Whistleblower Protection: VA Did Little Until Recently to Inform
Employees About Their Rights (Letter Report, 04/14/2000, GAO/GGD-00-70).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the
Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) whistleblower protection, focusing
on the: (1) actions VA has taken since October 29, 1994--the enactment
of the 1994 Whistleblower Protection Act amendments--to inform its
employees about their rights to protection against reprisal when
reporting misconduct; (2) extent to which VA employees are aware of
their rights to such protection; (3) extent to which VA employees are
willing to report misconduct in VA operations, should they become aware
of it; and (4) number and disposition of whistleblower reprisal
complaints filed by VA employees with agencies responsible for providing
whistleblower protection.

GAO noted that: (1) the 1994 amendments to the Whistleblower Protection
Act require federal agencies to inform employees about their protection
rights and to consult with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC) in
developing an educational approach; (2) from the enactment of the 1994
Whistleblower Protection Act amendments until March 1999, VA
headquarters did little to inform its employees about their rights to
protection against reprisal when reporting misconduct; (3) in March
1999, the Secretary of VA sent a memorandum to all employees stating
that whistleblower reprisal would not be tolerated, describing how
employees could seek relief within VA if they believed they had been
reprised against, and listing agencies in addition to VA they could
contact concerning reprisal; (4) in March 1999, a review team was
charged with identifying ways to inform VA employees about their rights
and supervisors about their responsibilities concerning whistleblowing;
(5) some of the team's recommendations have been implemented; (6) VA has
not indicated whether it plans to measure the effectiveness of methods
of informing employees of their rights; (7) since March 1999, VA has
consulted with OSC in developing an educational approach on
whistleblower protection, as required by the Whistleblower Protection
Act; (8) despite VA's actions, GAO's survey results indicate that the
majority of VA employees had limited, or no, knowledge about their
rights to whistleblower protection; (9) on their willingness to report
misconduct, 83 percent of VA employees supported from a great to very
great extent the idea that VA employees should report misconduct, but a
smaller number, about 50 percent, would be either generally or very
willing to report it if they became aware of misconduct; (10) GAO's
survey results concerning the willingness of VA employees to report
misconduct indicate that a fear of reprisal in the existing
organizational culture could deter VA employees from coming forth with
allegations of misconduct; (11) VA did not know the extent or outcomes
of all VA whistleblower reprisal complaints filed within VA or with
other agencies; (12) in addition, VA officials from the offices of Human
Resources and the VA Inspector General said that they also did not know
what actions VA took against VA managers when reprisal occurred; and
(13) data on complaints and outcomes could be used to determine what
actions VA could take to better ensure that its policy of no tolerance
for reprisal is followed.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD-00-70
     TITLE:  Whistleblower Protection: VA Did Little Until Recently to
	     Inform Employees About Their Rights
      DATE:  04/14/2000
   SUBJECT:  Federal employees
	     Legal rights
	     Whistleblowers
	     Investigations into federal agencies
	     Agency proceedings
	     Personnel management
	     Industrial relations
	     Reporting requirements
	     Malfeasance

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

United States General Accounting Office
GAO

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on

Oversight and Investigations

Committee on Veterans' Affairs

House of Representatives

April 2000

GAO/GGD-00-70

WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION
VA Did Little Until Recently to Inform Employees

About Their Rights

Ordering Copies of GAO Reports
The first copy of each GAO report and testimony
is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders
should be sent to the following address,
accompanied by a check or money order made out
to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to
be mailed to a single address are discounted 25
percent.
Order by mail:
U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 37050
Washington, DC 20013
or visit:
Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC
Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-
6000 or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available
reports and testimony. To receive facsimile
copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touch-tone phone. A recorded menu will provide
information on how to obtain these lists.
Viewing GAO Reports on the Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on
the INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in
the body to:
[email protected]
or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov

Reporting Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal
Programs
To contact GAO FraudNET use:
Web site:
http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-Mail: [email protected]
Telephone: 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering
system)

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested

                    Bulk Rate
               Postage & Fees Paid
                       GAO
                 Permit No. G100

(410441)

Contents
Page 261 GAO/GGD-00-70 VA Whistleblower Protection
Letter                                                                      1
                                                                             
Appendix I                                                                 28
Objectives, Scope, and
Methodology
                                                                             
Appendix II                                                                32
Survey of VA Employees
on Whistleblower
Protection
                                                                             
Appendix III                                                               40
Responses of VA
Employees Who Support
Reporting Misconduct
                                                                             
Appendix IV                                                                42
Comments From the
Department of Veterans
Affairs
                           GAO Comments                                    49
                                                                             
Appendix V                                                                 51
GAO Contacts and Staff
Acknowledgments
                                                                             
Tables                     Table 1: Disposition of Whistleblower           17
                           Complaints Filed by VA Employees
                           Compared With Dispositions
                           Governmentwide in Fiscal Years 1994-
                           1998
                           Table I.1: Number of VA Employees as            29
                           of March 31, 1999
                           Table I.2: Sample of VA Employees by            29
                           Strata
                           Table I.3: Breakdown of VA Employees            30
                           Responding and Not Responding to the
                           Questionnaire
                           Table III.1: Opinions of VA Employees           40
                           Who Support VA Employees Reporting
                           Misconduct
                                                                             

Abbreviations

IG        Inspector General
MSPB      Merit Systems Protection Board
NCA       National Cemetery Administration
NRC       Nuclear Regulatory Commission
OSC       Office of Special Counsel
OSHA      Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
VA        Department of Veterans Affairs
VBA       Veterans Benefits Administration
VHA       Veterans Health Administration

B-282768

Page 23  GAO/GGD-00-70 VA Whistleblower Protection
     B-282768

     April 14, 2000

The Honorable Terry Everett
Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and
 Investigations
Committee on Veterans' Affairs
House of Representatives
 
 Dear Mr. Chairman:

This report responds to your request for
information on the awareness and level of
confidence that employees at the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA), particularly medical
employees, have regarding whistleblower
protection.  Whistleblowing generally refers to
federal employees who report on misconduct, or
"blow the whistle," in their agency.  Fear of
reprisal might deter employees from reporting
misconduct.1

As we reported in 1992, there is a consensus among
experts on organizational culture that an
organization's beliefs and values affect the
behavior of its members. 2  Therefore, if
employees believe that an organization's culture
may not protect them from reprisal or may support
reprisal, they may hesitate to come forward to
report misconduct.

For this report, our objectives were to (1) review
actions VA has taken since October 29, 1994-the
enactment of the 1994 Whistleblower Protection Act
amendments-to inform its employees about their
rights to protection against reprisal when
reporting misconduct; (2) evaluate the extent to
which VA employees are aware of their rights to
such protection; and (3) evaluate the extent to
which VA employees are willing to report
misconduct in VA operations, should they become
aware of it.  As agreed, we also provided
information on the number and disposition of
whistleblower reprisal complaints filed by VA
employees with agencies responsible for providing
whistleblower protection.

Results in Brief
The 1994 amendments to the Whistleblower
Protection Act require federal agencies to inform
employees about their protection rights and to
consult with the Office of Special Counsel (OSC)
in developing an educational approach.  From the
enactment of the 1994 Whistleblower Protection Act
amendments until March 1999, VA headquarters did
little to inform its employees about their rights
to protection against reprisal when reporting
misconduct.  In March 1999, the Secretary of VA
sent a memorandum to all employees stating that
whistleblower reprisal would not be tolerated,
describing how employees could seek relief within
VA if they believed they had been reprised
against, and listing agencies in addition to VA
they could contact concerning reprisal.  In
addition, since March 1999, other high-ranking VA
officials have sent similar messages.

