In Fiscal Years 2013– 2015, DODIG Generally Did Not Meet Statutory and Internal Goals for Civilian and Contractor Reprisal Cases, but Timeliness Improved

DODIG generally did not meet its statutory and internal timeliness goals  for the DOD civilian and contractor whistleblower reprisal investigations  that it closed in fiscal years 2013 through 2015, but improved timeliness  for some categories of cases, as well as its intake process and oversight  reviews during that time. However, the average length of all closed  investigations improved by about 20 percent (99 days), decreasing from  505 days in fiscal year 2013 to 406 days in fiscal year 2015. By assessing the  feasibility of collecting more detailed workload data, such as the labor  hours associated with each case, and including such data in future  personnel requirements assessments, DODIG would be better positioned  to evaluate the effectiveness of process changes it has implemented,  assess its personnel requirements, and allocate personnel in the most  efficient manner in order to accomplish its mission. DODIG Has Several Processes to Help Ensure the Independence and Thoroughness of Reprisal Cases, but Some Weaknesses Exist

DODIG has established several processes to help ensure the  independence and thoroughness of the civilian and contractor reprisal  cases it handles, including a training program, a staff recusal process to  help safeguard independence, and an internal controls process to help  ensure the accuracy of case-file information. However, a lack of  documentation on recusals and conflicts of interest may limit its ability to  fully evaluate threats to its independence, and its practice of declining  cases is not fully consistent with its complaint-intake process. 3. 4. Examples of documents or data that were missing or not uploaded— Conversely, our review of case files for cases closed in fiscal year 2015  found that some other key documentation or data that are needed to  demonstrate compliance with or execution of the investigative, quality- assurance, or internal controls processes were either missing or were not  uploaded to DODIG’s case-file system in a timely manner. DODIG Has Conducted Oversight of DCIPS Employee Cases Provided by Some of the Defense Intelligence Components but Has Not Fully Addressed Oversight Requirements

DODIG has conducted oversight of investigations involving DCIPS  employees that were conducted by the some of the defense intelligence  component IGs, which consist of the IGs of the Defense Intelligence  Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, National  Reconnaissance Office, and National Security Agency. However,  DODIG and the defense intelligence components have not fully  addressed requirements related to DODIG’s review of all DCIPS  employee allegations, determinations, and investigations handled by the  component IGs. DODIG’s Timeliness Performance Measures Demonstrate Key Attributes of Successful Measures, but It Lacks Measures to Assess the Quality of Investigations and Oversight Reviews

In April 2017, DODIG developed six performance measures to assess the  timeliness of its investigations and oversight reviews for fiscal year 2017  that demonstrate many, but not all, key attributes of successful  performance measures. However, DODIG does not have performance  measures to assess the quality of its investigations and oversight reviews  for fiscal year 2017 and beyond. DODIG also does not have key  workload data that would enable it to more fully assess its personnel  requirements in support of its planned steps to improve timeliness. Without a process for doing so, DODIG and the defense intelligence  components are unable to fulfill their prescribed roles related to the  oversight of component determinations and investigations. (Recommendation 2)
The DOD Inspector General should implement a process to document  employee recusals and impairments to independence and incorporate  such information into an aggregate-level evaluation of threats to  DODIG’s independence. Appendix I: Scope and Methodology

To determine the extent to which the Department of Defense Office of  Inspector General (DODIG) has met and taken steps to achieve key  timeliness goals for civilian and contractor whistleblower reprisal  investigations, we obtained data on all Department of Defense (DOD)  civilian and contractor employee whistleblower reprisal cases closed by  DODIG and appropriated-fund DOD civilian employee cases closed by  the Office of Special Counsel from October 1, 2012, through September  30, 2015, and on all DODIG civilian and contractor employee cases open  as of September 2016. We assessed the timeliness of closed Office  of Special Counsel cases involving DOD appropriated-fund civilians  against the statutory 240-day goal for completing these investigations. To determine the extent to which DODIG has developed performance  measures to assess the timeliness and quality of its investigations, we  reviewed documentation including quarterly briefing materials, annual  reports, and internal control processes and checklists, and interviewed  DODIG officials, to identify timeliness and quality performance measures  for investigations and oversight reviews that have been variably used by  DODIG since fiscal year 2013.
Why GAO Did This Study

