A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

November 2011

Blowing The Whistle: 

Barriers to Federal Employees 

Making Disclosures

U.S. MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

1615 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20419-0001

The President

President of the Senate

Speaker of the House of Representatives

Dear Sirs:

In accordance with the requirements of 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(3), it is my honor to submit 

this U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) report, Blowing the Whistle: Barriers 

to Federal Employees Making Disclosures. This report discusses results from MSPB’s 2010 

Merit Principles Survey regarding perceptions related to whistleblowing and provides a 

comparison to the results of a similar survey our agency conducted in 1992.

Data from our surveys indicate that since 1992, the percentage of employees who 

perceive any wrongdoing has decreased. However, perceptions of retaliation against those 

who blow the whistle remain a serious concern. In both 1992 and 2010, approximately 

one-third of the individuals who felt they had been identified as a source of a report of 

wrongdoing also perceived either threats or acts of reprisal, or both. Additionally, training 

for employees about the protections available to whistleblowers has improved since 1992, 

but given that such training is mandated by law, there are still far too many employees 

who have not received this information.

The survey data also indicate that the most important factor for employees when 

deciding whether to report wrongdoing is not the personal consequences for the employee. 

Saving lives was more important to survey respondents than whether they would experience 

punishment or a reward, and whether the agency would act on a report of wrongdoing 

mattered more than any fear of an unpleasant consequence for the employee making 

the report. This means that agencies have the power to influence employees’ decisions 

about reporting wrongdoing. The most important step that agencies can take to prevent 

wrongdoing may be the creation of a culture that supports whistleblowing.

I believe you will find this report useful as you consider issues affecting the Federal 

Government’s ability to operate efficiently and effectively in these challenging times.

Respectfully,

Susan Tsui Grundmann 

A Report to the President and the Congress of the United States 

by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Blowing The Whistle: 

Barriers to Federal Employees 

Making Disclosures

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB” or “The Board”) is an independent, 

quasi-judicial agency in the Executive branch that serves as the guardian of Federal merit 

systems. The Board was established by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), 

Public Law No. 95-454. 

The Board’s mission is to protect Federal merit systems and the rights of individuals within 

those systems. MSPB carries out its statutory responsibilities and authorities primarily by 

adjudicating individual employee appeals and by conducting merit systems studies. 

The topic of this report, whistleblowing, occurs at the intersection of MSPB’s two missions. 

As a part of its adjudicatory mission, MSPB considers, among other types of cases, appeals 

brought by individuals who allege that they have been subjected to retaliatory personnel 

actions because they have disclosed 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.

As a part of the studies mission, MSPB has the statutory responsibility to study the health 

of the merit systems and the extent to which the public’s interest in a civil service free from 

prohibited personnel practices is being protected. An efficient and effective civil service—a 

merit principle—requires a workplace in which employees feel that they can safely blow 

the whistle on wrongdoing. This report is issued solely under the studies function of the 

MSPB, and any findings or recommendations are not an official “opinion” of the Board in 

its adjudicatory role. 

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Susan Tsui Grundmann, Chairman

Anne M. Wagner, Vice Chairman

Mary M. Rose, Member

Office of Policy and Evaluation

Director

John Crum, Ph.D.

Deputy Director

Laura Shugrue

Project Manager

Sharon Roth

Survey Analysis Contributor

James Tsugawa

Publications Specialist

Annette Butler

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

Table of Contents

Executive Summary..................................................................................... i

Findings and Recommendations .............................................................. i

Introduction ............................................................................................... 1

Purpose................................................................................................... 1

Survey Methodology ............................................................................... 1

Wrongdoing, Whistleblowing, and Retaliation Over Time........................ 3

Wrongdoing ............................................................................................ 4

Whistleblowing....................................................................................... 8

Retaliation .............................................................................................. 9

Barriers and Motivators for Whistleblowing.............................................15

Consequences of the Wrongdoing ..........................................................15

Management Reaction to the Report..................................................... 16

Current Perceptions of Agency Culture................................................. 20

Whom to Tell About Wrongdoing and Preserving Anonymity .............. 21

Whom to Tell................................................................................ 22

Preserving Anonymity ................................................................... 23

Disclosures Matter ................................................................................ 24

Conclusion................................................................................................ 27

Appendix: 1992 and 2010 MPS Data for Whistleblowing....................... 29

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board i

For more than three decades, the law has recognized the importance of encouraging Federal 

employees to come forward with reports of any 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.1 This report explores the extent to which Federal 

employees perceive wrongdoing, the extent to which they report the wrongdoing they see, 

and what factors influence their decisions to remain silent or to blow the whistle. 

Findings and Recommendations

Survey data show that since 1992, the percentage of employees who perceive any 

wrongdoing has decreased.2 However, perceptions of retaliation against those who blow 

the whistle remain a serious concern. In both 1992 and 2010, approximately one-third 

of the individuals who felt they had been identified as a source of a report of wrongdoing 

also perceived either threats or acts of reprisal, or both. One possible cause for this level of 

perception may be differences between how the law defines whistleblowing for purposes of 

protecting individuals from retaliation and how employees define it.3 

The survey data also indicate that the most important factors for employees when deciding 

whether to report wrongdoing are not about the personal consequences for the employee. 

Saving lives is more important to respondents than whether they will experience punishment 

or a reward, and whether the agency will act on a report of wrongdoing matters more than 

any fear of an unpleasant consequence for the employee making the report. 

1 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A). For ease of reference, throughout this report, 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 may be referred to as “wrongdoing.”

2 The survey data discussed in this report are from a survey of more than 13,000 Federal employees in 1992, 

and a survey of more than 40,000 Federal employees in 2010. Both surveys were conducted by the U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board based on random samples drawn from the Office of Personnel Management’s Central 

Personnel Data File.

3 As explained in our recent report, Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees, available at www.mspb.

gov/studies, not all reports of wrongdoing are protected disclosures, and not all unpleasant reactions by the agency 

constitute retaliation as defined by the law.

Executive Summary
ii Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

This means that agencies have the power to influence employees’ decisions about reporting 

wrongdoing. We urge agencies to create cultures in which employees will believe that:

•	Supervisors and managers want to be told about wrongdoing;

•	Supervisors and managers want their employees to come forward to report any 

basis for a reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing without requiring absolute proof of 

wrongdoing;

•	A report of wrongdoing will result in positive changes; and

•	An employee will not be shunned or punished for reporting wrongdoing, but 

instead will be supported or praised.

Survey data also show that agencies are doing more to train employees about whistleblower 

protection rights. However, given that this training is mandated by law, there are still far 

too many employees who reported that they did not receive this training. We therefore urge 

agencies to improve the quality of employee training about how to make a disclosure, an 

employee’s right to not experience retaliation or threats of retaliation, and how employees 

can exercise that right. 

Our data show that perceptions of retaliation among those identified as the source of 

a report of wrongdoing have not declined since 1992. As noted in our recent report, 

Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees, the laws to protect whistleblowers are 

complex and can create challenging situations for employees. It is possible that amending 

the law regarding the circumstances under which an individual is eligible for protection as 

a whistleblower may be beneficial. We encourage Congress to continue to examine and 

debate how best to achieve the delicate balance between effective management control 

of the workplace and the need to ensure that employees can bring wrongdoing to light 

without fear of threatened or actual retaliation. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 1

In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Congress made it illegal to use a personnel 

action to retaliate against an employee (or applicant for employment) because of the 

individual’s disclosure of 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.4 The law to protect whistleblowers was strengthened by the Whistleblower 

Protection Act of 1989 and its 1994 amendments. The law is remedial—it provides some 

redress for retaliation. However, to achieve the purpose of the law—encouraging employees 

to make disclosures—the Government must do more than just provide legal protections 

against retaliation. Individual agencies must also create cultures that persuade employees 

that their whistleblowing will make a positive difference towards preventing wrongdoing. 

Purpose

The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board fulfills its mission in part by conducting studies 

related to the civil service and other merit systems.5 It is a merit system principle that 

all employees should maintain high standards of integrity, conduct, and concern for the 

public interest.6 Disclosing wrongdoing is an important aspect of this principle. MSPB 

recently issued a report on how the law does and does not protect individuals from reprisal 

for whistleblowing activities.7 To complete the picture, this report will look at the extent 

to which employees feel able to make these disclosures, and what can be done to encourage 

more disclosures in the future. 

Survey Methodology

This report relies upon data from MSPB’s Merit Principles Surveys (MPSs) conducted in 

1992 and 2010. In 1992, the survey was administered to 20,851 employees, with 13,432 

respondents (representing a 64 percent response rate). The results were published in 

Whistleblowing in the Federal Government: An Update, available at www.mspb.gov/studies. 

4 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)(A). The law also protects individuals from an agency’s failure to take a personnel 

action, or threats to take or not take a personnel action, if the agency’s conduct is because of the disclosure of 

wrongdoing.