Also in March 1999, at the request of the
Secretary, VA convened, on a one-time basis, a
review team of VA officials on whistleblowing at
VA.  The review team was charged with identifying
ways to inform VA employees about their rights and
supervisors about their responsibilities
concerning whistleblowing.  Some of the review
team's recommendations have been implemented, such
as distributing the memorandums from high-ranking
VA officials.  As of January 2000, VA had not
indicated a time frame of planned implementation
for other recommendations, such as incorporating
whistleblower information in local supervisory
training and new employee orientation.  In
addition, VA had not indicated whether it plans to
measure the effectiveness of these methods of
informing employees of their rights.  Since March
1999, VA has consulted with OSC in developing an
educational approach on whistleblower protection,
as required by the Whistleblower Protection Act.

Despite VA's actions, our survey results indicate
that the majority of VA employees had limited, or
no, knowledge about their rights to whistleblower
protection.  For example, about 57 percent of VA
employees had not received, or did not know
whether they had received, any information from VA
about their right to protection from reprisal when
reporting misconduct in VA.  About 43 percent of
VA employees reported that they were not aware or
only somewhat aware that laws exist to protect
them if they "blow the whistle" on misconduct.
These survey results are one measure of the
effectiveness of VA's efforts to inform its
employees about whistleblower protection.

On their willingness to report misconduct, 83
percent of VA employees supported from a great to
very great extent the idea that VA employees
should report misconduct, but a smaller number,
about 50 percent, would be either generally or
very willing to report it if they became aware of
misconduct.  Our survey results concerning the
willingness of VA employees to report misconduct
indicate, however, that a fear of reprisal in the
existing organizational culture could deter VA
employees from coming forth with allegations of
misconduct.  For example, only about 21 percent of
VA employees reported that protection against
reprisal is generally or very adequate.

VA employees, like other federal employees, may
file whistleblower reprisal complaints with OSC,
the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), and the
Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA).3  Over a 5-year
period ending in fiscal year 1998, we found that
complaints filed by VA employees accounted for
about 13 percent of those filed governmentwide by
federal employees at OSC and MSPB.  At the same
time, VA's workforce accounted for about 13
percent of the federal civilian workforce.  Over
the same period, VA employees received corrective
or favorable actions for about 12 percent of
complaints filed, compared to about 16 percent
governmentwide for federal employees who filed at
OSC and MSPB.

VA did not know the extent or outcomes of all VA
whistleblower reprisal complaints filed within VA
or with other agencies.  In addition, VA officials
from the offices of Human Resources and the VA
Inspector General (IG) said that they also did not
know what actions, if any, VA took against VA
managers when reprisal was found to have occurred.
Data on complaints and outcomes could be used to
determine what actions, if any, VA could take to
better ensure that its policy of no tolerance for
reprisal is followed.

Given VA's record for implementing the educational
requirement of the Whistleblower Protection Act,
we are recommending that VA develop a long-term
plan to periodically inform employees of their
whistleblower rights and measure the effectiveness
of such a program.  Also, because VA did not have
data on all VA whistleblower reprisal complaints
that would be useful for enforcing its policy
against reprisals, we are recommending that VA
install a system for tracking whistleblower
complaints and their outcomes.

Background
     Federal employees may be protected under
several whistleblower laws.  These laws were
enacted to strengthen and improve the protection
of employees' rights, prevent reprisal against
employees who have blown the whistle, and help
eliminate misconduct in government.

     The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is
the primary law that protects federal employees
from whistleblower reprisal, which is 1 of 12
prohibited personnel practices.4  Whistleblower
reprisal is generally defined as employers' taking
or threatening to take personnel action against
employees for reporting a violation of law, rule,
or regulation; or gross mismanagement, gross waste
of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and
specific danger to public health or safety.  Under
the act, agencies are responsible for the
prevention of reprisal to their employees.

Amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act
     In 1994, partly in response to a
recommendation in our 1992 report,5 the
Whistleblower Protection Act was amended to, among
other things, require federal agencies to educate
employees about whistleblower protection. On the
basis of a governmentwide survey, we had reported
that about 41 percent of federal employees stated
that they were not aware or only somewhat aware of
protection under the law from whistleblower
reprisal, and about 61 percent stated that they
had some, little, or no extent of information
about where to report misconduct.6 Also on the
basis of that survey, we reported that about 83
percent of federal employees supported to a great
or very great extent the idea that employees
should report misconduct if they became aware of
it, and about 57 percent of federal employees
stated that they would be either generally or very
willing to report it.

     Before the act was amended, not all VA
employees were covered, only those hired under
title 5 of the U.S. Code.7  VA medical employees
who were hired under title 38 of the U.S. Code
were excluded from going to either OSC or MSPB for
whistleblower protection.  The 1994 amendments to
the act extended whistleblower coverage to include
VA's title 38 medical employees.8  In March 1999,
about 82,000, or 35 percent, of VA employees were
medical personnel hired under title 38.9

     The 1994 amendments to the Whistleblower
Protection Act also require federal agencies,
including VA, to ensure, in consultation with OSC,
that their employees are informed of the rights
and remedies concerning whistleblower protection
available to them under the act.

Federal Agencies Providing Whistleblower
Protection Under the Act
     Federal employees may seek whistleblower
protection from OSC and MSPB under the
Whistleblower Protection Act.  OSC is an
independent executive agency whose
responsibilities include investigating
whistleblower reprisal complaints and other
prohibited personnel practices brought by federal
employees and litigating cases arising out of such
complaints.  OSC reviews whistleblower reprisal
complaints to determine whether there is reason to
believe that prohibited personnel practices have
occurred.  OSC may seek resolution of a complaint
with an agency.  If the agency declines to take
the corrective action, OSC or the employee may
take the case to MSPB for resolution.  If a
personnel action against the employee is an
adverse action of the type that is appealable to
MSPB,10 the employee has the option of going to OSC
or filing a whistleblower reprisal complaint
directly with MSPB.  MSPB is an independent
executive agency that is responsible for hearing
and adjudicating appeals by federal employees and
cases brought by OSC.  MSPB has the authority to
enforce its decisions and to order corrective and
disciplinary actions.  Final decisions of MSPB can
be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit.

     Federal employees who believe that they have
been reprised against for whistleblower activities
related to the following laws may also file a
complaint with the Secretary of Labor under
employee protection provisions contained in these
laws: the Clean Air Act; the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act; the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act; the Safe Drinking Water Act; the Solid Waste
Disposal Act; the Toxic Substances Control Act;
and the Energy Reorganization Act.  The Department
of Labor's OSHA is to investigate whistleblower
reprisal complaints filed under these laws.11  If
reprisal was deemed to have occurred, OSHA may
order corrective action for the employee.  Actions
may be appealed to a Department of Labor
administrative law judge, then to the Department
of Labor Administrative Review Board, and finally
to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in
which the alleged reprisal occurred.

     Under the Energy Reorganization Act, the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) also is to
investigate complaints about whistleblower
reprisal.  However, NRC's authority is limited to
taking an enforcement action against an agency.
To obtain corrective action for any adverse
personnel action taken against them, employees
must file a written complaint with OSHA.

Congressional Concern About Whistleblower Reprisal
at VA
The subject of whistleblower reprisal at VA has
been a long-standing congressional concern.
Congressional committees have held numerous
hearings in the 1990s on VA having provided
inadequate medical care to veterans and
whistleblower reprisal.  VA medical employees are
the ones who have exposed such inadequate care.
Whistleblowers at VA who expose misconduct at
medical centers provide protection to veterans
from indifferent service and poor medical care.

In November 1991, the Subcommittee on Human
Resources and Intergovernmental Relations of the
House Committee on Government Operations held a
hearing on the quality of health care provided by
VA medical centers.  In addition to hearing
reports on inadequate medical care, the
Subcommittee heard reports on the deplorable
treatment of VA medical employees who attempted to
blow the whistle on poor quality health care.  The
Secretary of VA was asked to review VA's record of
handling whistleblowers and provide guarantees
that such retaliations will no longer be
tolerated.

