questions 

staff can ask the whistleblower.

Key Practices for Congressional Staff to Consider When Working with Federal Whistleblowers

Why GAO Did This Study

Federal whistleblowers—employees 

who report violations of law, agency 

mismanagement or ethical violations—

help to safeguard the federal 

government against waste, fraud, and 

abuse. Whistleblowers can report to 

various entities, including the Congress. 

While these reports are a key source of 

information for federal oversight, 

whistleblowers can risk reprisal. 

Therefore, it is important to 

appropriately handle whistleblowers’ 

information and identity.

The House Committee on 

Appropriations Report 115-696 included 

a provision for GAO to identify

congressional avenues, resources, and 

best practices for working with 

whistleblowers. This report describes (1) 

how the Congress receives 

whistleblower information, (2) the 

policies and training currently available 

to congressional staff, and (3) key 

practices that the Congress could 

consider for receiving and referring 

information from whistleblowers. GAO 

interviewed congressional staff, officials

from the Office of Special Counsel 

(OSC) and the Council of the Inspectors 

General on Integrity and Efficiency

(CIGIE), and selected advocacy groups

that have experience working with 

whistleblowers. GAO analyzed 

congressional websites and queried 

congressional staff regarding policies 

and training on whistleblowers for

congressional staff. To develop key 

practices, GAO reviewed literature, 

existing procedures, and standards.

GAO is not making recommendations, 

but is available to assist the Congress 

with practices for working with 

whistleblowers. OSC and CIGIE 

provided technical comments that were 

incorporated as appropriate. 

View GAO-19-432. For more information, 

contact Michelle Sager at (202) 512-6806 or 

sagerm@gao.gov.

Highlights of GAO-19-432, a report to the

Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch,

Committee on Appropriations, House of 

Representatives
Page i GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Letter 1

Background 5

Congress Receives Whistleblower Information in Multiple Ways 12

Congressional Staff Can Request Training on Working with 

Whistleblowers 14

Key Practices for Congressional Consideration When Receiving 

and Referring Information from Whistleblowers 15

Agency Comments 19

Appendix I Key Practices and Referral Options for Federal Whistleblowers 21

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 23

Tables

Table 1: Whistleblower Protections for Different Types of Federal 

Employees, Contractors, and Grantees 6

Table 2: Key Practices for Congressional Staff to Consider When 

Working with Federal Whistleblowers 17

Figure

Figure 1: Federal Whistleblower Options Available to Federal 

Civilian Employees, Contractors, and Grantees 11

Contents
Page ii GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Abbreviations

CIGIE Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and

 Efficiency

IG Inspectors General

OSC Office of Special Counsel

MSPB Merit Systems Protection Board

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 7, 2019

The Honorable Tim Ryan

Chairman

The Honorable Jaime Herrera Beutler

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on the Legislative Branch

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Federal whistleblowers—employees who report violations of law, or 

agency mismanagement or ethical violations—help to safeguard the 

federal government against waste, fraud, and abuse. Whistleblowers can 

report this type of information—called a disclosure—to various entities. 

These disclosures are a key source of information for the Congress in its 

oversight of the federal government. Whistleblowers’ willingness to come 

forward holds the potential to improve government operations, but these 

individuals can risk reprisals, such as demotion, reassignment, or 

termination as a result of their disclosures. To ensure these valuable 

disclosures continue, it is important to appropriately handle 

whistleblowers’ information and identity.

Federal laws protect current and former federal employees and applicants 

for federal employment from adverse personnel actions related to 

whistleblowing. Federal employees may become whistleblowers by 

disclosing information to the Congress or multiple federal and nongovernmental entities including Inspectors General (IG), the Office of 

Special Counsel (OSC), and the press. Federal law also provides certain 

whistleblower protections to contractors and grantees.

House Report 115-696 included a provision for us to identify 

congressional avenues, resources, and best practices for the Congress in 

working with whistleblowers.1 This report describes (1) the ways in which 

whistleblowers can report information to the Congress, (2) the policies 

and training currently available to congressional staff on working with 

whistleblowers, and (3) key practices that the Congress could consider for 

receiving and referring information from whistleblowers.

 1

H.R. Rep No. 115-696 (2018).

Letter
Page 2 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Our work for all objectives focused on civilian federal employees (current 

employees, former employees, and applicants for federal employment), 

contractors, subcontractors and grantees. Our findings do not apply to 

servicemembers or employees who are part of the intelligence community 

as their options for disclosing, available protections, and recourse options 

differ.2 Our work applies to congressional staff working with employees 

making any type of protected disclosure, whether or not they have made 

this disclosure elsewhere or if any related actions, including reprisals, 

have occurred.