5 5 U.S.C. § 1204(a)(3).

6 5 U.S.C. § 2301(b)(4). It is also a basic obligation of public service that “[e]mployees shall disclose waste, 

fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities.” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(b)(11). 

7 Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees, available at www.mspb.gov/studies. 

Introduction
2 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

The 2010 MPS was administered to 71,970 Federal employees in the departments and 

agencies listed below.8 We oversampled certain populations to ensure a sufficient amount 

of responses from some subagencies. The final results have therefore been weighted to 

ensure that the outcomes are representative of most of the Federal Government as a whole.

Survey participation was voluntary. There was a 58 percent response rate overall.

Participating departments and agencies included:

•	Department of the Air Force

•	Department of the Army

•	Department of the Navy

•	Department of Defense (Other)

•	Department of Agriculture

•	Department of Commerce

•	Department of Justice

•	Department of Labor 

•	Department of Energy

•	Department of Education

•	Department of Health and Human Services

•	Department of Homeland Security

•	Department of Housing and Urban Development

•	Department of Interior

•	Department of State

•	Department of Transportation

•	Department of the Treasury

•	Department of Veterans Affairs

•	Environmental Protection Agency

•	Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

•	General Services Administration

•	National Aeronautics and Space Administration

•	Office of Personnel Management

•	Social Security Administration

We also sent a brief questionnaire to 32 agencies’ Offices of the Inspectors General (OIGs). 

Twenty-four OIGs responded. 

8 The electronic version of the survey was offered to 70,675 employees, with 41,680 respondents, for a response 

rate of 59 percent. The paper version of the survey was mailed to 1,295 employees from the Federal Aviation 

Administration, with 340 surveys returned, for a response rate of 26 percent.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 3

The percentage of respondents who have perceived wrongdoing in their agency has 

decreased since 1992. Furthermore, respondents are: (1) slightly more likely to report the 

wrongdoing; (2) less likely to be identified as the source of the report; and (3) less likely 

to perceive a negative consequence for making the report. However, of those who made 

a report and were identified as the source, the percentage of respondents who personally 

experienced reprisal or a threat of reprisal remains virtually unchanged.9

When looking at this data, it is important to—as always—caution our audience against 

reading too much into small changes in survey results. First of all, our MPS is a survey 

of perceptions, which are subject to human error. An event can occur without being 

perceived, or can be inaccurately perceived. Additionally, as the size of a sample population 

shrinks, the margin for error grows.10 Our questions began with a survey sample of more 

than 40,000 respondents for 2010, and over 13,000 respondents for 1992. However, 

with each level of drilling down into respondents who provided a particular answer to 

a prior question, the population answering the next question becomes much smaller.11

Furthermore, in this report, we are comparing only two points in time. As can be seen in 

our recent report, Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee Perceptions, available at www.

mspb.gov/studies, data regarding perceptions can fluctuate over time and trends do not 

always occur in a straight line. 

9 Because our 1992 survey used the term “report” to describe the act of telling others about wrongdoing, we 

opted to use that term for the 2010 survey as well. However, when it comes to protecting whistleblowers, the Federal 

Circuit has held that it is disclosures that are protected, not reports. See Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 

263 F.3d 1341, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (holding that “[w]hen an employee reports or states that there has been 

misconduct by a wrongdoer to the wrongdoer, the employee is not making a ‘disclosure’ of misconduct” and the 

Whistleblower Protection Act will not apply. This is because “the term ‘disclosure’ means to reveal something that 

was hidden and not known. It is also quite significant that Congress in the WPA did not use a word with a broader 

connotation such as ‘report’ or ‘state.’”)

10 Margin of error is a statistic that is used when a random sample is drawn to represent a larger population. 

It reflects how much the data provided may differ from what would be obtained if every individual in the larger 

population had been asked the same question. 

11 Because we are drilling down into increasingly smaller segments of our respondents throughout this chapter, 

and using data from two separate administrations of the survey, there is no single, consistent, margin for error. It 

can be as much as +/- 5 percent, with a confidence interval of 95 percent. This means we can be 95 percent sure that 

the data we provide in this chapter is within 5 percent of the data that would be obtained if we posed the question to 

all Federal employees.

Wrongdoing, 

Whistleblowing, and 

Retaliation Over Time
4 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

Wrongdoing

Whistleblower protection laws and policies exist to encourage employees to come forward 

with information they may have about wrongdoing so that the wrongdoing can be addressed 

and prevented in the future. However, as explained in our recent report, Whistleblower 

Protections for Federal Employees, not all forms of wrongdoing are protected by the law. 

It is therefore possible for an employee to perceive that he or she has reported someone 

doing something “wrong” while the law does not consider the report a protected act of 

whistleblowing. In order to qualify for protection under the Whistleblower Protection 

Act, the individual must be disclosing a violation of a law, rule, or regulation; gross 

mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific 

danger to public health or safety.12 Because each of these terms has its own definition, it 

is not practical to educate respondents in a survey as to what “wrongdoing” means under 

the law. As a result, our respondents were instructed that for purposes of the survey, the 

term “wrongdoing” refers to the creation or tolerance in the workplace of a health or safety 

danger, unlawful behavior, fraud, waste, or abuse. Some of our questions used the term 

wrongdoing, while others used a more specific description of the conduct at issue.

For example, our 1992 and 2010 surveys inquired: “During the last 12 months, did you 

personally observe or obtain direct evidence of one or more illegal or wasteful activities 

involving your agency?” In 1992, 17.7 percent of respondents answered yes, and 82.3 

percent answered no. In 2010, only 11.1 percent of respondents answered yes, and 88.9 

percent answered no. This data indicates that perceptions that wrongdoing has occurred 

have dropped by more than a third between 1992 and 2010. 

However, as can be seen in table 1, below, the nature of the wrongdoing that was perceived 

has changed only slightly since 1992, with fewer perceptions of waste caused by unnecessary 

or deficient goods or services, and more waste perceived in the area of badly managed 

programs. This may be a result of a shift in the Government to a more knowledge-based 

workforce. With more employees managing and analyzing programs, there may simply be 

more opportunities to observe wrongdoing in this arena. Declines in perceptions of waste 

caused by unnecessary or deficient goods or services may be a result of the attention paid 

in recent years to the need for better contracting controls and improvements in the way 

contracting officers and their technical representatives are selected and trained.13 However, 

all of the differences between 1992 and 2010 on the table below are within the margin for 

error, and may not be indicative of major changes in perceptions about how often various 

types of wrongdoing occur in Federal agencies. 

12 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8). There are also additional conditions that must be met in order to make a disclosure 

protected. For more on protected disclosures, see our report, Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees, 

available at www.mpsb.gov/studies.

13 Government Executive, OMB Sets Standards for Contracting Officials, available at http://www.govexec.com/

dailyfed/1107/113007e1.htm. For more on contracting officers and their technical advisors, see Contracting Officer 

Representatives: Managing the Government’s Technical Experts to Achieve Positive Contract Outcomes, available at www.

mspb.gov/studies. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 5

Table 1: Percentage of respondents indicating that the most serious wrongdoing they observed in the last 12 

months was in a particular category.

1992 2010 Categories

1.9% 1.8% Stealing Federal funds

6.3% 3.1% Stealing Federal property

0.2% 0.2% Accepting bribes or kickbacks

5.0% 5.1% Waste caused by ineligible people receiving funds, goods, or services

17.9% 13.8% Waste caused by unnecessary or deficient goods or services

11.9% 10.1% Use of an official position for personal benefit

35.3% 38.9% Waste caused by a badly managed program

3.9% 4.8% Unfair advantage in the selection of a contractor, consultant, or vendor

4.8% 4.6% Tolerating a situation or practice which poses a substantial and specific danger to 

public health or safety

13.0% 17.6% Other serious violation of law or regulation

When asked where the activity occurred, the greatest difference between the 1992 and 

2010 responses was the decrease in perceptions that wrongdoing was occurring outside the 

workgroup but within the agency—nearly 15 percentage points. However, as can be seen 

in table 2, below, there was not a corresponding drop in perceptions inside the workgroup. 

Further research would be necessary to determine why these perceptions about the location 

of wrongdoing have changed. 