In October 1995, the Subcommittee on Hospitals and
Health Care of the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs held a hearing on health care issues at
the Harry S Truman VA Medical Center in Columbia,
Missouri.  The hearing focused on the
investigation of VA's IG into unexplained patient
deaths at VA medical centers and allegations of a
cover-up of those deaths.  VA medical employees
testified at the hearing and allegedly were the
subjects of whistleblower retaliation.

In March 1999, the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs held a hearing to review whistleblowing
and whistleblower retaliation at VA.  Witnesses
included VA medical employees who had been
allegedly retaliated against for whistleblowing.
Congressional staffs say that they continue to
hear from VA employees who believe they have been
reprised against for blowing the whistle on
misconduct.

Scope and Methodology
To review actions VA has taken to inform its
employees about their rights to protection against
reprisal when reporting misconduct, we interviewed
and gathered information from VA headquarters
officials.  We also interviewed OSC officials
because of their consultation role under the 1994
amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act.

     To evaluate the extent to which VA employees
are aware of their rights to such protection and
are willing to report misconduct in VA operations
should they become aware of it, beginning June 1,
1999, we sent a questionnaire to a randomly
selected, statistically representative sample of
VA employees.  We selected enough title 38 medical
employees in the sample to be representative of
title 38 medical employees.  Whenever there was a
difference of at least 10 percentage points
between the answer to a question by title 38
medical employees and the rest of VA employees, we
provided the percentages.  Similarly, we provided
the percentages when there were differences of at
least 10 percentage points between the answers of
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) employees,
depending on the population size of the town or
city where the respondents' medical facility was
located.  Of the 1,197 VA employees in our sample,
we received usable questionnaire responses from
784-a response rate of about 66 percent.  The
overall results are generalizable to all VA
employees, excluding medical residents.

To provide information on the number and
disposition of whistleblower reprisal complaints
VA employees filed in fiscal years 1994 through
1998 with agencies responsible for providing
whistleblower protection, we contacted OSC, MSPB,
and OSHA.  Because the number of VA complaints
filed with OSHA or its predecessor agency, the
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division, were
few (8 for the 5-year period) and because
whistleblower reprisal complaints filed with OSHA
by employees of other federal agencies were not
readily available, we did not include them in our
VA or governmentwide totals.

More information about our objectives, scope, and
methodology is contained in appendix I.  We did
our work in Washington, D.C., and Dallas, Texas,
between March 1999 and January 2000 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing
standards. We asked officials from OSC, MSPB, and
OSHA to review the information on whistleblower
reprisal complaints filed with their agencies and
made the clarifying changes they suggested, where
appropriate.  We requested comments on a draft of
this report from the Secretary of VA.  Written
comments provided by VA are discussed near the end
of this letter and are reproduced in appendix IV.

VA Did Little Until Recently to Inform Employees
About Their Rights to Protection From Reprisal
     From the implementation of the 1994
amendments to the Whistleblower Protection Act in
October 1994 until March 1999, VA did little to
inform its employees about their rights to
protection against reprisal when reporting
misconduct. During that time, according to VA
officials, VA headquarters did not formally
distribute any information to VA employees on
their rights to whistleblower protection from
reprisal.  However, a VA official informed us that
after the 1994 amendments were enacted, human
resources officials in the field were verbally
told to advise title 38 medical employees that
they were covered under the act.

     In March 1999, the Secretary of VA sent a
memorandum to all employees stating that
whistleblower reprisal would not be tolerated,
describing how employees could seek relief within
VA if they believe they have been reprised
against, and listing agencies in addition to VA
they could contact concerning reprisal.  In
addition, other high-ranking VA officials sent
similar memorandums.  Also in March 1999, VA
convened a review team of VA officials on
whistleblower reprisal on a one-time basis at the
request of the Secretary.  The review team was
charged with identifying ways to inform VA
employees about their rights and supervisors about
their responsibilities concerning whistleblowing.
Since March 1999, VA has consulted with OSC in
developing an educational approach concerning
whistleblower protection.

Recent Steps VA Has Taken to Inform Employees
About Whistleblower Protections
     On March 9, 1999, the Secretary of VA
distributed a memorandum to all employees stating
that whistleblower reprisal will not be tolerated
at VA.  In addition, the Secretary's memorandum
discussed employees' rights to whistleblower
protections and agencies in addition to VA that
employees can contact to raise whistleblower
reprisal concerns.  On the same date, the
Secretary sent a memorandum to senior managers
explaining that they are responsible for
safeguarding the rights of whistleblowers. At a
March 11, 1999, congressional hearing on
whistleblowing and reprisal in VA, the Special
Counsel testified that it appeared that VA had not
implemented a key statutory educational
responsibility to advise its employees about their
rights under the Whistleblower Protection Act.12

     Since March 1999, the Under Secretaries of
Benefits, Health, and Memorial Affairs also
distributed memorandums on whistleblower
protections to the three branches of VA- VHA, the
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), and the
National Cemetery Administration (NCA).  On April
9, 1999, the Under Secretary of Health sent a
memorandum to network directors and all chief
officers reemphasizing that "reprisal against
whistleblowers within VHA is not and will not be
tolerated."  On April 27, 1999, the Under
Secretary for Benefits also reemphasized that
"reprisal against whistleblowers within VBA is not
and will not be tolerated."  Finally, on April 29,
1999, the Under Secretary of Memorial Affairs sent
a memorandum to all NCA employees, headquarters
and field facility staff, stating his commitment
to "creating a culture . . . that allows all
employees to openly share legitimate concerns
without fear of negative consequences."

By sending these memorandums, top VA officials
have taken a first step to changing VA's
organizational culture concerning whistleblowing
by committing themselves in writing to instilling
a culture that does not tolerate whistleblower
reprisal. We recognize that changing an
organizational culture takes time.  As we reported
in 1992,13 a consensus exists among experts in
organizational culture that an organization's
beliefs and values affect the behavior of its
members.  In that report, we stated that two key
techniques are of prime importance to a successful
culture change as follows:

1.   Top management must be totally committed to
  the change in both words and action.
  
2.   Organizations must provide training that
promotes and develops skills related to their
desired values and beliefs.
     Also in March 1999, on a one-time basis at
the request of the Secretary, VA convened a review
team of VA officials on whistleblowing in VA.
According to the review team's report, the team
was convened to address the Secretary's interest
in ensuring that the rights of VA employees who
engage in whistleblowing activities are fully
protected and to recommend strategies to raise the
level of awareness and training of VA senior
executives and managers.

     On June 2, 1999, the Secretary provided a
summary of VA's actions since the March 11, 1999,
hearing to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs based on recommendations the review team
made.  The summary of actions focused on four
areas in addressing the "whistleblowing issue":
communication, training, information technology,
and accountability. In the communication area, the
summary of actions included distributing the high-
level VA officials' memorandums we mentioned
earlier and continuing the distribution of such
memorandums annually; placing information on each
VA organization's Intranet web site regarding the
rights and protections of whistleblowers;
publishing an article in the VA employee magazine
on those rights and protections; including
information on those rights and protections in the
"VA Employee Handbook," which is currently under
development; and requiring directors of VHA field
facilities to include information on
whistleblowing in local employee newsletters and E-
mails. According to the training area of the
summary of actions, information on whistleblowing
will be included in local supervisory training,
new employee orientation, and senior management
conferences. According to the information
technology area of the summary, VA "is in the
process of establishing" a management information
system to maintain data on the outcome of cases
where an investigation will take place involving
alleged reprisal by a VA official against a
whistleblower.  Finally, according to the
accountability area of the summary, in evaluating
the performance of VA senior executives and
managers, VA will include such factors as ensuring
that VA employees who engage in whistleblowing
activities will not be subject to any level of
reprisal.