For all objectives, we interviewed congressional staff, executive officials, 

and advocacy groups. Consistent with the government-wide scope of our 

engagement, we interviewed staff from three congressional oversight 

committee offices about their experiences working with whistleblowers 

across the government. We also interviewed staff from the office of a 

member of the House Whistleblower Protection Caucus, OSC, and the 

Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE) on 

their procedures for and experiences with working with whistleblowers. 

We interviewed representatives of the Project on Government Oversight, 

the Government Accountability Project, and the National Whistleblower 

Center on their experiences working with whistleblowers. We selected 

these advocacy organizations based on the suggestions of staff from 

executive agencies and congressional committees that work with 

whistleblowers, as well as organizations consulted in our past work on 

whistleblowing.

To describe the ways in which whistleblowers might report information to 

the Congress, we used a web-scraping program to identify congressional 

websites with terms related to whistleblowing (e.g., “whistleblower,”

“whistle blow,” “blow the whistle,” “whistleblower hotline,” and 

“whistleblower tipline”), reviewed the content of the identified websites to 

verify relevance, and analyzed the results to determine methods available 

 2

Military servicemembers are protected by the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10

U.S.C. § 1034. Intelligence community officials are protected by the Intelligence 

Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, Pub. L. 105-272 (1998). See GAO, 

Whistleblower Protection: Opportunities Exist for DOD to Improve the Timeliness and 

Quality of Civilian and Contractor Reprisal Investigations, GAO-17-506 (Washington, D.C.: 

September 29, 2017); and Whistleblower Protection, DOD Needs to Enhance Oversight of 

Military Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations, GAO-15-477 (Washington, D.C.: May 7, 

2015).
Page 3 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

for potential whistleblowers to report information.3 To supplement this 

analysis, we performed similarly structured searches using online search 

engines to identify congressional websites with whistleblower terms. To 

identify any additional ways in which whistleblowers may report 

information to the Congress, we also queried selected congressional staff 

on the ways in which whistleblowers contact their offices.

To describe the policies and training available to congressional staff on 

working with whistleblowers, we asked the staff for congressional 

committees that also provide support for congressional staff—the House 

Committee on Rules, Committee on House Administration, Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration, House Committee on Ethics and 

Senate Select Committee on Ethics, and House and Senate Counsel—for 

any information on training they provide to congressional staff on working 

with whistleblowers. To identify the resources currently provided to 

congressional staff on interacting with whistleblowers, we interviewed the 

House Office of General Counsel, the Senate Select Committee on 

Ethics, the Congressional Research Service, the Project on Government 

Oversight and the Government Accountability Project about training they 

provide to congressional staff.

To develop key practices for congressional staff working with 

whistleblowers, we reviewed IG and OSC procedures, our prior work, and 

our interviews with advocacy groups and congressional staff. We 

conducted a literature review to ensure that our key practices 

incorporated applicable academic and government research and findings. 

Our literature review included searches of several academic, literature, 

and government sources, such as ProQuest, Scopus, and DIALOG, for 

articles or studies published from January 1, 2008, to August 2018.4 We 

 3

“Web-scraping” refers to the automated process of discovering web pages and copying 

them for subsequent analysis.

4

The search focused on articles using several combinations of relevant key words such as 

variants of “whistleblow,” “disclose,” and “report” with terms such as “government,” 

“department,” “agency,” “official,” or “federal.” We conducted a second search on potential 

best practices or policies in whistleblowing management in the public sector. 

Whistleblowing and related terms were searched, as well as terms such as “best,”

“leading,” and “practices.” This search included the databases above, as well as the 

Harvard Kennedy School Think Tank Search tool, Lexis CQ hearing transcripts and 

ProQuest Congressional, and internet searches of government websites. We retrieved 25 

academic and 79 grey literature results from the second search. Grey literature comprises 

documents produced by government, academia, business, and industry in print and 

electronic formats that are protected by intellectual property rights, but not controlled by 

commercial publishers.
Page 4 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

supplemented these searches with a web search.5 One analyst reviewed 

the results to identify relevant articles and a second analyst reviewed 

these determinations. To analyze and summarize the results of the 

literature search, one analyst used a data collection instrument to review 

each relevant article, document information relevant to our objectives, 

and identify key themes to inform our key practices. A second reviewer 

then reviewed this analysis.

Using these multiple sources, we identified key practices6 that align with 

internal controls and could inform congressional office policies and 

guidelines.7 For each step that we identified, we considered relevant 

internal controls, such as clear and transparent internal and external 

communication, implementation of policies, and evaluation of existing 

policies and procedures to identify risks and assess their effect on 

achieving the defined objectives of the office. To ensure the applicability 

of our draft key practices, we requested that current and former 

congressional staff and executive officials review the identified practices 

and provide feedback on their validity and potential usefulness. These 

officials included those that we had previously interviewed or were 

referred to by those we interviewed due to their experience working with 

whistleblowers.

We conducted our work from July 2018 to May 2019 in accordance with 

all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to 

our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the 

engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our 

stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe 

that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, 

provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this 

product.