Table 2: Percentage of respondents indicating that wrongdoing occurred in a particular location.*

1992 2010

43.8% 48.5% Your workgroup

64.2% 49.4% Outside your workgroup, but within your agency

5.4% 3.3% Another Federal agency

12.2% 8.1% Contractor or vendor

2.4% 4.5% Other

* Respondents were instructed to select all that applied.
6 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

The purpose of whistleblower protection laws is to encourage employees to report 

wrongdoing so that management can make programs more efficient and effective, 

particularly in terms of preventing taxpayer dollars from being wasted. However, as can 

be seen in figure 1, below, the cost of wrongdoing has increased since 1992. This does not 

necessarily mean that waste or fraud consumes a larger share of government resources, but 

it is certainly possible. According to the bureau of labor statistics, $5,000 in 1992 equates 

to $7,771 in 2010. As products and labor become more expensive, it makes sense that 

there would be more money at stake in any wrongdoing. Respondents may also be more 

aware of and sensitive to the financial costs of wrongdoing in the current environment of 

tight budgets. Because our questions in 1992 and 2010 asked respondents to select from 

a range of values, and not to provide a specific dollar amount, we cannot report if, after 

adjusting for inflation, the real cost of the perceived wrongdoing has increased or decreased 

from 1992 to 2010. However, given the jump in the “more than $100,000” category from 

23 percent to 35 percent, there is the possibility that after adjustment for inflation, the cost 

of individual acts of wrongdoing may have increased.14

14 Not all wrongdoing can be financially quantified. However, the percentage of respondents who stated that a 

dollar value could not be placed on the activity dropped from 21 percent in 1992 to 16 percent in 2010.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 7

Figure 1: Cost of Wrongdoing by Year.*

* Not adjusted for inflation

However, the news with respect to costs is not all bad. While the perceived cost of wrongdoing 

went up between 1992 and 2010, the perceived frequency with which the wrongdoing 

occurred went down very slightly, as can be seen in table 3, below. Respondents in 2010 

were more likely than respondents in 1992 to report that the wrongdoing happened once 

or rarely, and less likely to report that it was occasional or frequent. While the differences 

in data from 1992 and 2010 are relatively minor, we can, at least, report that perceptions 

of wrongdoing appear not to have increased in frequency. 

Table 3: Percentage of respondents indicating that wrongdoing occurred with a particular level of frequency.

1992 2010 Frequency

12.8% 14.1% Once or rarely

33.0% 27.2% Occasionally

46.0% 44.4% Frequently

8.2% 14.3% Don’t know/Can’t judge

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Less than $100 $100-$999 $1,000-$4,999 $5,000-$100,000 More than 

$100,000

A dollar value 

cannot be placed

4%

11%

14%

28%

23%

21%

2%

6%

8%

35% 35%

16%

1992 2010
8 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

Whistleblowing

While observing wrongdoing is the first step in the whistleblowing process, not everyone 

who sees wrongdoing chooses to tell anyone else what they have observed. To blow 

the whistle, someone has to make some noise. In 2010, respondents were slightly less 

likely to report that they did not tell anyone about the wrongdoing that they observed 

compared with survey data from 1992, but in both years, a strong majority of employees 

told someone. As can be seen in table 4, below, the percentage of respondents who told 

no one what they observed dropped from 40 percent in 1992 to 34 percent in 2010. In 

2010, family, friends, and coworkers were less likely to be told about the wrongdoing 

than they were in 1992. However, this did not correspond to substantially more people 

reporting wrongdoing to management. Instead, it seems that venting to equally powerless 

people dropped, but the willingness of respondents to take action that could lead to change 

was not substantially changed.15 (Our next chapter discusses what motivates employees to 

decide to act and blow the whistle.)

Table 4: Percentage of respondents indicating that they reported the observed activity to a particular individual.

1992 2010

39.8% 35.0% I did not report the activity

26.6% 20.5% Family member or friend

37.1% 35.9% Co-worker

35.9% 33.4% Immediate supervisor

20.2% 19.9% Higher level supervisor

8.0% 8.6% Higher level agency official

5.6% 5.1% Agency Inspector General 

0.7% 1.1% Office of Special Counsel 

0.3% 0.6% Government Accountability Office

2.7% 1.5% Law enforcement official

15 The specific facts of the case will determine whether a report of wrongdoing to an individual in one or more 

of these groups constitutes a protected disclosure. For example, in Parikh v. Department of Veterans Affairs, 116 

M.S.P.R. 197 (2011), a physician disclosed patient medical records to various Members of Congress as well as others, 

outside of the Government, in order to draw attention to what he perceived as poor medical treatment for veterans. 

In this particular case, giving the information to members of Congress was a protected disclosure, while providing 

the information to others was not protected. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 9

5.7% 7.2% Union representative

0.2% 0.6% News media

1.9% 1.8% Congressional staff member or member of Congress

0.7% 0.6% Advocacy group outside the Government

3.8% 8.8% Other

* Respondents were instructed to select all that applied.

Retaliation

In order to encourage employees to blow the whistle, the law seeks to protect whistleblowers 

from personnel actions being threatened or taken because of an employee’s disclosure 

of wrongdoing.16 However, not all forms of unpleasantness take the form of personnel 

actions. While retaliatory personnel actions are illegal, other forms of unpleasantness are 

not. As we explained in our recent report, Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees, 

a personnel action is:

1. An appointment; 

2. A promotion; 

3. An action under chapter 75 of Title 5 or other disciplinary or corrective action;

4. A detail, transfer, or reassignment; 

5. A reinstatement; 

6. A restoration; 

7. A reemployment; 

8. A performance evaluation under chapter 43 of Title 5; 

9. A decision concerning pay, benefits, or awards, or concerning education or 

training if the education or training may reasonably be expected to lead to an 

appointment, promotion, performance evaluation, or other action described in 

this subparagraph; 

10. A decision to order psychiatric testing or examination; or 

11. Any other significant change in duties, responsibilities, or working conditions.17

As will be discussed in greater depth in our next chapter, the ability of whistleblowers to 

protect their identity is important to them. Their ability to achieve this anonymity appears 

to have improved since 1992, as can be seen in table 5, below. In 1992, 53 percent of 

respondents who made a disclosure reported that they were identified as the source. In 

2010, 43 percent reported that they were identified. 

16 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8).

17 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A); see Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees, p. 34, available at www.mspb.

gov; 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A).

Table 4: Percentage of respondents indicating that they reported the observed activity to a particular individual 

(continued).

1992 2010
10 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

Table 5: Percentage of respondents indicating that they were identified as the source of the report.

1992 2010 Identified 

53.1% 42.5% Yes, I was identified 

46.9% 57.5% No, I was not identified

The clearest reason to avoid being identified is to avoid being the target of people who are 

unhappy about someone making a report of wrongdoing. Our surveys asked respondents 

about retaliatory personnel actions as well as other forms of unpleasantness. The percentage 

of respondents who stated that they were identified as the source of a report of wrongdoing 

without experiencing any unpleasantness increased from 37 percent in 1992 to 44 percent 

in 2010. As can be seen in table 6, below, of the forms of unpleasantness that were perceived, 

the greatest drop in perception was that someone above the respondent’s supervisor was 

unhappy with the respondent for having reported the problem. While there is, of course, 

more progress to be made, this could reflect a positive trend regarding agency leadership 

attitudes that we hope to see continued in the future.

Table 6: Percentage of respondents reporting a particular effect as a result of being identified as the source of a 

report of wrongdoing.

1992 2010 Effect 

9.2% 7.1% I was given credit by my management for having reported the problem

37.2% 44.0% Nothing happened to me for having reported the problem

18.4% 17.6% My coworkers were unhappy with me for having reported the problem

31.2% 28.6% My supervisor was unhappy with me for having reported the problem

35.8% 28.0% Someone above my supervisor was unhappy with me for having reported the problem

12.2% 13.3% I was threatened with reprisal for having reported the problem

18.7% 21.6% I received an actual reprisal for having reported the problem

However, we also asked a slightly differently worded question on both surveys: Within 

the last 12 months, have you personally experienced some type of reprisal or threat of 

reprisal by management for having reported an activity? (This question did not require the 

respondent to consider the nature of the threatened or actual reprisal.) The answer to this 

question remained virtually unchanged, with 36.9 percent of respondents answering yes to 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 11

this question in 1992, and 36.2 percent answering yes in 2010. Thus, the fact remains that 

while there may have been less wrongdoing to report in 2010, among those who made such 

reports, perceptions of retaliation and threats of retaliation remained a serious problem.

Some of the responses that we received from OIGs also indicated that retaliation is 

occurring in some cases. We asked the OIGs, “Given what you know about how the system 

actually works, if someone you deeply cared about privately asked you if they should make 

a disclosure to an OIG office, what advice would you give?” Many OIGs reported that 

they would encourage the disclosure, but most also included a cautionary note about the 

potential consequences, especially the potential for retaliation. 

The consequences of retaliation are typically felt most strongly by the whistleblower, but 

others can be affected as well. As noted in our recent report, Prohibited Personnel Practices: 

Employee Perceptions, employees who are not personally affected by the commission of a 

prohibited personnel practice may notice when it happens to others in the work unit, and 

such perceptions can affect the observer’s level of engagement. This is particularly true 

for the prohibited personnel practice of retaliation for whistleblowing. Thus, in addition 

to the chilling effect that perceptions of retaliation may have on the willingness of other 

employees to blow the whistle in the future, perceptions of retaliation for whistleblowing 

activities also harms the efficiency of the service in other ways. 