     Although information on whistleblower
reprisal was available on VA's Intranet, as of
July 1999, according to VA officials only about 25
percent of VA employees had direct access to a
computer at their workstations from which to
access the information.  In addition, although the
VA employee magazine in April 1999 contained an
article on whistleblower protection from reprisal,
a total of about 85,000 of these magazines were
made available to VA's 235,000 employees.  The "VA
Employee Handbook" is still under development and
a draft version does contain a section on
whistleblower protections.  Also, although senior
VA officials told us that VHA field officials were
instructed to include information on
whistleblowing in local employee newsletters and E-
mails, they had, as of January 2000, not verified
that these instructions were met.

     Concerning actions taken regarding training,
information technology, and accountability, VA had
not indicated a time frame of planned
implementation for such actions, and it is unclear
what steps VA will take to carry out its plans.
In May 1999, according to senior VA officials, OSC
officials briefed senior managers on their
whistleblower responsibilities at a conference.
However, senior VA officials said that VA did not
know, as of January 2000, if the information on
whistleblowing has been included in local
supervisory training and new employee orientation.
Regarding information technology, senior VA
officials told us, as of January 2000, that they
would not be establishing a management information
system to maintain data on the outcome of
whistleblowing investigations.  However, in
commenting on a draft of this report, VA said that
it would establish a system for tracking
complaints.  Regarding accountability, evaluating
VA senior executives and managers using the stated
factors may be beneficial.  However, it should be
noted that these factors are consistent with
established merit principles that executives and
managers are currently required to adhere to.

An additional effort recommended by the VA review
team, but not included in the June 1999 summary of
actions, was the development of a training video
for employees on whistleblower rights and
protections.  On September 16, 1999, a 2-hour
video on whistleblower reprisal was broadcast
throughout VA as part of the implementation of the
Secretary's mandate to develop training and
education initiatives regarding whistleblower
rights and protections.  According to VA
officials, all of VA's approximately 20,000
supervisors and managers were strongly urged to
attend the session, while other employees were
encouraged to do so.  We asked VA for
documentation on who attended the broadcast. VA
queried its offices, and VA officials said that as
of February 14, 2000, they had sign-in sheet
documentation for a total of 1,050 employees who
attended the satellite broadcast.  However, the
sign-in sheets were dispersed throughout VA and
thus not available for our review.  VA officials
also were unable to tell us the number of
attendees who were supervisors and managers.  In a
memorandum dated January 13, 2000, the Assistant
Secretary for Human Resources and Administration
informed administration heads, assistant
secretaries, other key officials, deputy assistant
secretaries, and facility directors that copies of
the video were available and encouraged them to
show the video to as many employees as possible.
The memorandum did not state that viewing the
video was required.

In commenting on a draft of this report, VA
identified two additional efforts it was taking to
address whistleblowing.  First, VA said it is
deploying Rapid Response Investigative Teams to
review allegations of serious misconduct against
senior managers, including those that involve
whistleblower reprisal.14  Second, VA reported that
its General Counsel has established a formal
protocol and liaison between VA's regional
counsels and OSC to facilitate OSC's review of
complaints.15

We provided OSC officials with a copy of VA's June
1999 summary of actions (completed and planned) as
provided to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Committee on Veterans
Affairs and asked those officials to comment on
VA's efforts.  Based on a review of the summary of
actions, an OSC outreach specialist stated that
VA's outreach efforts were better than the efforts
of most federal agencies.  In comments, however,
the outreach specialist stated that OSC was
concerned about information on employees' appeal
rights in the Secretary's March 9, 1999,
memorandum to all employees.  The specialist said
the memorandum implied that some actions, referred
to as otherwise appealable actions, must always go
directly to MSPB.  The specialist said that the
memorandum should have stated that all
whistleblower reprisal complaints, including
otherwise appealable actions, may be appealed
directly to OSC.  The specialist did say that VA
provided accurate information relating to appeal
rights in subsequent information provided to
employees.

VA Has Consulted With OSC in Developing an
Educational Approach
     VA has consulted with OSC in developing an
educational approach concerning whistleblower
protection.  Under the 1994 amendments, agencies
are required to consult with OSC in developing an
educational approach for informing federal
employees of their "rights and remedies"
concerning whistleblower protection.  OSC views
itself as serving in an advisory capacity and
provides guidance when requested by agencies.

     According to OSC officials, interaction has
taken place between VA and OSC, including a series
of E-mails regarding outreach efforts on
whistleblower protection, beginning March 16,
1999.  In addition, a VA official told us that the
Special Counsel presented a section of VA's 2-hour
September broadcast on whistleblower reprisal.
Both VA and OSC officials acknowledged
participating in several discussions regarding
ways to provide VA employees with information
about whistleblower reprisal.

     OSC officials told us they suggested to VA
that they provide each employee with an OSC
brochure entitled "The Role of the Office of
Special Counsel," which provides information on
the types of statutory protections OSC can
provide.  According to VA officials, purchasing
copies of the brochure was not cost-effective
considering the cost and the low number of
employees that they believed would read it.  VA
informed us that it has chosen other methods to
provide information contained in the OSC pamphlet
to its employees.  These include advising its
Human Resources offices to make copies of the
pamphlet and place them on display in their
offices and provide copies to union officials.  In
addition, VA employees can access information on
where to report misconduct from VA's Intranet web
sites, which provides a link to OSC's Internet web
site containing the text of the brochure.
According to an official from the Government
Printing Office, as of the beginning of January
2000, OSC and other agencies could order the
brochure for about 50 cents per copy.

VA's Plans for Informing Employees of Their Rights
Although VA indicated in its summary additional
actions it plans for informing employees of their
rights and responsibilities concerning
whistleblowing, VA did not, as of January 2000,
indicate a time frame in which such actions would
occur or how VA planned to measure the
effectiveness of its actions.  We asked VA
officials whether they had long-term plans for
informing employees about their whistleblower
protection rights.  The officials indicated that
they had not developed a long-term plan for
periodically informing employees about those
rights.

Extent to Which VA Employees Reported Being Aware
of Their Rights to Protection From Reprisal
     Although VA distributed memorandums
concerning whistleblower protection in March and
April 1999 to various groups of employees,
responses to our questionnaire, which we sent out
between June and September 1999, indicate that
about 57 percent of VA employees stated that they
had not or did not know whether they had received
any information from VA about their right to
protection from reprisal when reporting misconduct
in VA.  Of those VA employees, about 30 percent
stated that they had received information from
some other source, including newspapers,
magazines, TV, radio, union sources, or word of
mouth.  Overall, about 40 percent of VA employees
indicated that they had not or did not know
whether they had received any information from any
source.

     We also used our survey results to determine
the extent to which VA employees were aware of
laws to protect whistleblowers.  When asked if
they were aware that there are laws to protect VA
employees who "blow the whistle" on misconduct,
about 43 percent of VA employees stated that they
either were not aware or only somewhat aware of
these laws.  In addition, about 67 percent of VA
employees stated that they were aware to some,
little, or no extent of how these laws protect
them.  When asked to what extent, if at all, they
had enough information about where to report
misconduct, about 58 percent of VA employees
stated to some, little, or no extent.  For Title
38 medical employees at VHA, about 64 percent
stated to some, little, or no extent that they had
enough information about where to report
misconduct compared with 54 percent for all other
VA employees.  Overall, our survey results can be
used as a measure of the effectiveness of VA's
efforts to inform its employees about
whistleblower protection.