 5

This search included “.org” sites using “whistleblower” and “best practices” or “leading 

practices.”

6

We did not assess existing policies and guidelines to determine the extent to which they 

applied these practices.

7

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G

(Washington: D.C.: September 2014).
Page 5 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

In this report, we use the term whistleblower more broadly than it is 

defined by the Whistleblower Protection Act.8 Our definition of 

whistleblower includes any federal employee, contractor, or grantee who 

discloses suspected wrongdoing—regardless of reprisal status or nature 

of their disclosure. To trigger whistleblower protections under the 

Whistleblower Protection Act, the disclosure must be a contributing factor 

to an adverse personnel action, commonly called a reprisal. The act, 

which covers certain federal employees, defines personnel actions to 

include effects on performance evaluations or significant changes in 

working conditions.

9 The act further defines a protected disclosure as any 

disclosure that an employee reasonably believes evidences “a violation of 

any law, rule, or regulation” or “gross mismanagement, a gross waste of 

funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to public 

health or safety.” Federal laws protecting other types of employees 

generally have similar definitions for personnel actions and protected 

disclosures.

The Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 provided the first whistleblower 

protections for disclosures of violations of laws, mismanagement, or gross 

waste of funds for federal employees, former employees, and applicants 

for employment, among other things.10 To strengthen protections for 

those who claim whistleblower retaliation, the Congress passed the 

Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989. In 2012, the Whistleblower 

Protection Enhancement Act clarified the scope of protected 

whistleblowing under the Whistleblower Protection Act and mandated 

broader outreach to inform certain federal employees of their 

whistleblower rights, among other things.11 The No Fear Act requires 

agencies to notify and train employees, former employees, and applicants 

of their rights under antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection laws 

and requires the Office of Personnel Management to report annually on 

certain topics regarding antidiscrimination and whistleblower protection 

 8

5 U.S.C. § 2302(c). 

9

Employees exempted from competitive service because of their policy-making character 

are not protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act. Additionally, employees at the U.S. 

Postal Service, GAO, and intelligence agencies are not protected by the act. Federal law 

designates 12 personnel actions. See 5 U.S.C. 2302 § (a)(2)(A)(i)-(xii).

105 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8).

11Pub. L. No. 112-199, 126 Stat. 1465 (Nov. 27, 2012). 

Background

How is the term “whistleblower”

defined?

What are the protections for 

federal whistleblowers?
Page 6 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

laws, including disciplinary actions taken for conduct that is inconsistent 

with these laws.12 Further, the Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Act of 

2017 enhanced disciplinary penalties for supervisors who engage in 

whistleblower retaliation.13 For a summary of protections provided to 

different types of federal employees, contractors, and grantees, see table 

1.

Table 1: Whistleblower Protections for Different Types of Federal Employees, Contractors, and Grantees

Type of employee Is communication 

with the Congress 

protected?

What types of disclosures are protected? What types of 

protections are 

given?

What is the legal 

basis?

Civilian Federal 

Employees, 

Retirees, and 

Applicants

Yes Any disclosure an employee reasonably 

believes evidences a violation of law, rule, or 

regulation, or evidences gross 

mismanagement, gross waste of funds, 

abuse of authority, or a substantial and 

specific danger to public health.

Protects against 

prohibited 

personnel 

practices 

including 

retaliation 

Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 

1912 5 U.S.C. § 7211, 

Whistleblower 

Protection Act, 

Whistleblower 

Protection 

Enhancement Act, Civil 

Service Reform Act of 

1978

5 U.S.C. § 2302

Military ServicemembersYes Making or preparing to make a lawful 

communication to a Member of Congress, 

Inspector General, a member of a 

Department of Defense audit organization, 

etc., regarding what the servicemember 

reasonably believes to be evidence of (1) a 

violation of law or regulation, (2) gross 

mismanagement, (3) a gross waste of funds, 

(4) an abuse of authority, or a substantial and 

specific danger to public health or safety, or a 

threat by another servicemember or civilian 

employee or damage to military, federal, or 

civilian property.

Unfavorable 

personnel action, 

including actions 

such as 

performance 

evaluations or 

disciplinary or 

other corrective 

actions

Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 

1912 5 U.S.C. § 7211, 

Military Whistleblower 

Protection Act of 1988 

10. U.S.C. § 1034

 12Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation Act of 2002, Pub. 

L. 107-174 (2002).

13Dr. Chris Kirkpatrick Whistleblower Protection Act of 2017. Pub. L. 115-73 (2017).
Page 7 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Type of employee Is communication 

with the Congress 

protected?

What types of disclosures are protected? What types of 

protections are 

given?

What is the legal 

basis?