Possible explanations for these perceptions of retaliation and threats of retaliation include: 

(1) differences in the way the law defines a protected disclosure versus what respondents 

consider a report of wrongdoing; (2) differences in the way the law defines retaliation versus 

what respondents perceive as retaliation; (3) poor communication by management as to 

its actual motives when discussing actions or potential actions resulting in assumptions of 

retaliatory causes; or (4) agencies engaging in reprisal or threats of reprisal as defined by law 

following employee disclosures as defined by law.

Different causes for perceptions of retaliation or threats of retaliation call for different 

solutions. Where a lack of education is at fault, agencies should better educate their 

workforces about what constitutes whistleblowing and retaliation under Federal law. (Our 

recent report, Whistleblowing Protections for Federal Employees, available at www.mspb.gov/

studies, may be helpful to any educational efforts.) 

Where poor communication creates the perceptions, supervisors should be made more aware 

of how their decisions are perceived and the need to better communicate the reasons behind 

their decisions. Lastly, where agency officials are engaged in retaliation or threats of retaliation 

against individuals who disclose wrongdoing, agency leaders need to address the conduct of 

those supervisors as well as any agency culture that permits such activities to exist. 

Congress has debated in recent years whether the law, as currently written, does enough 

to protect those who report wrongdoing. Because the Board adjudicates whistleblowing 
12 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

retaliation claims and must apply the law as written and as interpreted by our reviewing 

court, the Board has not taken a position on any proposed changes to the law. However, 

these debates are very important because, as explained in our recent report Whistleblowing 

Protections for Federal Employees, the laws to protect whistleblowers are complex and can 

create challenging situations for employees. Accordingly, we encourage Congress to 

continue to examine which rules and definitions it deems most appropriate to strike the 

delicate balance between effective management control of the workplace and the need to 

ensure that employees can safely bring wrongdoing to light. 

As shown in table 7 below, employees currently perceive a wide variety of forms of reprisal.18

Many types of reprisal showed dramatic increases in perception, particularly being fired, 

which increased more than nine fold from the percentage in 1992. This percentage of 

respondents indicating they experienced being fired is odd, because once an employee has 

been removed, the individual would not be in our survey sample unless he or she had been 

returned to the position, or had been given a new appointment. However, perceived denials 

of promotions, opportunities for training, transfers to a new location, suspensions, and 

demotions all more than doubled in both threats and experienced actions. We note that in 

2010, approximately 400 out of more than 40,000 respondents indicated that within the 

last 12 months, they perceived that they had personally experienced some type of reprisal or 

threat of reprisal by management for having reported an activity. With a respondent group 

of only 400, the margin for error is +/- 5 percent. While some of these increased perceptions 

are within that margin for error, several are substantially outside of it.19 

Table 7: Percentage of respondents reporting that a reprisal or threatened reprisal took a particular form.

1992 2010 Activity

Threatened Experienced Threatened Experienced

11.8% 48.2% 10.8% 50.3% Poor performance appraisal

5.1% 18.5% 10.3% 38.9% Denial of promotion

1.5% 19.0% 6.6% 39.8% Denial of opportunity for training

2.6% 30.7% 8.4% 46.8% Denial of award

8.0% 36.1% 9.3% 45.9% Assignment to less desirable or less 

important duties

18 Not all forms of reprisal in this table are considered “personnel actions” under the law; the Whistleblower 

Protection Act’s coverage is limited to personnel actions. See 5 U.S.C. § 2302(a)(2)(A); Whistleblowing Protections for 

Federal Employees, available at www.mspb.gov/studies.

19 While it is difficult to make further distinctions reliably when dealing with such a small population, it 

does not appear that gender, salary, or age influenced responses to the questions in table 6. The National Security 

Personnel System (NSPS) also does not appear to be a factor, as there was no substantive difference between the 

responses for Department of Defense (DOD) versus non DOD agencies. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 13

3.8% 22.9% 6.1% 29.1% Transfer or reassignment to a different job 

with less desirable duties

3.1% 5.2% 7.1% 13.7% Reassignment to a different geographical 

location

3.3% 2.5% 6.8% 14.7% Suspension from my job

1.9% 0.7% 9.1% 8.9% Fired from my job

3.9% 3.1% 3.6% 14.8% Grade level demotion

3.1% 48.8% 9.1% 63.5% Shunned by coworkers or managers

8.7% 47.6% 11.9% 54.3% Verbal harassment or intimidation

2.0% 1.6% 1.4% 6.1% Required to take a fitness for duty exam

5.3% 14.5% 8.0% 32.7% Other

*Respondents were able to select both the “threatened” and “experienced” option for each item if both a threat of retaliation and the actual retaliation occurred. 

As shown in table 8, below, how respondents reacted to the perceived retaliation has 

changed since 1992. Most notably, employees are less likely to report that they took no 

action, and more likely to have exercised some avenue of redress. 

Table 8: Percentage of respondents reporting a particular response to a perceived reprisal or threat of reprisal.

1992 2010

45.2% 26.4% Took no action

36.2% 37.6% Complained to a higher level of agency management 

8.4% 15.6% Complained to the Office of Inspector General within agency

31.8% 29.9% Complained to some other office within agency (for example, the Personnel Office 

or EEO Office)

17.3% 20.3% Filed a complaint through union representative

12.1% 14.9% Filed a formal grievance within agency

16.2% 23.7% Filed an EEO (discrimination) complaint

1.9% 9.2% Filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel

1.7% 4.0% Filed an action with the Merit Systems Protection Board

11.9% 18.4% Took an action not listed above

1992 2010 Activity

Threatened Experienced Threatened Experienced

Table 7: Percentage of respondents reporting that a reprisal or threatened reprisal took a particular form (continued).
14 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

One possible explanation for employees being more active in response to perceived 

retaliation may be improvements in the education of those employees. In our 1992 

survey, we asked respondents how knowledgeable they were about the actions they could 

take if they were to blow the whistle and were retaliated against. In response, 67 percent 

said they knew “little” or “nothing.” And, when we asked them in 1992 if their agencies 

had specifically informed them of their rights if retaliated against for whistleblowing, 79 

percent said “no.”20 In contrast, in 2010, 55 percent of respondents stated that they agreed 

that their agency had educated them about what their rights would be if they disclosed 

wrongdoing, 21 percent neither agreed nor disagreed, and 24 percent disagreed. 

While there has been clear improvement in the extent to which agencies have educated 

employees about their rights with regard to retaliation, more must be done. Under the 

No Fear Act, agencies are required by law to provide training to their employees regarding 

their rights and remedies under whistleblower protection laws.21 That approximately a 

quarter of respondents in 2010 disagreed that they had been trained about these rights may 

indicate that the training has been lacking in some way. 

The source of the problem may be that the training being provided is not effective, or 

that the training is not reaching some employees. In either case, this lack of training is 

unfortunate, because training appears to have a relationship to respondents’ perceptions 

about the adequacy of the protections in place for whistleblowers. Of those employees 

who agreed that their agency had educated them about what their rights would be if they 

disclosed wrongdoing, 74 percent agreed that the protections against reprisal for disclosing 

wrongdoing are adequate. In contrast, when respondents reported that their agency did 

not educate them about their rights, only 14 percent of respondents believed there were 

adequate protections. 

We encourage agencies to consider the training they are providing and the means by which 

it is provided to see if more effective training programs can be developed in order to 

increase employee education as mandated by the No Fear Act. However, while the training 

should be improved, the No Fear Act training that has been provided may be having some 

effect. As shown in table 8, above, employees’ use of OSC and their particular agencies' 

EEO office to address retaliation appears to have increased. As the No Fear Act specifically 

requires agencies to educate employees about their rights with respect to discrimination 

and retaliation for whistleblowing, an increase in education may have played some role 

in the increase in the use of these two avenues for redress. We are also encouraged by 

respondents’ increased use of their particular agency’s Office of the Inspector General. It 

appears that progress has been made, but more can still be done. 

20 U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Whistleblowing in the Federal Government: An Update (1993) p. 37, 

available at www.mspb.gov/studies.

21 See Notification and Federal Employee Antidiscrimination and Retaliation (No Fear) Act, P.L. 107-174, §§ 

201-202.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 15

Because one of our goals is to identify what might currently serve as a barrier to whistleblowing, 

and what agencies can do to encourage employees to make disclosures in the future, this 

chapter concentrates on data from the 2010 MPS. For those questions that were asked in 

both 1992 and 2010, a comparison of the data can be found in the Appendix. 

Additionally, unlike the last chapter which dealt with increasingly fewer respondents as 

we went deeper into the whistleblower retaliation process, this chapter uses questions 

asked of all respondents, which allows us to work with a much smaller margin for error—

approximately one half of one percent.