Extent to Which VA Employees Are Willing to Report
Misconduct in VA Operations
     At the March 11, 1999, hearing on
whistleblowing and reprisal, VA's IG testified
that he was aware that some VA employees were
reluctant to raise allegations of wrongdoing or
cooperate with the IG's office because they fear
reprisal.  He said that fear of reprisal is a
natural reaction and will always exist to some
degree.  According to the IG, fear of reprisal has
the potential to deter complainants from coming
forward with allegations of wrongdoing and is an
issue that needs to be continually addressed
within VA.  Further, he testified that VA managers
made statements to employees that have been
perceived as threats, citing statements by
management indicating "that the IG will not always
be around to protect them after the investigation
is concluded."

     According to the results of our survey, an
estimated 19 percent of VA employees considered
misconduct to be a problem to a great or very
great extent in VA.  We used our questionnaire to
determine the extent to which VA employees were
willing to report misconduct in VA operations,
should those employees become aware of it.  A
large portion of VA employees supported the idea
that they should report misconduct.  An estimated
83 percent of employees stated that to a great or
very great extent, they supported the idea that VA
employees should report misconduct.  However, a
smaller portion of VA employees-about 50
percent-said they would be either generally or
very willing to report misconduct if they became
aware of it.  Of the estimated 19 percent of VA
employees who considered misconduct to be a
problem to a great or very great extent in VA,
only about 39 percent said they would be either
generally or very willing to report misconduct if
they became aware of it.

VA employees' responses to questions about their
willingness to report misconduct, should they
become aware of it, indicate that a fear of
reprisal in the existing organizational culture
could deter them from coming forward with
allegations of misconduct.  For example, only
about 21 percent of VA employees reported that
protection against reprisal for VA employees is
generally or very adequate.  In addition, about 28
percent of VA employees reported that VA supports
the federal policy of ensuring that employees who
report misconduct are protected from reprisal to a
moderate, great, or very great extent; 40 percent
of VA employees stated that they did not know or
had no basis to judge whether VA supports the
federal policy.  On a direct, personal basis,
about 23 percent of VA employees stated that if
they became aware of misconduct in VA and reported
it that they believed VA would support or strongly
support them. In contrast, almost a third (about
32 percent) of VA employees stated that they
believed VA would reprise or strongly reprise
against them.  About 28 percent of VA employees
stated that they did not know or had no basis to
judge.

To determine possible reasons that VA employees
who stated that they supported reporting
misconduct to a great or very great extent but
were generally or very unwilling to do so
(unwilling), we looked at their responses to other
questions.  We also compared their responses to
those of employees who stated that they supported
reporting misconduct to a great or very great
extent and were generally or very willing to
report it (willing).  Of VA employees who stated
that they would be unwilling to report misconduct,
about 2 percent stated that VA supported to a
great or very great extent the federal policy of
ensuring that employees who report misconduct
should be protected from reprisal.  In addition,
only about one-fourth (26 percent) of VA employees
who stated they would be willing to report
misconduct also stated that VA supported to a
great or very great extent the federal policy.  Of
those who were unwilling to report misconduct,
about 65 percent stated VA protection for its
employees against reprisals was either generally
or very inadequate.  In addition, most VA
employees-93 percent of those unwilling and 71
percent of those willing to report
misconduct-stated that if reprisals had previously
been taken against whistleblowers at VA, it would
have a great or very great importance in
discouraging them from reporting misconduct.

Of those VA employees unwilling to report
misconduct, about 71 percent expected that VA
would reprise or strongly reprise against them if
they reported misconduct.  When asked in what ways
VA would reprise against them, about 65 percent of
those unwilling to report misconduct stated that
VA would probably or definitely deny them an
expected promotion.  In addition, about 61 percent
of those who were unwilling to report misconduct
stated that VA would probably or definitely harass
them.  About 72 percent of those unwilling to
report misconduct stated VA would probably or
definitely lower their next performance appraisal.

     When we looked more closely at the responses
of VHA employees to determine whether there was a
difference of at least 10 percentage points
between the answers of VHA employees whose VA
medical facility was located in a town or small
city or a medium or large city, we found such a
difference in the answers to three questions by
location of facility.16 Specifically, when asked
about the adequacy of protection against reprisal
for VA employees, 44 percent of VHA employees at
facilities in towns or small cities reported that
such protection was very to generally inadequate
compared with 30 percent of such employees at
facilities in medium or large cities. Also, when
asked whether misconduct was a problem at VA, 29
percent of VHA employees at facilities in towns or
small cities reported that misconduct was a
problem to a great or very great extent compared
with 16 percent of such employees at facilities in
medium or large cities. Finally, 41 percent of VHA
employees at facilities in towns or small cities
stated that if they became aware of misconduct in
VA and reported it that they believed VA would
reprise or strongly reprise against them. In
contrast, 28 percent of such employees at
facilities in medium or large cities stated that
if they became aware of misconduct in VA and
reported it that they believed VA would reprise or
strongly reprise against them.

     Appendix II contains a copy of the
questionnaire that we sent to VA employees with
the weighted number and percentage of VA employees
responding to each item.  Appendix III contains
the results of our analysis of the percentage of
VA employees who stated that they supported
reporting misconduct to a great or very great
extent compared with those who were generally or
very unwilling to do so and the confidence
intervals of those results.

VA Whistleblower Complaints Filed With Agencies
That Provide Protection
     MSPB and OSC provided data to us on
whistleblower complaints filed by employees at VA
and governmentwide17  for fiscal years 1994 through
1998 that had been closed by MSPB as of June 24,
1999, and OSC as of June 17, 1999.  According to
MSPB and OSC data, the total number of
whistleblower complaints filed annually by VA
employees has increased every fiscal year except
one since 1994, when the Whistleblower Protection
Act was amended.  There was a decrease in
complaints filed by VA employees from fiscal year
1997 to fiscal year 1998.  Governmentwide, the
number of whistleblower complaints filed annually
by federal employees has increased every fiscal
year, except for 1996, since the amendments were
enacted in 1994.  The number of whistleblower
complaints filed by VA employees comprised about
13 percent of whistleblower complaints
governmentwide for fiscal years 1994 to 1998, and
VA accounted for about 13 percent of federal
civilian employment covered by the Whistleblower
Protection Act.  Over the same period, VA
employees received corrective or favorable actions
for about 12 percent of complaints filed, compared
to about 16 percent governmentwide.

Table 1: Disposition of Whistleblower Complaints
Filed by VA Employees Compared With Dispositions
Governmentwide in Fiscal Years 1994-1998
                              Fiscal years
Complaints filed and   1994 1995 1996 199 1998 Tota
disposition                            7         l
Complaints filed                                  
MSPBa                    51  46   55  55   78  285
OSCb                     80  92  127 141   85  525
Total VA                131 138  182 196  163  810
Governmentwide          928 1,13 1,074 1,4 1,46 6,01
                              5       12    1    0
Corrective or                                     
favorable actions
MSPBc                    12  10   11   9   15   57
OSCd                      8  13    8   8    2   39
Total VA                 20  23   19  17   17   96
Governmentwidee         182 215  171 186  179  933
Reprisal not proven  
MSPB                      6   5    9   5    6   31
OSC                      11  12    8   9   10   50
Total VA                 17  17   17  14   16   81
Governmentwide          223 188  162 231  271 1,07
                                                 5
Dismissed                                         
MSPBf                    31  29   33  40   57  190
OSCg                     61  67  111 124   73  436
Total VA                 92  96  144 164  130  626
Governmentwide          503 716  725 982 1,00 3,93
                                            7    3