Whistleblowers play an important role in safeguarding the federal government against waste, fraud, and abuse. However, whistleblowers also risk reprisal, such as demotion, reassignment, and firing.
GAO was asked to review DODIG's reprisal investigations program for DOD civilians and contractors. This report examines the extent to which DODIG has (1) met and taken steps to achieve key timeliness goals for civilian and contractor reprisal investigations, (2) established processes to ensure that civilian and contractor reprisal cases are handled independently and thoroughly, (3) conducted oversight of civilian reprisal cases handled by the defense intelligence components, and (4) developed performance measures to assess the timeliness and quality of its investigations. GAO analyzed DODIG data for cases closed from fiscal years 2013 through 2015, reviewed a generalizable random sample of 178 cases closed in 2015, which included all fully investigated cases, and interviewed cognizant officials and investigators.

What GAO Found

The Department of Defense Office of Inspector General (DODIG) did not meet statutory or internal timeliness goals for more than 83 percent of the Department of Defense (DOD) civilian and contractor employee whistleblower reprisal investigations it closed in fiscal years 2013 through 2015. DODIG has taken steps to improve timeliness and has reduced the average length of its investigations, intake process, and oversight reviews. Although the average length of all closed investigations improved by about 20 percent over the 3 fiscal years, it was significantly longer than the established timeliness goals. For example, DODIG's timeliness goal is 240 days for DOD appropriated-fund and non-appropriated-fund civilians, but in fiscal year 2015 the average length of these investigations was 608 and 402 days, respectively. Similarly, the statutory timeliness goal for DOD contractors and subcontractors is 180 days, and in fiscal year 2015 the average length for those investigations was 285 days. To continue to improve timeliness, DODIG requested funds to increase its personnel, but it has yet to determine the feasibility of collecting key workload data such as labor hours that would enable it to strengthen its assessment of personnel requirements and allocate personnel in the most efficient manner.
DODIG has established processes to help ensure the independence and thoroughness of the DOD civilian and contractor cases it handles, including a quality-assurance process and an internal controls process. However, a lack of documentation may limit its ability to fully evaluate threats to its independence, and it does not always follow its complaint intake process. GAO's review of case files closed by DODIG in fiscal year 2015 found that some key documentation or data needed to demonstrate compliance with these processes were missing or were not uploaded to DODIG's case-management system in a timely manner. GAO found, and DODIG officials acknowledged, that DODIG's internal controls checklist for assessing case-file completeness does not capture all key documentation and investigative events, thus limiting DODIG's ability to ensure the completeness and accuracy of case-file documentation and data.
DODIG has conducted oversight of reprisal cases provided by some of the defense intelligence component inspectors general—such as the Defense Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency. However, DODIG and the components have not fully addressed requirements related to DODIG's oversight of component cases, and there is not a process to do so. As a result, DODIG and the components are unable to completely fulfill their prescribed roles related to the oversight of component cases.
In April 2017, DODIG developed performance measures to assess the timeliness of its investigations and oversight reviews for fiscal year 2017 that demonstrate many, but not all, attributes of successful performance measures. However, DODIG has not established performance measures to assess the quality of its investigations and oversight reviews for fiscal year 2017 and beyond. By developing performance measures that fully reflect these key attributes, DODIG will be better positioned to assess the timeliness and quality of its investigations and oversight reviews and determine whether initiatives are on track to achieve desired outcomes.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making seven recommendations, including that DODIG assess the feasibility of collecting key workload data, document threats to independence and incorporate such information into an evaluation of independence threats, strengthen its internal controls checklist, develop a process to oversee all defense intelligence component cases, and develop performance measures to assess its quality and timeliness. DODIG concurred with the recommendations.