Over the 10-year period covering fiscal years 2007 through 2016,  the total number of IG vacancies varied with a low of 6 total vacancies as  of the end of fiscal year 2007 to a high of 11 vacancies as of the end of  fiscal years 2009, 2014, and 2016. Acting IG and OIG Employee Views on the Impact of IG Vacancies

			Views on the Impact of IG Vacancies on the OIG’s Ability to Plan and Conduct Work

Acting IGs: When asked whether, during their tenure as acting IGs, the  vacancy had a positive impact, negative impact, or no impact on several  areas related to the OIG’s ability to plan and conduct work, overall, at  least eight of the nine acting IGs indicated that having an acting IG had  no impact on the OIG’s ability to plan and conduct work. OIG employees: As shown in figure 5, the estimated percentage of OIG  employees who worked under an acting IG who believe this has no  impact ranged by question from 49 percent to 69 percent for the areas  related to the OIG’s ability to plan and conduct audit work. According to the survey results, from 6 percent to  13 percent of the employees found a positive impact in these areas. OIG employees: As shown in figure 6, we estimate that 63 percent of the  OIG’s employees working under an acting IG believed that there was no  impact on the responsiveness from agency management and an  estimated 65 percent believed that there is no impact on timely access to  agency documentation. Based on our survey results, the estimates for  positive impact ranged from 7 percent to 9 percent, and approximately 17  percent of the OIG employees believed that working under an acting IG  has a negative impact on these two areas. For example, regarding employee morale, four of the nine acting  IGs indicated that an acting IG leading the office had a negative impact,  three indicated that the vacancy had a positive impact, and one indicated  that the vacancy had no impact. While the majority of permanent  IGs who responded did not think that acting IGs are inherently less  independent, they did indicate by a similar majority that an acting IG is  less independent in appearance than a permanent IG, especially in  situations when the acting IGs are applying for the IG positions. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this report were to determine (1) the status of inspector  general (IG) vacancies as of the end of fiscal year 2017, and the number  and duration of the IG vacancies for fiscal years 2007 through 2016, and  (2) the views of the IG community on the impacts, if any, of IG vacancies  on the Offices of Inspector General’s (OIG) ability to effectively carry out  their duties, including views on independence and permanent IG  suggestions for improvements in the appointment process. To identify IG  vacancies and changes for fiscal years 2007 through 2016, we first  obtained vacancy data from the Council of the Inspectors General on  Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE). Nine acting IGs who had served for over 365 days from fiscal years 2014 through 2016. The survey response rate of acting IGs was 100 percent.
Why GAO Did This Study

The IG Act established OIGs to conduct and supervise audits and investigations; recommend policies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness; and prevent and detect fraud and abuse. The Inspector General Empowerment Act of 2016 included a provision for GAO to review prolonged IG vacancies during which a temporary appointee has served as the head of the office. This report addresses (1) the status of IG vacancies as of the end of fiscal year 2017, and the number and duration of IG vacancies for fiscal years 2007 through 2016, and (2) the IG community's views about how IG vacancies impact the OIGs' ability to carry out their duties effectively, including views on the impact on independence.
GAO analyzed data related to IG vacancies; interviewed officials from the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE); and conducted a web-based survey to obtain the views of (1) the 52 permanent IGs serving as of August 22, 2017; (2) 9 acting IGs who had served in OIGs that had vacancies of over 365 days during fiscal years 2014 through 2016; and (3) a stratified random sample of employees in OIGs with IG vacancies of over 365 days during fiscal years 2014 through 2016. Survey response rates ranged from 71 percent to 100 percent.
CIGIE and nine OIGs provided technical comments, which were incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

For the 10-year period covering fiscal years 2007 through 2016, 53 of the 64 IG Act OIGs experienced one or more periods of IG vacancy with the cumulative durations ranging from about 2 weeks to 6 years.
Plan and conduct work. Overall, at least eight of the nine acting IGs responded “no impact” for the questions in this area. The estimated percentage of OIG employees who believed that working under an acting IG has “no impact” ranged by question from 49 percent to 69 percent, “negative impact” ranged from about 8 percent to 24 percent, and “positive impact” ranged from 6 percent to 13 percent.
Interact with agency management. The responses of seven of the nine acting IGs and 63 percent to 65 percent of OIG employees indicated that an acting IG position had no impact in this area. Approximately 16 percent of the OIG employees believed that there was a negative impact on timely access to documentation, while 7 percent believed that there was a positive impact.
Managing OIG and personnel. Four of the nine acting IGs and about 36 percent of OIG employees responded that an acting IG position had a negative impact on employee morale. An estimated 44 percent of employees believed that working under an acting IG had no impact on employee morale while about 10 percent believed it had a positive impact. Four acting IGs also responded that it had a negative impact on office restructuring.
With regard to independence, GAO's survey of permanent IGs found that while the majority who responded did not think that acting IGs are inherently less independent, they did indicate by a similar majority that an acting IG is less independent in appearance than a permanent IG, especially when the acting IG is applying for the IG position.