Note 1: Dispositions include complaints that
employees filed at more than one agency.
Employees can appeal a disposition to MSPB after
going to OSC if either (1) OSC terminated its
efforts on their cases or (2) OSC failed to
complete its efforts on their complaints within
120 days after employees filed the complaint with
OSC.  Certain complaints may be brought directly
to MSPB.  These are referred to as otherwise
appealable actions, which include removal for
unacceptable performance, reduction in grade, and
suspension for more than 14 days.
Note 2: Neither the VA nor governmentwide totals
include VA employee complaints filed with the
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division or
OSHA.  In FY 1994, one complaint was filed by a VA
employee with Labor; in FY 1996, four VA
complaints were filed; and three were filed in FY
1997.
aNumbers for complaints filed at MSPB are closed
cases as of June 24, 1999.
bNumbers for complaints filed include allegations
of whistleblower reprisal contained in closed
cases filed with OSC as of June 17, 1999.  Each
case may contain more than one allegation.
cNumbers for corrective actions or favorable
actions include the following MSPB categories:
corrective actions ordered and settled.  Seven
corrective actions based on the MSPB categories of
reversal and mitigated or modified have been
excluded because the cases may have been decided
on violations of prohibited personnel practices
other than whistleblower reprisal, even though
whistleblower reprisal was initially alleged.
dNumbers for corrective or favorable actions
include the following OSC categories: agency took
corrective action after OSC request, dispute
between complainant and agency resolved, and
complainant declined corrective action offered.
eGovernmentwide numbers exclude 69 corrective
actions based on the MSPB categories of reversal
and mitigated or modified because the cases may
have been decided on violations of prohibited
personnel practices other than whistleblower
reprisal, even though whistleblower reprisal was
initially alleged.
fNumbers for dismissed actions include the
following MSPB categories: timeliness,
jurisdiction, agency cancels actions or fails to
prosecute, withdrawn by complainant, and without
prejudice to refiling.
gNumbers for dismissed actions include the
following OSC categories: complainant failed to
supply additional information, extension beyond
240 days refused by complainant, insufficient
evidence for further action, complainant filed
individual right of action with MSPB, unable to
contact complainant--no basis for further action,
complainant withdrew the complaint, deferred to
equal employment opportunity process,
misidentified by complainant, misidentified by
OSC, and not within OSC's jurisdiction.
Source: OSC and MSPB.

     The number of corrective or favorable actions
for VA whistleblower complaints has decreased
since fiscal year 1994, except for 1995.  In that
year, the corrective or favorable actions were
slightly higher.  Governmentwide, corrective or
favorable actions rose and fell in alternate years
during the period.  The number of VA complaints
that were dismissed increased until 1997, then
decreased in fiscal year 1998.  Reasons complaints
could be dismissed include timeliness (premature
or late filing), lack of jurisdiction by the
agency receiving the complaint, withdrawal of the
complaint by the employee, or insufficient
evidence.  Table 1 shows a breakdown of the
disposition of whistleblower complaints filed by
VA employees for fiscal years 1994 through 1998
compared with such dispositions governmentwide.

     As table 1 shows, MSPB and OSC data contain
96 total corrective or favorable actions taken for
VA whistleblower reprisal complaints filed at
those 2 agencies for fiscal years 1994 through
1998.  Of those actions, 36 were for reprisal
complaints for which VA took corrective action for
the employee, and 60 were for settlements between
VA and the employees who filed the complaints.
Settlements do not necessarily indicate that
reprisal did or did not occur.  For example,
sample MSPB settlement agreement language states
that this agreement does not constitute an
admission of guilt, fault, or wrongdoing by either
party.  According to an MSPB official, MSPB
emphasizes settling disputes rather than
determining who is right.  Agencies sometimes
settle because pursuing a complaint in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit may not
be cost effective or because of the existence of
evidence indicating that reprisal might have
occurred.

     In addition, there were seven complaints that
involved whistleblower reprisal filed at MSPB for
which VA took corrective actions.  MSPB reversed,
mitigated, or modified actions that VA had taken
against these seven complainants.  These actions
may have been based on violations of prohibited
personnel practices other than whistleblower
reprisal even though whistleblower reprisal was
initially alleged.  According to MSPB, a review of
the individual cases would be needed before a
definitive statement could be made as to whether
the corrective actions were taken based on
whistleblower reprisal or some other prohibited
personnel practice.  We did not include these
among the 36 reprisal complaints for which VA took
corrective action.

     VA officials did not know the extent or
outcomes of all VA whistleblower reprisal
complaints filed within VA or with other agencies
for this 5-year period.  VA officials from the
offices of Human Resources and the IG said that
they also did not know what actions, if any, VA
took against VA managers when reprisal was found
to have occurred.  Without an awareness of the
extent or outcome of whistleblower reprisal
complaints filed against VA, VA officials lack an
important measure of the extent of whistleblower
reprisal at the agency and data that could be used
to determine whether VA could take additional
steps to ensure compliance with its policy of not
tolerating reprisal.

     According to a letter signed by the Secretary
of VA to the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations of the House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs, to gather information concerning
complaints for which employees were found to have
suffered whistleblower reprisal for a 10-year
period, ending May 1999, VA officials consulted
with OSC and MSPB and surveyed VHA and NCA
facilities.  The letter identified five complaints
for which "employees were found to have suffered
reprisal because of their whistleblowing."  The
letter explained what actions, if any, VA took
against the five supervisors or management
officials who were found to have reprised against
employees.  We did not reconcile the difference
between the 5 cases VA identified and the 36 cases
in which OSC and MSPB data show that VA took
corrective action for the employee.  VA officials
said that perhaps the data MSPB and OSC provided
us for complaints for which corrective action was
taken included data for prohibited personnel
practices other than whistleblower reprisal.
However, OSC and MSPB officials told us that the
36 cases are, to the best of their knowledge,
cases in which whistleblower reprisal was at least
one of the allegations for which corrective action
was taken.

Conclusions
     There has been long-standing congressional
concern about whistleblower reprisal at VA since
the early 1990s, and congressional committees have
held numerous hearings on VA having provided
inadequate medical care to veterans, which VA
medical employees have exposed.  Whistleblowers at
VA who expose misconduct at medical centers help
provide protection to veterans from indifferent
service and poor medical care.

     From the enactment of the amendments to the
Whistleblower Protection Act in October 1994 until
March 1999, VA had done little to inform its
employees about their rights to protection against
reprisal when reporting misconduct.  Almost all of
VA's actions have taken place since the beginning
of March 1999, nearly 5 years after the
Whistleblower Protection Act was amended to
require federal agencies to educate their
employees on their rights to whistleblower
protection.  Also, VA has not developed a long-
term plan of intended actions for informing all
employees about their specific rights to
whistleblower protection or how it plans to
measure the effectiveness of such actions.
Without a long-term plan for informing VA
employees about their right to whistleblower
protection and given VA's record for implementing
the educational requirement of the Whistleblower
Protection Act, VA cannot ensure that it will
continue its efforts to keep employees informed
about their rights to whistleblower protection.

     Further, despite VA's efforts to inform its
employees about whistleblower protection and VA's
stated commitment that whistleblower reprisal will
not be tolerated, our survey results, which were
collected soon after VA's efforts to inform
employees of their rights, suggest that many
employees are not aware of VA's commitment or
their rights to such protections. Our survey
results also indicate that VA employees' level of
awareness of their rights to protection are
comparable to the level of awareness we reported
existed governmentwide in 1992, before the
enactment of the amendments to the Whistleblower
Protection Act.  Specifically, our survey results
indicate that about 43 percent of VA employees
reported that they either were not aware or only
somewhat aware of laws protecting federal
employees who "blow the whistle" on misconduct.
This level of awareness is similar to what we
reported in 1992 (about 41 percent) for federal
employees governmentwide,18 when we suggested that
Congress consider requiring agencies to inform
employees periodically on their right to
protections from reprisal and where to report
reprisal.19 In addition, about 58 percent of VA
employees felt to some, little, or no extent that
they had enough information about where to report
misconduct, which is comparable with the
percentage of federal employees who felt the same
way in 1992 (61 percent).