Consequences of the Wrongdoing

In order to see what agencies could do better to encourage disclosures of wrongdoing, 

we asked survey respondents what would encourage them to report an illegal or wasteful 

activity. The potential consequences of the wrongdoing, if left unchecked, were extremely 

important to the respondents. Not surprisingly, as can be seen in figure 2, below, the 

most important consideration for respondents was whether the wrongdoing might 

endanger people’s lives, followed by the risk of a serious cost to the Government. Personal 

considerations such as protection from reprisal were somewhat less likely to be important 

to respondents than people’s lives or Government property, and the likelihood of receiving 

a reward carried even less weight for most respondents.

Barriers and 

Motivators for 

Whistleblowing
16 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

Figure 2: Percentage of respondents indicating a particular consequence would be important to their decision to 

report wrongdoing.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

97%

92%

90%

82%

80%

71%

62%

34%

You would be eligible to receive a cash award 16%

You would be positively recognized by management for 

a good deed

You would be protected from any sort of reprisal

The wrongdoers involved in the activities would be punished

Your identity would be kept condential by the 

people to whom you reported the activity 

The activity was something you considered to be a serious ethical

violation, although the monetary costs associated with it were small

Something would be done to correct the activity you reported

The activity was something you considered serious 

in terms of costs to the Government 

The activity might endanger people’s lives

Management Reaction to the Report

Because barriers to reporting wrongdoing and the question of what can be done to encourage 

more reports is so important, we also approached the issue from another direction, focusing 

more heavily on the many different considerations that could come into play. We asked 

respondents, “If tomorrow you were to observe a health or safety danger, unlawful behavior, 

fraud, waste, or abuse, to what extent do you think that each of the following would factor 

into your decision on whether or not to report the wrongdoing?” and provided a long 

list of possible considerations. As can be seen in figure 3 below, respondents continued 

to emphasize whether something would likely be done, whereas personal consequences, 

although important to more than a third of the workforce, were nevertheless more likely to 

be considered to only a little extent or not at all. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 17

Figure 3: Percentage of respondents indicating that a particular concern would affect their decision to report 

wrongdoing to some or a great extent.

Concern that it might aect my ability to get training

Concern that it might cause other things to be investigated 

Concern that it might aect my ability to get a performance award

Concern that management might become less willing to grant me any favors that are optional for them

Concern that it might aect my ability to get a promotion

Concern that I would be seen as disloyal

Concern that it might get someone in trouble

A lack of knowledge about to whom I should report it

Belief that someone else had already reported it

Concern that management might become less tolerant of any small mistakes I might make 

Belief that it would not happen again

Concern that it might aect my performance appraisal

Concern that it might harm the reputation of my organization/agency 

Concern that I would be suspended, demoted, or red

Concern that I might be retaliated against in another way not mentioned here

Belief that nothing could be done to stop it

Concern that it might negatively impact my relationship with my co-workers 

Belief that nothing would be done to stop it

Concern that it might not be serious enough

Concern that the event might not rise to the level of fraud, waste, abuse, 

unlawful behavior, or a safety or health danger

Concern that I had sucient proof

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

74%

58%

58%

54%

41%

41%

39%

37%

36%

36%

35%

35%

34%

33%

33%

32%

31%

28%

25%

21%

20%

It appears that respondents want to be sure that they are right about the wrongdoing, and 

that if they make a report, they will be able to back it up. But, the question of whether 

something would be done to stop the wrongdoing, which can be closely tied to how well 

the individual can prove serious wrongdoing, remained high on the list for respondents. 

The third most important factor on the short list (consequences, figure 2), and the fourth 

most important factor on the long list (concerns, figure 3), are within management’s 

control: Will management do something if they are told about the wrongdoing? Even 

more than desiring self-protection, employees want to know that if they risk subjecting 

themselves to the negative consequences that may come with being perceived as a “tattletale” they are not taking a risk just to fail. If managers can persuade employees that making 

a report will make a difference, managers can greatly increase the potential that employees 

will give them valuable information to correct wrongdoing that has occurred and prevent 

it from happening again.
18 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

Agencies can also act to mitigate any negative effect from the top three concerns in figure 3: 

sufficiency of the proof; perceived seriousness of the wrongdoing; and concern as to 

whether the wrongdoing rises to the level of fraud, waste or abuse. The key to addressing 

these factors is for management to assure the workforce that management will not require 

absolute proof of wrongdoing or a particularly high level of serious consequences in order 

for management to care about and seriously investigate the potential wrongdoing. 

The whistleblower protection laws do not require an individual to show proof that he or 

she was right, only that his or her conclusions were reasonable.22 Similarly, the laws can 

protect a whistleblower, even if the wrongdoing being disclosed is unlikely to result in 

death or serious injuries. Less serious acts of wrongdoing are still wrong, and a disclosure 

of such acts is still subject to protection under the law if the wrongdoing is addressed 

in 5 U.S.C. §  2302(b)(8). While 5 U.S.C. §  2302(b)(8) addresses acts of retaliation, 

we encourage management to take a similar, expansive approach to deciding what to do 

about potential wrongdoing. Reporting of reasonable suspicions of wrongdoing should be 

encouraged, and “minor” wrongdoing is still wrong. 

When an individual brings potential wrongdoing to management’s attention, the report 

should be given serious consideration, and if it seems reasonable to suspect that wrongdoing 

may have occurred, management should look into the matter more deeply. If management 

is unable to consider the situation impartially, possibly due to relationships with those 

involved or a stake in the outcome, the matter should be referred to an impartial individual 

or office for consideration, such as the Inspector General.

If, after an investigation, it turns out that the individual making the report was incorrect 

about there being wrongdoing, management should still let the individual know: (1) that 

the allegation was treated seriously; (2) why management concluded that wrongdoing did 

not occur; and (3) that the individual did the right thing coming forward and is encouraged 

to do so again if he or she has a reasonable suspicion that something is improper. 

If the investigation reveals that wrongdoing did occur, management should address the 

wrongdoing, take measures to prevent it from happening again, and let the person who 

reported it know (to the extent that it is permitted) what management did about the 

situation. Even if management cannot give the individual details about how the situation 

was addressed (perhaps because of privacy laws or an ongoing criminal action), management 

should do what it can, within those limits, to let the reporter know that action was taken and 

that by coming forward, the reporter made a positive contribution to the public service.

22 Lachance v. White, 174 F.3d 1378, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (holding that “the proper test is this: could a 

disinterested observer with knowledge of the essential facts known to and readily ascertainable by the employee 

reasonably conclude” that wrongdoing as defined in 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8) occurred?).
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 19

Reports of wrongdoing that do not appear to be based on a reasonable suspicion may 

need to be handled more delicately. As the Federal Circuit has noted, “[d]iscussion and 

even disagreement with supervisors over job-related activities is a normal part of most 

occupations.”23 Sometimes, the supervisor will have additional information that can explain 

why there is no cause for concern. Or, perhaps, when faced with the same information, 

an impartial supervisor might not think it reasonable to be suspicious. But, just because 

a supervisor does not share an employee’s perceptions regarding potential wrongdoing in 

one situation does not mean that the employee will never observe wrongdoing in the future 

that the agency should know about. If, when making a report, the employee feels ignored 

or that the employee’s concerns are given no value, the employee might be discouraged 

from coming forward in the future with important information.

Furthermore, as noted in our recent report, Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee 

Perceptions, employees observe how others in their work unit are treated and make 

judgments about management from those observations.24 If management is willing to 

listen fairly to one employee, others may conclude that they too can come to management 

with their perceptions of wrongdoing. If, on the other hand, employees see their peers 

being treated dismissively, they may conclude that it is unwise to bother reporting any 

wrongdoing they have observed themselves. This environment can deprive management 

of the opportunity to gather important information to protect the agency and the public.

If wrongdoing is happening, it is much better for the agency, and the public, if swift action 

can be taken to intercede. The American people have a right to know when wrongdoing 

occurs in their government. However, waiting until the problem gets more serious, or 

leaks out to the press, is not in the best interest of the agency. The story can be about 

how an agency identified a problem and fixed it, or the story can be about how an agency 

ignored or allowed a serious condition to go unchecked. 

We recognize that the following recommendation will require a change in culture in some 

agencies, but we firmly believe that agencies should publicly praise their whistleblowers. 

Once a problem exists, ignoring it is unlikely to accomplish anything except make it 

worse. But, going public and saying, “We have great employees who care about preventing 

wrongdoing and a culture that supports them,” speaks far more highly of an organization 

than trying to distract people from the issues by attacking the person who comes forward. 

Praising the whistleblower and speaking openly about how the agency reacted to the 

whistleblowing will also help persuade employees that reporting wrongdoing will likely 

result in something being done about the wrongdoing—a factor that weighs heavily with 

most employees. Unfortunately, when we asked our 2010 MPS respondents if they would 

be praised at work for disclosing wrongdoing, only 22 percent agreed that this would occur. 

