Where and How to Blow the Whistle
Once you decide to blow the whistle, you are faced with another dilemma: Where should
you take your story? To government officials? The media? What avenue is most likely to
expose and correct the wrongdoing you have revealed? Which is best able to protect your
interests and concerns?
Some avenues provide greater confidentiality than others. Some are well-positioned to
expose wrongdoing; others tend to discourage dissent. Still others are known for taking
action against whistleblowers. You should know the pros and cons of each before you
choose. See GAP's handbook for a full discussion of your options; a brief summary of some
common whistleblower outlets is provided below.
Hotlines and Other Disclosure Programs
Virtually all federal agencies have established employee hotlines to learn about potential
wrongdoing or mismanagement: an employee can call the toll-free hotline and report an
allegation of fraud, waste or abuse.
Unfortunately, government hotlines have proved neither effective nor safe as
whistleblowing chan nels. Their track records are abysmal: even those hotlines with the
best records investigate less than 20 percent of calls within a year. Confidentiality
problems are also a concern. Despite the presumed goal of anonymity, it is difficult for a
whistleblower to provide sufficient information to support allegations without giving away
identifying details. In some cases, hotlines have directly alerted employers of callers'
identities, exposing the whistleblowers to retaliation. Corporate voluntary disclosure
programs are the private-sector equivalent of government hotlines, functioning as ppart of
corporations' interna compliance systems for oversight and enforcement. Like many
hotlines, these in-house programs are vulnerable to the conflict of interest inherent when
an institution is responsible for investigating its own alleged misconduct.
Investigations, for example, often are conducted by attorneys whose professional duty is
to the client corporation, rather than to the public. In general, neither government nor
corporate in-house disclosure programs can be considered safe, reliable channels for
whistleblowers who want to make a difference.
Inspectors General
The primary conventional channel for investigation of employee concerns is the Office of
Inspector General (IG). Each federal agency has one, either by that name or another, with
varying degrees of independence. These offices are responsible for investigating and
reporting on alleged misconduct by the agency or its employees.
At best, IGs have a mixed track record of responding to whistleblowers. Even offices with
statutory independence from their host agencies often are led predominantly by employees
grounded in "old school" traditions, from a time when the Inspector General
served as management's eyes and ears. This meant that if the agency chief wanted to get
the facts and act against wrongdoing, the IG performed as a law enforcement agency. But
when the agency leader wanted to cover up a problem, the IG performed damage control by
issuing a report that assembled the case for the defense. Too often this tradition
continues, sustained by structural incentives. Even relatively independent IGs receive
their performance appraisals and merit bonuses from the same department chiefs whose
operations they are charged with keeping honest.
IGs often return cases for investigation to the agency charged with alleged misconduct. In
a disturbing number of agencies, IGs have a history of failing to pursue the evidence of
wrongdoing gathered by whistleblowers, instead searching for information to discredit
them. The most serious misconduct occurs when an IG wittingly or unwittingly serves as a
hatchetman against whistleblowers. In GAP's experience, it is not uncommon for an IG's
office to implement one of the prime tactics of retaliation-directing the spotlight at the
whistleblower rather than at his or her allegations of wrongdoing.
It would be unfair and counterproductive, however, to stereotype IGs or their staffs. In
several instances, GAP has participated in effective partnerships with whistleblowers and
IGs. As a general rule, whistleblowers are well-advised to seek expert advice or retain an
attorney-even if only for coaching purposes-before going to an Inspector General. You
should clarify precisely how the IG will conduct the investigation before sharing your
concerns and evidence. You should insist that all agreements, plans, and schedules be made
explicit-rather than agreeing to handle matters informally or trusting that what appear to
be common understandings will guide the office's subsequent actions. Above all, you should
insist that you be permitted to review your statements and any summary of your allegations
to ensure their accuracy and completeness.
Office of the Special Counsel
Along with investigating reprisals, the Office of Special Counsel runs a formal
whistleblowing disclosure channel. Congress has charged the OSC with screening
whistleblowing disclosures from federal employees. The OSC can order the relevant agency
chief to investigate those challenges that it determines have merit, or trigger a more
intensive review and reform process if it finds a "substantial likelihood" that
the whistleblower's charges are accurate.
When this mechanism is administered in good faith, it offers strategic benefits for a
whistleblower seeking to challenge wrongdoing. In particular, it provides an opportunity
to gain the legally-binding judgement of an objective third party that the charges must be
taken seriously. Unfortunately, the OSC's track record for living up to its promise is
poor. With some exceptions, the OSC has seldom made the decisions necessary to trigger
serious evaluation of wrongdoing and corrective action. In general, these flaws in the
system mean that an OSC whistleblowing disclosure is likely to be a waste of time or even
counterproductive-unless it is part of a larger strategy involving other institutions,
such as the media or the courts.
The False Claims Act
The False Claims Act is an avenue for whistleblowers who seek to expose fraud in federal
contracts. Through this Act, individual whistleblower "relators"-employees or
nonemployees who are original sources of evidence of fraud-can challenge government
contract fraud directly before a jury of taxpayers. Used properly, the law is a powerful
tool.
Whistleblowers must be sure that they meet the requirements for filing a false claims
suit, however, and should be aware that it can be a protracted and potentially quite
expensive process, unless the Department of Justice (DOJ) takes the case over after
initial review. A false claims suit also imposes limitations on the whistleblower: while
the case is "under seal" for DOJ review, for example, you cannot discuss the
evidence publicly.
Congress
Whistleblowers often have been successful in using the constitutional system of checks and
balances, triggering legislative oversight of Executive Branch abuses. Members of
Congress, however, are pressured by a range of constituencies, including major
contributors in their states or districts. Members also often want to retain good
relations with the Executive Branch, unless there is a compelling reason to challenge the
bureaucracy. Many simply pass complaints back to the agency for self-investigation;
congressional offices also may inadvertently fail to protect your identity. For these
reasons, it is important to do advance research and develop a careful strategy before
blowing the whistle to a member of Congress.
The News Media
The news media is an obvious and important whistleblower outlet; media exposure can be
very effective when handled properly through a responsible reporter. To protect yourself,
however, research and choose a reporter carefully. It is also important to understand how
best to approach a reporter with a potential story about wrongdoing, and to understand
what s/he can and cannot do for you. Before providing the reporter with any information,
for example, be sure to clarify and reach agreement on the terms of your working
relationship. See GAP's handbook for specific tips on how to work with the media.
Advocacy Groups
Nonprofit advocacy organizations can provide advice, share their own research and
knowledge on issues of concern to you, act as allies, or even serve as a conduit for
anonymous disclosures. In addition to organizations such as the Alaska Forum and GAP that
specialize in helping whistleblowers, you may want to seek help from issue-oriented public
interest groups with a particular interest in the information you are disclosing (such as
environmental and consumer groups). In some cases, member-based employee
organizations-such as labor unions, employee federations, and professional
associations-may also provide valuable assistance. Keep in mind, however, that if you want
to maintain control over how your information is used, you should first consult with an
attorney and establish ground rules for the information's release.