Intelligence 

Community

(employees and 

contractors)

Yes Complaints and information to congressional 

intelligence committees with respect to an 

“urgent concern,” such as a serious or 

flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or 

executive order or deficiency relating to the 

funding, administration, or operations of an 

intelligence activity involving classified 

information, a false statement to or willful 

withholding from Congress.

Protects against 

prohibited 

personnel 

practices 

including 

retaliation when 

employees 

report to 

congressional 

intelligence 

committees a 

complaint or 

information with 

respect to an 

“urgent concern”

Lloyd-LaFollette Act of 

1912 5 U.S.C. § 7211 

(for federal employees), 

Intelligence Community 

Whistleblower 

Protection Act of 1998, 

Pub. L. 105-272

Presidential Policy 

Directive PPD-19 

(October 10, 2012)

50 U.S.C. § 3234

5 U.S.C. § 

2302(a)(2)(A)

Civilian, 

Department of 

Defense, and 

National 

Aeronautics and 

Space 

Administration 

Federal 

Contractors, 

Subcontractors, 

and Grantees

Yes Information that the employee believes is 

evidence of (1) gross mismanagement of a 

federal contract or grant, a gross waste of 

federal funds, an abuse of authority relating 

to a federal contract or grant, (2) a 

substantial and specific danger to public 

health or safety, and (3) a violation of law, 

rule, or regulation related to a federal 

contract (including the competition for or 

negotiation of a contract) or grant.

Provides 

protection 

against such 

actions as 

demotion and 

discharge

The National Defense 

Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013 (made 

permanent in P.L. 114-

261 and codified in 41 

U.S.C. § 4712 (civilian) 

and 10 U.S.C. § 2409 

(Department of Defense

and National 

Aeronautics and Space 

Administration))

Source: GAO analysis of applicable legal protections.| GAO-19-432

Congressional offices conduct oversight of the federal government 

through congressional hearings, informal contacts with executive officials, 

staff reports on investigations, and oversight letters to agencies asking for 

information or urging them to take certain actions. As part of their 

oversight activities, the Congress also uses studies prepared by others, 

such as statutory commissions, Inspectors General, and us.

Members of Congress may initiate oversight action using information from 

a whistleblower that they receive through constituent services. These 

activities include case work and fielding public comments related to 

federal policies, programs, and services, including responding to 

disclosures of suspected wrongdoing from federal employees, 

contractors, and grantees. Individual congressional offices manage and 

prioritize their own casework activities, subject to House or Senate rules 

and relevant laws.

How does the Congress use 

information from 

whistleblowers as part of its 

oversight activities?
Page 8 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

In addition to the Congress, a civilian federal employee, contractor, or 

grantee can report wrongdoing to other entities. Congressional staff and 

executive officials told us that whistleblowers often reach out to multiple 

entities concurrently. Entities that work with whistleblowers have different 

roles and potential remedies.

• Agency management: Employees can make disclosures to 

supervisors or management, who may have the ability to take action 

to address the concern. These disclosures are protected against 

reprisal, but whistleblowers may fear that they could be demoted, 

reassigned, or fired as a result of their disclosure.

• Inspectors General (IG): IGs are independent units within agencies 

that investigate potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in 

their agency’s programs and operations.14 IGs are to report to both 

the agency head and the Congress about deficiencies in agency 

programs and operations, and progress in correcting those 

deficiencies. The agency IG may make recommendations to the 

agency head, but cannot require action to be taken. Many IGs are 

required to designate a Whistleblower Coordinator. The Whistleblower 

Coordinator is required to educate agency employees about 

prohibitions on retaliation for protected disclosures and inform 

employees who have made, or are contemplating making, a protected 

disclosure of their rights and remedies against retaliation for protected 

disclosures.15 IGs are also required to prepare semiannual reports 

summarizing the activities of the office. Such reports include, among 

other things, a detailed description of any instance of whistleblower 

retaliation, including information about the official found to have 

engaged in retaliation.16

• U.S. Office of Special Counsel (OSC): As an independent federal 

investigative and prosecutorial agency, OSC reviews disclosures from 

current federal employees, former employees, and applicants for 

federal employment.17 If OSC’s review determines that there is a 

 14As of 2014, CIGIE reported that there are 72 statutory IG offices across the federal 

government. Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. 85-452 (1978). 

15§3(d)(C)(i)-(iii) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-452 (1978), as amended 

by the Whistleblower Protection Coordination Act, Pub. L. 115-192 (2018).

16§5(a)(20) of the Inspector General Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-452 (1978), as amended by 

the Whistleblower Protection Coordination Act, Pub. L. 115-192 (2018).

17GAO, Office of Special Counsel: Actions Needed to Improve Processing of Prohibited 

Personnel Practice and Whistleblower Disclosure Cases, GAO-18-400 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 14, 2018). 