23 Huffman v. Office of Personnel Management, 263 F.3d 1341, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

24 Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee Perceptions, available at www.mspb.gov/studies. 
20 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

Current Perceptions of Agency Culture

The importance of cultural improvements was another area stressed by the OIGs. We asked 

the OIGs what agencies could do under the current laws to increase the potential that an 

employee who observes wrongdoing would report it. Several OIGs responded that it would 

be helpful if senior leadership sent the message to the workforce that as Federal employees, 

reporting wrongdoing is an important part of their jobs and a valuable public service. 

As can be seen in figure 4, below, less than two-thirds of respondents agreed that their 

agency actively encourages employees to report wrongdoing. Additionally, only forty-two 

percent of respondents reported that they could disclose wrongdoing without making their 

lives any harder. Lastly, as mentioned earlier, when we asked respondents if they would be 

praised for reporting wrongdoing, only 22 percent agreed that this would happen. Thus, 

it is clear that more should be done to improve agency cultures. 

Figure 4: Percentage of respondents indicating an agency culture that supports whistleblowing.

My agency actively 

encourages employees 

to report wrongdoing.

If I disclosed 

wrongdoing, I would be 

praised for it at work.

I feel that I could disclose 

wrongdoing without any 

concerns that the disclosure 

would make my life harder.

Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

63%

22%

24%

13%

42%

29% 29%

46%

32%

Trust that wrongdoing can be safely exposed is important for reasons beyond the benefits 

of management learning important information about wrongdoing. Of those employees 

who reported feeling that they could disclose wrongdoing without any concerns that the 

disclosure would make life harder, 64.7 percent can be characterized as “engaged” employees.25

In contrast, of those who disagreed that they could make the disclosure, only 18.5 percent 

were engaged, and of those who neither agreed nor disagreed that a disclosure could be 

25 Engaged employees have a heightened connection to their work, their organization, or the people they work 

for or with that causes them to produce better results for the organization. The greater an employee’s engagement, 

the more likely it is that the employee will go above and beyond minimum requirements and expend discretionary 

effort to provide excellent performance. For more on engagement and MSPB’s engagement index, see U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board, The Power of Federal Engagement, available at www.mpsb.gov/studies; see also Managing 

for Engagement—Communication, Connection, and Courage, available at www.mpsb.gov/studies.
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 21

made without personal consequences, only 39.3 percent were engaged. A similar effect 

occurred for our survey questions about being actively encouraged to report wrongdoing 

and receiving praise for reporting wrongdoing. A culture that supports whistleblowing 

activities tends to also be a culture that fosters engagement among employees.26 

It is important to recognize that this culture is not just a result of the relationship between 

a supervisor and his or her employees. Coworkers can make an employee’s life easier or 

harder as well, and a spirit of cooperation and teamwork is one of the factors used by MSPB 

to measure engagement. It is therefore important that management create a culture where 

employees will not be shunned by their peers for coming forward with reports of wrongdoing.

We also asked respondents how adequate they believed the protections against reprisal 

were for Federal employees who report wrongdoing. More than 50 percent stated that 

they believed the protections were adequate, while 28 percent said the protections were 

inadequate, and 20 percent indicated that they considered the protections neither adequate 

nor inadequate. It is unclear how well respondents understand the protections available 

to them. However, with more than a quarter of respondents believing the protections are 

inadequate, there is a potential that, to the extent that a fear of retaliation plays a role in 

the decision to blow the whistle, perceptions of inadequate protections could discourage 

employees from reporting wrongdoing. 

As indicated earlier in this chapter, concern about retaliation is often not the most important 

consideration for most employees when deciding to disclose wrongdoing, but this concern 

still can play a substantial role. Educating employees about their rights may help dispel 

some concerns and thereby encourage more disclosures. Additionally, such education also 

may persuade employees that the agency will not want to retaliate against employees who 

come forward with reports of wrongdoing. On its face, an agency that wants employees 

to know their rights simply appears less likely to be an agency that is interested in violating 

those rights. Improving the agency’s culture is one more reason to ensure that the training 

mandated by the No Fear Act is provided effectively. 

Whom to Tell About Wrongdoing and Preserving Anonymity

We asked respondents: “If you were to observe or have evidence of wrongdoing, how 

important would it be to you that you be able to report it without disclosing your identity?” 

Eighty percent of respondents indicated that anonymity would be either important or very 

important to them. The information provided to us by OIGs also indicates that anonymity 

is important. As one OIG put it, “it encourages reporting and makes retaliation nearly 

impossible.” But, anonymity and confidentiality are not easy to achieve, and not all entities 

are trusted to the same degree.

26 Retaliatory action because of whistleblowing activity is a prohibited personnel practice. As discussed in 

our recent report, Prohibited Personnel Practices: Employee Perceptions, available at www.mspb.gov/studies, employee 

perceptions of management committing prohibited personnel practices tends to correlate with low engagement. 
22 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

Whom to Tell

We asked respondents to what extent they believed that various organizations would keep 

their identity a secret if the respondent asked for confidentiality. We also asked about the 

extent to which the respondents believed that organizations would take the reports seriously, 

given the emphasis that respondents placed on whether something would be done about the 

wrongdoing when deciding to make a disclosure. The results, shown in figure 5, below, show 

a higher level of confidence in Federal agencies than in Congress or the media.

Figure 5: Percentage of respondents indicating their level of trust in various agencies, organizations, or institutions.

OIG OSC

Identity kept secret Allegations taken seriously

OSHA GAO Congress Media

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

70%

79% 77%

81%

76%

52% 55%

71% 71% 69%

44%

23%

It is worth noting that this is a survey of Federal employees in the Executive branch. It 

may well be that these respondents—as civil servants—have a strong and invested opinion 

regarding how hard working and dedicated most civil servants are. This could cause the 

respondents to be more inclined to trust Federal employees assigned with investigating 

wrongdoing to act professionally, both with regard to taking any allegations seriously and 

preserving confidentiality. 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 23

In contrast, the U.S. Congress and the media were not held in high regard in 2010 among 

the American people as a whole. In the summer of 2010, at approximately the same time 

that our survey was administered, a Gallup poll showed that only 11 percent of the public 

had confidence in Congress, and 22-25 percent had confidence in television news and 

newspapers, respectively.27

Just as managers cannot expect employees to entrust them with disclosures of wrongdoing 

if the employees do not have confidence in them, a low approval rating for Congress and 

the media may have a relationship to the willingness of individuals to trust Congress or 

the media to respect a request for confidentiality or to take allegations seriously. It is 

particularly interesting that the media had the lowest levels of trust in confidentiality, given 

the journalistic concept of protecting a source and the fact that some American journalists 

have gone to prison to protect a source from being named. While the media is not a 

branch of the government, it is, nevertheless, an important player in exposing wrongdoing, 

both inside and outside the government. 

Preserving Anonymity

Unfortunately, while anonymity is important to most employees, making an anonymous 

disclosure can be difficult. OSC will not accept anonymous disclosures, although agency 

OIGs will.28 Even if an individual contacts an OIG and does not provide his or her name, it 

can be problematic to maintain anonymity. As one OIG put it, the “OIG's ability to allow 

whistleblowers to remain anonymous is frequently rendered ineffective by the malefactors’ 

ability to use circumstantial evidence to determine the identity of the discloser.” 

We asked OIGs what could be done to better preserve anonymity. The Board does not 

endorse any particular approach to this issue. We only share this information to help 

the reader understand the difficulties with anonymous reports and what OIGs, as 

experts in disclosures and investigations, shared with us. One OIG recommended that 

the individual making a report contact the OIG anonymously, provide in the report as 

many details as possible that are known by multiple parties, and include a list of names of 

potential candidates for further information to be contacted by the OIG. The individual 

could plant his or her name among the many names provided. In that way, the individual 

could make it possible for the OIG to gather needed information and if anything in the 

report of investigation could be tracked back to the individual as the sole party with the 

27 Gallup, “Congress Ranks Last in Confidence in Institutions,” available at http://www.gallup.com/

poll/141512/congress-ranks-last-confidence-institutions.aspx. Gallup’s poll was conducted July 8-11, 2010. The 

MPS was conducted from July 15-September 24, 2010. 