     In addition to providing a measure of the
effectiveness of VA's efforts to inform its
employees about whistleblower protection, our
survey results concerning the willingness of VA
employees to report misconduct, indicate that a
fear of reprisal in the existing organizational
culture could deter VA employees from coming
forward with allegations of misconduct.  For
example, although many VA employees did not seem
confident that they would be protected if they
reported misconduct, about 83 percent of them
supported to a great or very great extent the idea
that VA employees should report misconduct.  This
level of support is similar to what we reported in
1992 (about 83 percent) for employees
governmentwide.  However, a smaller portion, about
50 percent, of VA employees stated that they would
be either generally or very willing to report it,
which is comparable to the percentage of
governmentwide employees who felt the same way in
1992 (about 57 percent).  Looking more closely at
our survey results for VA employees who supported
reporting misconduct but were unwilling to do so
further indicates that fear of reprisal could
deter them from reporting misconduct.  For
example, of those who supported reporting
misconduct but were unwilling to report it, about
two-thirds (65 percent) of VA employees stated
that VA protection for its employees against
reprisal was either generally or very inadequate.

     VA did not know the extent or outcomes of all
VA whistleblower reprisal complaints filed within
VA or with other agencies, including complaints
for which reprisal was determined or the complaint
was settled and what actions, if any, VA took
against VA managers when reprisal was found to
have occurred.  Without an awareness of the
overall number of whistleblower reprisal
complaints filed against VA, complaints for which
reprisal was determined to have occurred, or
complaints that were settled, officials at VA lack
an important measure of the extent of
whistleblower reprisal at the agency and cannot
analyze the extent to which further actions are
needed to ensure compliance with VA's stated
policy of no tolerance for such reprisal.  For
example, without a system for tracking actions
that VA has taken against its managers when
reprisal was found to have occurred, VA cannot be
certain whether appropriate corrective action was
taken when reprisal occurred, whether individual
managers were found to have reprised more than
once, or whether reprisal occurred more than once
in a particular geographic area or field facility.
Thus, VA may not be aware of a culture in which a
fear of reprisal is localized to a particular
geographic region or medical facility.

     We recognize that changing an organizational
culture takes time. By sending memorandums
committing themselves in writing to instilling a
culture that does not tolerate whistleblower
reprisal, top VA officials have taken a first step
to changing VA's organizational culture concerning
whistleblowing. As we reported in 1992,20 a
consensus exists among experts in organizational
culture that an organization's beliefs and values
affect the behavior of its members.  In that
report, we stated that for a successful culture
change top management must be totally committed to
the change in both words and action, and
organizations must provide training that promotes
and develops skills related to their desired
values and beliefs.

Although top VA officials have committed
themselves in words, it remains to be seen whether
the actions, including training that develops
skills related to desired values and beliefs,
necessary to sustain such a change will follow.

Recommendations
     We recommend that the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs establish a long-term plan of intended
actions with target dates for (1) informing on a
periodic basis all employees of their
whistleblower rights and (2) measuring the
effectiveness of such actions, such as with a
periodic survey of employees.

     We also recommend that the Secretary design
and implement a system for tracking overall
whistleblower complaints; complaints for which
reprisal was determined or the complaint was
settled; and what actions, if any, VA took against
VA managers when reprisal was found to have
occurred.  In addition, we recommend that VA
analyze these data periodically to ascertain
whether additional steps are needed to ensure that
reprisal is not tolerated.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
In a March 13, 2000, letter (see app. IV), the
Assistant Secretary for Planning and Analysis
provided VA's comments on a draft of this report.
Overall, VA said that the draft report was
thorough and objective and will assist VA in
meeting its goal of promoting a culture where
employees feel free to raise concerns without fear
of reprisal.

VA concurred with our recommendations.  Regarding
our recommendation that VA establish a long-term
plan for informing all employees of their
whistleblower rights on a periodic basis, VA
identified several efforts with target dates that
are to be undertaken during 2000, which are to
continue the department's 1999 initiatives.  VA
also said that it would develop a mechanism to
measure the effectiveness of its efforts, as we
recommend.  We view these as positive
developments.  As we point out in the report,
changing an organizational culture takes time.  We
are encouraged that VA has begun to develop a long-
term plan with target dates for intended actions.

VA also concurred with our recommendation that it
design and implement a system for tracking
whistleblower complaints and their disposition and
analyze such data to ascertain whether additional
steps are needed to ensure that reprisal is not
tolerated.  VA pointed out that it may be
difficult to create a tracking system that
captures all complaints and their disposition.
According to VA, complaints are filed in many
forums, and it may not be possible to obtain
information on all of them.  For example, VA said
that OSC maintains the confidentiality of
complainants and will not inform an agency when a
complaint is filed or its reasons for dismissing a
complaint, and thus VA could not access this
information to construct its own database.  VA
said, however, that OSC can provide reports
containing general findings.  We are pleased that
VA said that it would make a good faith effort to
track complaints.

We recognize that VA cannot obtain information on
individual cases from OSC and VA's IG while
complaints are being investigated because of
confidentiality considerations.  However, as we
say in the report, VA should be aware of the
overall numbers of whistleblower reprisal
complaints, those for which reprisal was
determined to have occurred, and those where
settlements occurred.  Information should be
available on (1) the overall number of complaints
without compromising the confidentiality of the
individual complainant, (2) individual cases where
VA was involved once reprisal has been determined
to have occurred and corrective actions have been
taken by VA, and (3) individual cases where VA was
party to a settlement agreement.

VA expressed concern that our draft report
referred to certain OSC and MSPB cases as
instances of "proven" retaliation.  It believed
the use of the term proven was misleading because
although OSC makes assessments regarding the
merits of complaints, it does not adjudicate
cases.  Therefore, such cases are not technically
proven.  We have clarified the terminology used in
the report.  As we stated earlier in the report,
OSC does not adjudicate cases (that is MSPB's
role).  OSC investigates whistleblower reprisal
complaints, and if it believes that reprisal has
occurred, OSC will seek to resolve the complaint
with the agency involved.  Resolution can take the
form of corrective action by the agency at OSC's
request and disciplinary action against the
supervisor responsible for the reprisal.  OSC will
attempt to resolve the matter in this manner
before prosecuting the case before MSPB.  We
believe that cases for which the agency agrees to
take corrective action should be among those
tracked and analyzed by VA.  We also believe that
VA should be tracking and analyzing the cases that
OSC and MSPB classified as settlements.  Without
tracking and analyzing these cases, among other
things, VA cannot determine the extent to which
further actions are needed to ensure compliance
with VA's policy of no tolerance for whistleblower
reprisal or be certain that the appropriate
corrective action was taken for the employee or
the appropriate disciplinary action was taken
against a manager when reprisal was found to have
occurred.

VA also made several additional comments
suggesting clarifications or the addition of
contextual information in the report.  These
comments are discussed in appendix IV.

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly
announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution of this report until 30 days from the
date of this letter.  At that time, we will send
copies of this report to Representative Corrine
Brown, Ranking Minority Member, Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs; Senator Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs;
Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Ranking Minority
Member, Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs; and
the Honorable Togo D. West, Jr., Secretary of
Veterans Affairs.  We are also providing copies to
the Honorable Elaine Kaplan, Special Counsel; the
Honorable Beth S. Slavet, Acting Chairperson of
the Merit Systems Protection Board; the Honorable
Alexis M. Herman, Secretary of Labor, and the
Honorable Richard A. Meserve, Chairman of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.  We will make
copies available to others upon request.

Please contact me on (202) 512-8676 if you or your
staff have questions.  Key contributors to this
report are listed in appendix V.