Where else can a federal 

whistleblower turn?
Page 9 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

substantial likelihood that the types of wrongdoing described above 

may have occurred, it will refer the allegation to the head of the 

subject agency for investigation. The subject agency must then report 

back to OSC on its findings and actions it plans to take as a result of 

the investigation. OSC then reviews the report to determine if the 

agency’s findings are reasonable and shares it with the whistleblower 

for comment. OSC then shares the agency report, OSC comments or 

recommendations, and the whistleblower comments with the 

Executive Office of the President and the chairmen and ranking 

members of the congressional committees with oversight 

responsibilities for the agency. OSC also sends the agency and the 

whistleblower a closure letter and posts the case information on 

OSC’s public website.18 If a reprisal has occurred, an employee can 

make an allegation that a prohibited personnel practice has occurred. 

OSC then investigates and can seek a stay, corrective actions, or 

disciplinary actions.

• Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB): An independent federal 

agency, MSPB considers certain allegations from federal employees 

who believe they have experienced retaliatory personnel actions in 

response to making a protected disclosure.19 When an employee is 

subject to a personnel action, such as a reassignment with no 

reduction in pay or grade, and claims that the action was taken 

because of whistleblowing or other covered protected activity, the 

employee can appeal to MSPB only after filing a complaint with OSC 

and if OSC does not seek corrective action on the individual’s behalf. 

Certain personnel actions—such as a removal, demotion, or 

suspension of more than 14 days due to claims of whistleblowing are 

directly appealable to MSPB, rather than first exhausting the OSC 

process. If MSPB determines the appeal is under its jurisdiction, an 

administrative judge will review both the appealable matter and the 

claim of reprisal. The employee may appeal the administrative judge’s 

decision to the three-Member board of MPSB or to the U.S. Court of 

Appeals.20

 18https://osc.gov/Pages/Resources-PublicFiles.aspx (last accessed March 19, 2019). 

19GAO, Whistleblower Protection: Additional Actions Would Improve Recording and 

Reporting of Appeals Data, GAO-17-110 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 28, 2016). 

20As of April 23, 2019, the MSPB board had not had a quorum since January 2017. Two 

nominees for the board had been reported favorably out of committee but the Senate had 

not yet voted on their nominations. 
Page 10 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

• GAO’s FraudNet: FraudNet is a component of our investigative unit 

that serves as a government-wide clearinghouse for reports of 

potential fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in federal 

programs. FraudNet may refer an allegation of wrongdoing to the 

appropriate IG or federal, state, and local law-enforcement agencies.

See figure 1 below.
Page 11 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Figure 1: Federal Whistleblower Options Available to Federal Civilian Employees, Contractors, and Grantees

Note: Federal whistleblowers may also go to law enforcement officials with their disclosures.

a

Certain personnel actions—such as a removal, demotion, or suspension of more than 14 days—due 

to claims of whistleblowing are directly appealable to the Merit Systems Protection Board, rather than 

first exhausting the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) process.

b

OSC will refer the allegation to the head of the subject agency for investigation. The subject agency 

must then report back to OSC on its findings and action it plans to take as a result of the 

investigation.
Page 12 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

The congressional offices and advocacy groups we spoke with told us 

that whistleblowers who contact the Congress typically reach out to 

oversight committees, the offices of their own representatives or senators, 

or select authorizing committees. Congressional oversight committees—

the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Senate 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs—have 

jurisdiction over federal operations in executive branch agencies and 

regularly work with whistleblowers who are current and former federal 

employees, contractors, and grantees.

Whistleblowers often contact and work with multiple congressional offices 

simultaneously, according to congressional staff and advocacy groups we 

spoke with for this review. Congressional offices regularly exchange 

whistleblower referrals—with whistleblowers’ consent—and, in some 

instances, collaborate on whistleblower disclosures based on the 

jurisdiction and relevant expertise of each office. For example, Senate 

oversight committee staff told us that they worked on a whistleblower 

disclosure with their counterparts in an authorizing committee because 

the authorizing committee had jurisdiction over the agency involved in the 

whistleblower disclosure. House oversight committee staff told us that 

they were often consulted by Members’ congressional staff regarding 

whistleblower disclosures from their constituents because of the 

committee’s experience in working with whistleblowers.

While data are not available on the number of whistleblower disclosures 

across Congress, a staff member at one congressional office said the 

office can receive hundreds of whistleblower disclosures each year. 

Oversight committee staff told us that the volume of whistleblowers their 

offices receive tends to increase when congressional oversight issues are 

prominent in the news media. They said that congressional oversight 

actions—such as letters to agency officials—can signal congressional 

interest to agency employees and influence whistleblower disclosures to 

Congress.

Congress Receives 

Whistleblower 

Information in Multiple 

Ways

Whistleblowers Typically 

Contact Oversight 

Committees, Their 

Congressional 

Representatives, or Select 

Authorizing Committees
Page 13 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Congressional offices include contact information on their websites that 

provide the public with multiple options for submitting information to 

representatives’ and senators’ offices and to congressional committees. 