28 Office of Special Counsel, http://www.osc.gov/wbdiscEval.htm. (“OSC will generally not consider 

anonymous disclosures. If a disclosure is filed by an anonymous source, the disclosure will be referred to the Office 

of Inspector General in the appropriate agency. OSC will take no further action on the disclosure.”)
24 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

information, it would appear that the discloser was forced to provide the information as a 

part of an agency investigation rather than be seen as the instigator of the investigation.29

Another OIG recommended against anonymity if the employee has already brought his 

or her concerns to management’s attention, or if the allegations the employee presents are 

known to only a handful of individuals. Under these conditions, this OIG recommended 

that the individual sign a consent form giving OIG permission to release his or her identity, 

as that could potentially make future retaliation against the employee easier to prove as 

whistleblower retaliation because the individual would be better able to establish that the 

officials not only might have suspected but actually knew that the individual was the one 

who made the disclosure to the OIG.30

Disclosures Matter

When the CSRA was first enacted, it was noted that:

In the vast Federal bureaucracy it is not difficult to conceal wrongdoing 

provided that no one summons the courage to disclose the truth. 

Whenever misdeeds take place in a Federal agency, there are employees 

who know that it has occurred, and who are outraged by it. What is 

needed is a means to assure them that they will not suffer if they help 

uncover and correct administrative abuses.31

We asked OIGs how important disclosures from current or former employees of the agency 

are when it comes to the OIGs’ ability to identify and investigate illegal activities, fraud, 

waste, or abuse. We also inquired why the disclosures were important. Their comments 

indicated that the disclosures were at least somewhat useful, and the overwhelming majority 

of comments indicated that the disclosures were very important. Many OIGs stated that 

the disclosures had led to successful criminal prosecutions and cost savings. Below are a 

few examples of the comments that we received:

•	Employee disclosures are very important. The most significant efforts made by my 

agency during the past year were based, initially, on the reports of an anonymous 

whistleblower.

29 An employee’s failure to cooperate with an official investigation or lack of candor during an investigation 

can be grounds for an adverse action. See Ludlum v. Department of Justice, 278 F.3d 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Little 

v. Department of Transportation, 112 M.S.P.R. 224 (2009); Social Security Administration v. Steverson, 111 M.S.P.R. 

649 (2009); Pedeleose v. Department of Defense, 110 M.S.P.R. 508 (2009); Jackson v. Department of the Army, 99 

M.S.P.R. 604 (2005).

30 For more on the difficulties an employee may encounter when seeking protection against whistleblower 

retaliation, and using the knowledge/timing test as a means to establish retaliation, please see our recent report, 

Whistleblower Protections for Federal Employees, available at www.mspb.gov/studies. 

31 S. Rep. 95-969, 8 (1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 2723, 2730). (This is the Senate Report that accompanied the Civil 

Service Reform Act of 1978.) 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 25

•	Disclosures have been the number one source of information leading to the 

identification and investigation of illegal activities, fraud, waste, and abuse.

•	Disclosures from current or former employees have been critical to many of our 

investigations, as in many instances only current or former employees would 

possess the pertinent information.

•	Disclosures from current or former employees are very important. They are closest 

to the work and have the most opportunity to identify fraud... Some of our largest 

cases, dollar-wise and impact-wise, have been from employee referrals.

•	Disclosures and complaints to the Hotline serve as a primary source of 

identification and investigations of fraud, waste, abuse and wrongdoing. These 

disclosures are important because the individuals making them often have firsthand knowledge, insight, and investigative leads that will assist in any IG effort.

Employees are the most valuable asset that agencies have to reduce fraud, waste, and abuse. 

As shown throughout this chapter, factors related to an agency’s culture tend to be important 

to employees when they decide whether to report wrongdoing that they have observed. 

We therefore encourage agencies to do more to create a culture that encourages employees 

to come forward with valuable information that could make the agencies more effective 

and efficient. As one OIG put it, “a culture committed to supporting employees who blow 

the whistle or report fraud, waste and abuse coupled with meaningful enforcement against 

the retaliator will go a long way to improving reporting and enhancing the well-being of 

the civil service.”

A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 27

We have seen some progress in the Federal Government with respect to effectively utilizing 

Federal employees to reduce or prevent fraud, waste, and abuse. Since 1992, the percentage 

of employees who perceive any wrongdoing has decreased, and for those who perceive 

wrongdoing, the frequency with which they observe the wrongdoing has also decreased. 

Additionally, in comparison to 1992, respondents in 2010 were slightly more likely to 

report the wrongdoing and less likely to think they have been identified as the source of 

the report. 

However, among those individuals who indicated that they reported the wrongdoing and 

were identified as the source of the report, the potential for retaliation remains a serious 

problem, with approximately one-third of such respondents in both 1992 and 2010 

perceiving either threats or acts of reprisal, or both. 

Furthermore, when wrongdoing occurs, it is expensive, perhaps more so now than in 1992. 

So, while progress has been made to reduce wrongdoing, it is more important than ever 

that employees report wrongdoing when it does occur. 

In 1978, Congress enacted a law to protect whistleblowers, and then amended that law in 

1989 and 1994 to strengthen those protections. However, the percentage of individuals 

who perceived that they were retaliated against after being identified as whistleblowers has 

not changed substantially since 1992. The law contains what some perceive as substantial 

gaps in protection. In recent years, Congress has considered enacting further amendments 

to provide employees with better protection from retaliation. However, even if amended, 

laws to protect employees from retaliation can go only so far in encouraging reports of 

wrongdoing because a fear of retaliation for whistleblowing activity is only one of many 

factors that can influence an employee’s decision to report wrongdoing. 

Ultimately, the best way to ensure that employees will report wrongdoing is a combination 

of: (1) creating agency cultures that encourage whistleblowing by making it clear 

that management wants to stop wrongdoing, and (2)  providing legal protections for 

whistleblowers who experience retaliation or threats of retaliation. 

Whistleblower protection laws are necessary to encourage employees to report wrongdoing. 

While notable progress has been made in educating employees about their rights under 

the law with respect to protection from reprisal, training in this area can and should be 

improved. However, in the end, the redress for whistleblowing retaliation will not affect 

Conclusion
disclosures of wrongdoing as much as a culture in which employees believe that their 

whistleblowing will make a real difference. From the President and the Congress, to the 

agency leaders they nominate and confirm, and down through the ranks of the career civil 

service, we encourage all of those in a position of influence to set the tone that reporting 

wrongdoing is a public service and a public duty and that retaliation against whistleblowers 

will not be tolerated. The law is important, but the law cannot do it alone. 

28 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 29

As mentioned earlier, MSPB has been conducting Government-wide surveys at regular 

intervals for nearly 30 years. In 1992, a large portion of our MPS survey was dedicated 

to issues related to whistleblowing and whistleblower retaliation. For our 2010 MPS, we 

deliberately asked several of the same questions we asked in 1992 to see if the passage of 

eighteen years and amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act in 1994 had any 

discernable impact.32 We remind readers that survey data includes a margin for error, and 

small differences in data should not be given too much importance. Furthermore, there 

are myriad factors that can influence data, including the fact that the Federal workforce 

and the work it performs has changed greatly over the past eighteen years. However, the 

data is presented below, side by side, for comparison.

During the last 12 months, did you personally observe or obtain direct evidence of one 

or more illegal or wasteful activities involving your agency? (Note: Do not answer “yes” 

if you only read about the activity in the newspaper or heard about it as a rumor.)

17.7% 11.1% Yes

82.3% 88.9% No

32 For some questions, the order in which responses were offered to respondents was different in 2010 than it 

had been in 1992. For these questions, the order has been changed on this table to make comparing the two years 

easier. 

Appendix: 1992 and 

2010 MPS Data for 

Whistleblowing

1992 2010
30 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

If you answered yes to the question above, then please select the activity below that 

represents the most serious problem you personally observed. (Please mark only one.)

1.9% 1.8% Stealing Federal funds

6.3% 3.1% Stealing Federal property

0.2% 0.2% Accepting bribes or kickbacks

5.0% 5.1% Waste caused by ineligible people receiving funds, goods, or services

17.9% 13.8% Waste caused by unnecessary or deficient goods or services

11.9% 10.1% Use of an official position for personal benefit

35.3% 38.9% Waste caused by a badly managed program

3.9% 4.8% Unfair advantage in the selection of a contractor, consultant, or vendor

4.8% 4.6% Tolerating a situation or practice which poses a substantial and specific 

danger to public health or safety

13.0% 17.6% Other serious violation of law or regulation

Where did this activity occur or originate? 

(Please mark ALL that apply.)

43.8% 48.5% Your workgroup

64.2% 49.4% Outside your workgroup, but within your agency

5.4% 3.3% Another Federal agency

12.2% 8.1% Contractor or vendor

2.4% 4.5% Other

If a dollar value can be placed on this activity, what was the amount involved?

4.1% 2.2% Less than $100

10.8% 5.5% $100-$999

13.6% 7.6% $1,000-$4,999

28.0% 34.7% $5,000-$100,000

23.0% 34.5% More than $100,000

20.5% 15.5% A dollar value cannot be placed on the activity

1992 2010 
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 31

How frequently did this activity occur?