Of the congressional websites we reviewed, we found that oversight 

committees, some authorizing committees, and some Members of 

Congress have specific contact information on their websites for 

whistleblowers to use for disclosing suspected wrongdoing. We found the 

following examples of ways congressional committee and individual 

Member’s websites provide whistleblowers with options for disclosing 

information:

• Email: Email addresses are highlighted for whistleblowers to use for 

disclosing suspected wrongdoing to a congressional office.

• Hotlines: Hotlines allow whistleblowers to call to disclose suspected 

wrongdoing to a congressional office and, in some instances, include 

information for relevant federal agency IG hotlines and GAO’s 

FraudNet as additional options.

• Web-based forms: Web-based forms allow whistleblowers to submit 

comments and other information online in a consistent format that can 

facilitate intake. While the format of these web-based forms varies, 

most include fields for whistleblowers to (1) identify the agency in 

which the suspected wrongdoing occurred, (2) describe the suspected 

wrongdoing, and (3) disclose contact information should the 

congressional office require additional information. Congressional web 

intake forms we reviewed either allow for anonymous submission or 

include disclaimer statements assuring the confidentiality of 

whistleblower information.

While congressional offices provide whistleblowers with the above options 

for disclosing information, all congressional staff we spoke with noted the 

importance of interacting with whistleblowers by phone or in person. For 

example, oversight committee staff told us whistleblower interactions by 

phone can help them determine the credibility of the whistleblower’s 

information, the seriousness of the issue being disclosed, and what 

congressional action, if any, can address the matter.

Congress Provides 

Multiple Ways for 

Whistleblowers to Disclose 

Information
Page 14 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

There are a range of resources and training available to congressional 

staff on working with whistleblowers. Internal resources include oversight 

training and legal advice on specific inquiries related to whistleblowing 

when requested. Committees or staff may also create training on 

whistleblowers and provide on-the-job training to their staff. Lastly, 

external organizations provide training to congressional staff on 

congressional oversight and working with whistleblowers.

• General training and advice on congressional oversight: Both the 

House Office of General Counsel and Senate Office of Legal Counsel 

said they provide advice on working with whistleblowers when 

requested. House Office of General Counsel staff told us they provide 

training to House Members and staff upon request, including training 

focused on whistleblower topics, such as legal protections and risks 

as well as advice for working with whistleblowers. House Office of 

General Counsel staff also told us they frequently address working 

with whistleblowers when providing general training on congressional 

oversight and legal advice to Members and staff. Senate Office of 

Legal Counsel staff told us they give occasional verbal advice to 

Members and staff on working with whistleblowers in response to 

specific inquiries.

The Congressional Research Service provides congressional staff 

with training on constituent services and oversight, but does not 

provide training specifically focused on working with whistleblowers. 

Congressional Research Service training provides concepts and 

materials for congressional offices to adapt to their own use and 

needs.

• Committee-specific training related to whistleblowing: Staff from 

the House Committee on Oversight and Reform stated that they have 

created internal training for their staff on working with whistleblowers. 

During these training sessions, they distribute committee guidelines 

and policies for handling whistleblower cases, such as what 

information to ask for and how to prioritize among whistleblower 

claims. These training sessions also include discussion of skills such 

as building rapport and managing the whistleblower’s expectations.

Oversight staff we spoke with told us that direct experience working 

with whistleblowers is important. Staff at one committee told us that 

they identify opportunities for new staff to directly observe more 

Congressional Staff 

Can Request Training 

on Working with 

Whistleblowers
Page 15 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

experienced staff members as they work with whistleblowers to build 

these skills.

• External training: Oversight committee staff told us they leveraged 

outside training on congressional oversight from external advocacy 

groups. Staff stated that these training sessions are tailored to 

congressional staff and focus on how to manage calls and varying 

techniques for working with whistleblowers. Selected advocacy 

groups also told us that they provide training for congressional staff on 

working with whistleblowers.

The congressional committees we queried that support congressional 

staff—including the House Committee on Rules, Committee on House 

Administration, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, House 

Committee on Ethics and Senate Select Committee on Ethics, and House 

and Senate Counsel—told us that they do not provide training or policies 

to all congressional staff on working with whistleblowers.

21

While the Congress provides different ways for whistleblowers to disclose 

information, congressional staff and executive officials we spoke with told 

us that it is important that this information and the whistleblowers’ identity 

are effectively handled once it is received. We identified key practices to 

help guide congressional staff receiving information from whistleblowers 

and to help inform future training based on our review of IG and OSC 

practices, academic research, current congressional practices, and 

internal controls.

Our review found four basic steps to follow when receiving and referring 

information from whistleblowers. We identified intake as the first step in 

the process. Intake is the initial communication with the whistleblower 

where key information is collected and a relationship is established. The 

office can then consider its priorities as a second step, before deciding 

what action to take with the whistleblower disclosure. This decision 

process can lead to an oversight action or a referral. The third step we 

 21In January 2019, the House of Representatives established an Office of Whistleblower 

Ombudsman and directed the Ombudsman to develop best practices for whistleblower 

intake for House offices and provide training to House offices on how to safely receive 

information from whistleblowers. Adopting the Rules of the House of Representatives for 

the One Hundred Sixteenth Congress, and for other purposes, H.Res. 6, 116th Cong. 

(2019).

Key Practices for 

Congressional 

Consideration When 

Receiving and 

Referring Information 

from Whistleblowers
Page 16 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

identified is referral of the whistleblower, which includes considering 

different options such as internal referrals to different congressional 

committees or personal offices, or Executive Branch referral options such 

as OSC, IGs, or MSPB. At the fourth and final step, the office can 

consider its follow-up strategy to provide the whistleblower with updates 

on the status of their disclosure and determine whether delayed reprisal 

occurred.

For each step, we identified practices to help offices develop office 

guidelines and procedures to keep the whistleblowers’ information and 

identity secured and ensure all staff know the office’s process and 

priorities. We also identified practices for communication, including key 

questions that staff can ask the whistleblower to help gather the 

necessary information to assess the disclosure. In addition, we intend 

appendix I to be a one-page resource for congressional staff with the 

practices for communication with the whistleblower as well as referral 

options.

Recognizing the value of the information that whistleblowers provide the 

Congress, the following key practices for working with whistleblowers in 

table 2 can supplement existing guidance and training available within the 

Congress, including direct experience working with whistleblowers. Not all 

considerations are applicable in every instance. We recognize that 

congressional offices have discretion when determining their processes 

and procedures for working with whistleblowers, subject to House or 

Senate rules and relevant laws. Further, each office must consider 

resource tradeoffs inherent in dedicating staff to these efforts and 

instituting procedures such as ensuring the security of information 

provided by whistleblowers. These key practices can be used to inform 

the policies and procedures within individual congressional offices. They 

can also be helpful as the Congress develops any routine training and 

resources for staff on interacting with and referring whistleblowers. We 

are available to further assist the Congress in these efforts to work with 

whistleblowers.
Page 17 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Table 2: Key Practices for Congressional Staff to Consider When Working with Federal Whistleblowers

Key Steps Key Practices

Intake of 

whistleblower 

disclosures

Internal guidelines and procedures:

• Develop written processes and guidelines for congressional staff, such as:

• Key steps in the offices’ process for intake of whistleblowers and key considerations

• Protocols to keep disclosures secure and protected, while appropriately limiting access to 

information on a need-to-know basis

• Ensure personally identifiable information (PII) is handled appropriatelya

• Ensure sensitive or classified information is handled appropriately

• Develop a secure tracking system to document the process for status updates, trends, referrals, etc.:

• Document contacts and attempted contacts with the whistleblower, such as in a form or tracking 

sheet

• After initial receipt, create a case file that contains key information that can be updated as 

necessary

• Allow for staff to evaluate and identify trends and risks within the federal government

• Routinely evaluate the office’s processes and guidelines for intake to ensure the process is relevant, clear, 

and actionable

External communication with the whistleblower:

• Build a good rapport and trusting relationship with the whistleblower by communicating respectfully, 

practicing active listening, and responding in a timely manner

• Share key information with the whistleblower:

• Explain the entire process to make it as transparent as possible

• Set clear expectations for the process:

• How the office determines whether or not it will take on a disclosure, information the 

office can or cannot receive, how the information might be used, and abilities of the office 

to assist the whistleblower, ensuring not to overpromise

• Timelines, potential outcomes, and available avenues to file complaints or disclose 

information while not providing legal advice given the nature of congressional staff’s role, 

which is distinct from the role of legal counsel for the whistleblower

• Discuss the extent to which whistleblowers are willing to have their information and identity 

shared, and receive their permission before releasing information or discussing the details of their 

disclosure with another government entityb

• Be transparent about the level of anonymity and confidentiality that can be guaranteed

• Ask the whistleblower key questions at this stage, such as:

• Are you a current, former, or prospective federal employee or federal grant recipient? If not, are 

you an employee of a contractor for the federal government?

• If so, what federal agency?

• Are you in immediate danger or does this disclosure pertain to an immediate threat?

• Have you filed this disclosure with your agency inspector general or any investigative entity? If so, 

do you know the status or outcome of this investigation?

• Have you filed this disclosure or shared this information elsewhere?

• If with another Member of Congress, do we have permission to communicate with that 

office?

• Do you have legal representation? If so, do you prefer that we communicate through them?

• Where (and how) did you obtain this information?
Page 18 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Key Steps Key Practices

• Do you have any documentation to submit?