12.8% 14.1% Once or rarely

33.0% 27.2% Occasionally

46.0% 44.4% Frequently

8.2% 14.3% Don’t know/Can’t judge

Did you report this activity to any of the following? 

(Please mark ALL that apply.)

39.8% 35.0% I did not report the activity

26.6% 20.5% Family member or friend

37.1% 35.9% Co-worker

35.9% 33.4% Immediate supervisor

20.2% 19.9% Higher level supervisor

8.0% 8.6% Higher level agency official

5.6% 5.1% Agency Inspector General 

0.7% 1.1% Office of Special Counsel 

0.3% 0.6% Government Accountability Office

2.7% 1.5% Law enforcement official

5.7% 7.2% Union representative

0.2% 0.6% News media

1.9% 1.8% Congressional staff member or member of Congress

0.7% 0.6% Advocacy group outside the Government

3.8% 8.8% Other

1992 2010
32 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

If you DID report this activity, were you identified as the source of the report

53.1% 42.5% Yes, I was identified 

46.9% 57.5% No, I was not identified

If you were identified, what was the effect on you 

personally as a result of being identified? 

(Please mark ALL that apply.)

9.2% 7.1% I was given credit by my management for having reported the problem

37.2% 44.0% Nothing happened to me for having reported the problem

18.4% 17.6% My coworkers were unhappy with me for having reported the problem

31.2% 28.6% My supervisor was unhappy with me for having reported the problem

35.8% 28.0% Someone above my supervisor was unhappy with me for having reported 

the problem

12.2% 13.3% I was threatened with reprisal for having reported the problem

18.7% 21.6% I received an actual reprisal for having reported the problem

Within the last 12 months, have you personally experienced some type of 

reprisal or threat of reprisal by management for having reported an activity?

36.3% 35.9% Yes

63.7% 64.1% No

1992 2010
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 33

Did the reprisal or threat of reprisal take any of the following forms? 

(Please mark ALL that apply.)

Threatened Experienced Threatened Experienced

11.8% 48.2% 10.8% 50.3% Poor performance appraisal

5.1% 18.5% 10.3% 38.9% Denial of promotion

1.5% 19.0% 6.6% 39.8% Denial of opportunity for training

2.6% 30.7% 8.4% 46.8% Denial of award

8.0% 36.1% 9.3% 45.9% Assignment to less desirable or less 

important duties

3.8% 22.9% 6.1% 29.1% Transfer or reassignment to a different job 

with less desirable duties

3.1% 5.2% 7.1% 13.7% Reassignment to a different geographical 

location

3.3% 2.5% 6.8% 14.7% Suspension from my job

1.9% 0.7% 9.1% 8.9% Fired from my job

3.9% 3.1% 3.6% 14.8% Grade level demotion

3.1% 48.8% 9.1% 63.5% Shunned by coworkers or managers

8.7% 47.6% 11.9% 54.3% Verbal harassment or intimidation

2.0% 1.6% 1.4% 6.1% Required to take a fitness for duty exam

5.3% 14.5% 8.0% 32.7% Other

1992 2010
34 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

In response to the reprisal or threat of reprisal, did you take any 

of the following actions? (Please mark ALL that apply.)

45.2% 26.4% Took no action

36.2% 37.6% Complained to a higher level of agency management 

8.4% 15.6% Complained to the Office of Inspector General within agency

31.8% 29.9% Complained to some other office within agency (for example, the Personnel 

Office or EEO Office)

17.3% 20.3% Filed a complaint through union representative

12.1% 14.9% Filed a formal grievance within agency

16.2% 23.7% Filed an EEO (discrimination) complaint

1.9% 9.2% Filed a complaint with the Office of Special Counsel

1.7% 4.0% Filed an action with the Merit Systems Protection Board

11.9% 18.4% Took an action not listed above

How important, if at all, would each of the following be in 

encouraging you to report an illegal or wasteful activity?

The activity might endanger people’s lives

95.7% 91.2% Very Important

3.1% 6.0% Somewhat Important 

* 1.8% Neither Important nor Unimportant

* 0.4% Somewhat Unimportant

1.8% 0.7% Unimportant**

The activity was something you considered serious in terms of costs to the 

Government

66.5% 60.0% Very Important

31.1% 32.4% Somewhat Important 

* 5.5% Neither Important nor Unimportant

* 1.0% Somewhat Unimportant

2.4% 1.2% Unimportant**

* This response option was not offered on the 1992 survey for this question.

** This option was phrased as “Not Important” on the 1992 survey.

1992 2010
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 35

Something would be done to correct the activity you reported

69.2% 57.4% Very Important

27.7% 32.6% Somewhat Important 

* 7.6% Neither Important nor Unimportant

* 0.9% Somewhat Unimportant

3.6% 1.6% Unimportant**

The wrongdoers involved in the activities would be punished

41.5% 38.3% Very Important

38.0% 33.1% Somewhat Important 

* 21.4% Neither Important nor Unimportant

* 3.0% Somewhat Unimportant

14.5% 4.3% Unimportant**

You would be protected from any sort of reprisal

68.8% 59.3% Very Important

23.8% 2.5% Somewhat Important 

* 10.3% Neither Important nor Unimportant

* 1.7% Somewhat Unimportant

7.4% 3.1% Unimportant**

You would be positively recognized by management for a good deed

22.2% 16.8% Very Important

23.2% 17.4% Somewhat Important 

* 39.1% Neither Important nor Unimportant

* 5.9% Somewhat Unimportant

54.7% 20.8% Unimportant**

How important, if at all, would each of the following be in encouraging 

you to report an illegal or wasteful activity? (Continued)

* This response option was not offered on the 1992 survey for this question.

** This option was phrased as “Not Important” on the 1992 survey.

1992 2010
36 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

Your identity would be kept confidential by the people to whom you 

reported the activity

55.4% 52.6% Very Important

28.7% 26.9% Somewhat Important 

* 13.7% Neither Important nor Unimportant

* 2.9% Somewhat Unimportant

15.9% 3.9% Unimportant**

The activity was something you considered to be a serious ethical violation, 

although the monetary costs associated with it were small

50.1% 48.5% Very Important

41.3% 33.3% Somewhat Important 

* 12.5% Neither Important nor Unimportant

* 1.6% Somewhat Unimportant

7.8% 4.0% Unimportant**

You would be eligible to receive a cash award

9.6% 6.7% Very Important

18.6% 8.9% Somewhat Important 

* 37.0% Neither Important nor Unimportant

* 4.0% Somewhat Unimportant

71.8% 42.5% Unimportant**

* This response option was not offered on the 1992 survey for this question.

** This option was phrased as “Not Important” on the 1992 survey.

1992 2010
A Report by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board 37

How likely would you be to “blow the whistle” when the wrongdoer is:

Your supervisor

28.0% 30.1% Very Likely

34.7% 31.8% Somewhat Likely

* 16.4% Neither Likely nor Unlikely

16.9% 8.0% Somewhat Unlikely

11.5% 6.0% Very Unlikely

8.9% 7.8% Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

A higher level supervisor

30.9% 32.1% Very Likely

34.2% 31.2% Somewhat Likely

* 15.9% Neither Likely nor Unlikely

14.8% 6.9% Somewhat Unlikely

11.9% 6.2% Very Unlikely

8.4% 7.7% Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

A coworker (in your work group)

29.7% 32.1% Very Likely

40.9% 36.0% Somewhat Likely

* 16.7% Neither Likely nor Unlikely

15.3% 5.5% Somewhat Unlikely

6.4% 2.7% Very Unlikely

7.6% 6.9% Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

* This response option was not offered on the 1992 survey for this question.

1992 2010
38 Blowing The Whistle: Barriers to Federal Employees Making Disclosures

A Federal employee outside your work group

39.6% 38.5% Very Likely

37.4% 34.1% Somewhat Likely

* 14.6% Neither Likely nor Unlikely

9.7% 2.9% Somewhat Unlikely

5.1% 2.3% Very Unlikely

8.2% 7.6% Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

A contractor or vendor

59.4% 50.3% Very Likely

25.6% 28.2% Somewhat Likely

* 11.0% Neither Likely nor Unlikely

4.3% 1.4% Somewhat Unlikely

3.2% 1.8% Very Unlikely

7.4% 7.2% Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

A political appointee in your agency

49.1% 41.8% Very Likely

25.5% 26.4% Somewhat Likely

* 13.8% Neither Likely nor Unlikely

6.2% 2.6% Somewhat Unlikely

6.3% 3.5% Very Unlikely

12.9% 11.8% Don’t Know/Can’t Judge

*This response option was not offered on the 1992 survey for this question.

1992 2010

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board

1615 M Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20419

Official Business

Penalty For Private Use $300

PRSRT STD

U.S. POSTAGE PAID

WASHINGTON DC

PERMIT NO. G-113

UNITED STATES MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD

BLOWING THE WHISTLE: 

Barriers to Federal Employees 

Making Disclosures