• Do you have any colleagues that can corroborate your disclosure?

• Does this disclosure have implications for federal policy or require oversight or legislative action?

• Has the agency taken, failed to take, or threatened to take a personnel action against you?

• Are you a constituent of this Member?

Prioritization of 

whistleblower 

disclosures

Internal guidelines and procedures:

• Set key priorities or standards that will be considered for each disclosure, such as does the disclosure 

pertain to:

• Urgent issues/ Dangers to public health or safety

• Oversight of the executive branch

• Government-wide issues

• Issues related to leadership’s priorities

• Develop written guidelines to explain your office’s priorities, and how to decide if a whistleblower disclosure 

will be handled in the office or referred elsewhere

• Document the outcome of prioritization in the office’s tracking system

• Evaluate the priorities that the office set to determine whether the office’s priorities and objectives are 

addressing identified risks and trends within the federal government

• Routinely discuss priorities with office leadership

External communication with the whistleblower:

• Be transparent to the whistleblower about the type of disclosures the office will take on for further action, 

understanding that they cannot take on every disclosure

Referral of 

whistleblower 

disclosures

Internal guidelines and procedures:

• Create a document that provides easily available information—such as a tip sheet—for staff that includes 

the options for whistleblowers and advantages, implications, and appropriateness of each option

• Common options include the Office for Special Counsel, Inspectors General, Merit Systems 

Protection Board, relevant committees, and appropriate Members

• The office’s tracking system should document where and when a disclosure was referred or action was 

taken

External communication with the whistleblower:

• Consider the following additional questions at this stage:

• Has this person been reprised against?

• Is this person a constituent?

• Is this person’s disclosure within my office’s jurisdiction?

• Does this person’s disclosure satisfy my office’s key standards/priorities?

• Clearly communicate referral options to the whistleblower

• Ask whistleblowers for permission before sending their disclosure outside of your office

• Give the whistleblower the opportunity to discuss or review potential communications as appropriate to 

ensure the information is accurate and appropriately protects their identity to their desired extent

• Communicate with the whistleblower about the potential of their disclosure being shared publicly and 

ensure that the whistleblower approves sharing their information with others

• For those whistleblowers who do not want to share their identity, ask if they have colleagues who 

would be comfortable speaking to the issue, and help identify if the issue is widespread. 
Page 19 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Key Steps Key Practices

Potential Investigation To Be Done At The Discretion Of Each Office

Follow-up on 

whistleblower 

disclosures

Internal guidelines and procedures:

• Document expectations for follow-up practices, including timelines for follow-up, in internal written policies

• Periodically evaluate lessons learned and the identification of risks to achieving the office’s objectives

External communication with the whistleblower:

• Communicate when the whistleblower should expect to hear final follow-up from the office and ensure that 

this communication occurs, even if the office chooses not to act on the disclosure

• Was the disclosure referred?

• Was the issue resolved at the agency?

• Was there a hearing?

• Continue to check in with the whistleblower as appropriate to determine if he or she has experienced 

delayed harassment or reprisal or has new information to share

Source: GAO analysis of academic literature, applicable internal controls, and existing procedures and standards. | GAO-19-432

a

PII is any information that can be used to distinguish or trace an individual’s identity, such as name, 

date, and place of birth, Social Security number, or other types of personal information that can be 

linked to an individual, such as medical, educational, financial, and employment information.

b

Offices may have policies for requesting permission from the whistleblower to allow executive branch 

agencies to share information with the office. See 5 U.S.C. §552a and Congressional Research 

Service, Casework in a Congressional Office: Background, Rules, Laws, and Resources, accessed 

September 17, 2018, https://www.crs.gov/reports/pdf/RL33209.

We provided a draft of this report to the Special Counsel and the Chair of 

the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency for 

comment. The Office of Special Counsel and the Council of the 

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency provided technical 

comments that were incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Special Counsel, the Chair of the Council of the 

Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency, and other interested 

parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://gao.gov.

Agency Comments
Page 20 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-6806 or sagerm@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Michelle Sager

Director

Strategic Issues
Appendix I: Key Practices and Referral Options 

for Federal Whistleblowers

Page 21 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

See one-page resource below.

Appendix I: Key Practices and Referral 

Options for Federal Whistleblowers
Page 22 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers
Page 23 GAO-19-432 Whistleblowers

Michelle Sager, (202) 512-6806, sagerm@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Melissa Wolf (Assistant Director), 

Alexandra Edwards (Analyst-in-Charge), Danny Berg, Julie Miller, 

Enyinnaya David Aja, Jacqueline Chapin, Ann Czapiewski, Sarah 

Gilliland, Ian Gottesfeld, Steven Putansu, and Kayla Robinson made 

significant contributions to this report.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact:

Staff 

Acknowledgments: 

(102878)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact FraudNet:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7700

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.