Sincerely yours,

Michael Brostek
Associate Director, Federal Management
 and Workforce Issues

_______________________________
1Statutory protections for federal whistleblowers
reporting misconduct were provided by the Civil
Service Reform Act of 1978 (P. L. 95-454) and the
Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (P. L. 101-
12), and amendments to the Whistleblower
Protection Act in 1994 (P. L. 103-424) expanded
these protections.
2Organizational culture has been defined as the
underlying assumptions, beliefs, values,
attitudes, and expectations shared by an
organization's members.  See our report
Organizational Culture: Techniques Companies Use
to Perpetuate or Change Beliefs and Values
(GAO/NSIAD-92-105, Feb. 27, 1992).
3We did not include OSHA data on whistleblower
reprisal complaints filed by VA employees in this
report.  See the Scope and Methodology section for
details.
4A general description of the 12 prohibited
personnel practices is as follows:  unlawful
discrimination, solicitation or consideration of
improper background references, coercion of
political activity, obstruction of the right to
compete, influencing withdrawal of applicants from
competition, unauthorized preferences, nepotism,
reprisal for whistleblowing, reprisal for the
exercise of an appeal right, discrimination based
on off-duty conduct, violation of laws or
regulations implementing or concerning merit
system principles found at 5 U.S.C. sec. 2301, and
violation of veterans' preference.
5Whistleblower Protection: Determining Whether
Reprisal Occurred Remains Difficult (GAO/GGD-93-3,
Oct. 27, 1992).
6Whistleblower Protection: Survey of Federal
Employees on Misconduct and Protection From
Reprisal (GAO/GGD-92-120FS, July 14, 1992).
7Most federal employees in the executive branch
are in the competitive civil service, which is
employed under a common set of personnel laws
contained in title 5 of the U.S. Code.
8Because VA needed to recruit physicians,
dentists, and nurses in an expedited manner after
World War II, a separate personnel system was
created for these occupations under title 38 of
the U.S. Code in 1946.
9Medical personnel hired under title 38 include
the following occupations: physicians, dentists,
expanded function dentist auxiliary, registered
nurses, practical nurses, optometrists,
pharmacists, physician assistants, respiratory
therapists, and podiatrists.
10Such actions, which are referred to as otherwise
appealable actions, include removal for
unacceptable performance, reduction in grade, and
suspension for more than 14 days.
11Before February 3, 1997, federal employees who
wanted to file whistleblower retaliation
complaints under these laws were to do so with the
Department of Labor's Wage and Hour Division.
12The hearing was conducted by the Subcommittee on
Oversight and Investigations, House Committee on
Veterans' Affairs.
13GAO/NSIAD-92-105.
14 The use of rapid response teams is a concept
that VA has used since 1997.  The teams generally
consist of human resources specialists, attorneys,
and other officials deemed appropriate for the
investigation.  A VA official said that, as of
March 2000, he is not aware that these teams have
been used to review allegations of whistleblower
reprisal.
15 The General Counsel established the protocol in
June 1999 to coordinate VA's response to
investigations and enforcement initiatives by OSC
that deal with whistleblower reprisal and other
prohibited personnel practices.
16In our questionnaire, we defined a town or small
city as having a population of less than 100,000
and a medium or large city as having a population
of 100,000 or more.
17Governmentwide totals at MSPB and OSC include
executive branch agencies except the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence
Agency, the Defense Intelligence Agency, the
National Security Agency, and the Postal Service.
These agencies are not covered under the
Whistleblower Protection Act.
18GAO/GGD-92-120FS.
19GAO/GGD-93-3.
20GAO/NSIAD-92-105.

Appendix I
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
Page 31  GAO/GGD-00-70 VA Whistleblower Protection
The Chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and
Investigations, House Committee on Veterans'
Affairs asked us to gather information on the
awareness and level of confidence that VA
employees, particularly medical personnel, have
regarding whistleblower protection.  Our
objectives were to (1) review actions VA has taken
since October 1994--enactment of the 1994
Whistleblower Protection Act amendments--to inform
its employees about their rights to protection
against reprisal when reporting misconduct; (2)
evaluate the extent to which VA employees are
aware of their rights to such protection; and (3)
evaluate the extent to which VA employees are
willing to report misconduct in VA operations,
should they become aware of it.  We also agreed to
provide information on the number and disposition
of whistleblower reprisal complaints VA employees
filed with agencies responsible for providing
whistleblower protection.

To respond to our objective on actions VA has
taken to inform its employees about their
whistleblower rights, we interviewed and gathered
information from VA headquarters officials.  We
did not contact VA regional officials.  We also
interviewed OSC officials because of their
consultation role required by the 1994 amendments
to the Whistleblower Protection Act.

To respond to the objectives of VA employees'
awareness of their rights and willingness to
report misconduct, we designed and pretested a
questionnaire that we sent to a randomly selected,
statistically representative stratified sample of
VA employees.  The questionnaire design was drawn
almost entirely from a questionnaire dealing with
the same topic that we administered to a
governmentwide sample of federal employees in
1992.1  We tailored the 1992 questionnaire to be
VA-specific and asked additional questions that
would, among other things, allow us to identify
responses for title 38 medical employees from the
Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and the
population size of location of the respondents' VA
medical facility. In our questionnaire, we defined
a town or small city as having a population of
less than 100,000 and a medium or large city as
having a population of 100,000 or more.

VA provided us with overall counts of VA
employees, including separate counts for VHA,
Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), and
National Cemetery Administration (NCA) as of March
31, 1999.2  VA also identified the number of VHA
employees who were title 38 medical personnel.3
Table I.1 shows VA data on the number of VA
employees.  Because we were particularly
interested in medical personnel, the table
identifies personnel as being title 38 or title 5
in VHA.

Table I.1: Number of VA Employees as of March 31,
1999
Category of employees         Number of employeesa
VHA                                               
Title 38b                                   54,997
Title 5c                                   147,386
Non-VHAd                                    16,653
Total                                      219,036
aNumber of employees include full time, part time,
and intermittent but does not include 16,080
residents.
bThis number does not include residents because of
high turnover and unavailability of addresses.
cThis number includes canteen workers and other
title 5 employees.
dThis number includes employees from the VBA, NCS,
and VA headquarters.
Source:  Data provided by VA.

At our request, from these data VA then provided
us with a stratified, random sample of employee
names and addresses.  We did not verify the
randomness or accuracy of the sample VA provided.
Table I.2 shows the number of names and addresses
provided.

Table I.2: Sample of VA Employees by Strata
Category                      Number of employeesa
VHA                                               
Title 38b                                      399
Title 5c                                      400d
Non-VHAe                                       398
Total                                        1,197
aNumber of employees include full time, part time,
and intermittent but does not include residents.
bThis number does not include residents because of
high turnover and unavailability of addresses.
cThis number includes canteen workers and other
title 5 employees.
dThis number includes some employees that are
covered by both title 5 and title 38 provisions.
We estimated that about 26,692 employees were
covered by title 5 and title 38.
eThis number includes employees from VBA, NCA, and
VA headquarters.
Source:  Data provided by VA.

Beginning on June 1, 1999, we mailed
questionnaires to the 1,197 VA employees for whom
VA provided mailing addresses. On June 29, 1999,
and July 31, 1999, we sent follow-up
questionnaires to those who did not respond.
Finally on September 10, 1999, we mailed a follow-
up letter.  Table I.3 summarizes the breakdown of
the sample--employees responding and not
responding to the questionnaire.

Table I.3: Breakdown of VA Employees Responding
and Not Responding to the Questionnaire
Breakdown of sample                         Number
Total VA employees                           1,197
sampled
Questionnaires returned                         20
by Postal Service
due to inadequate address
or no forwarding address
Refuse to participate                            2
Questionnaires not                             391
returned
Usable questionnaires                          784
returned

The overall response rate was 65.5 percent.  For
VHA title 38, the response rate was 65.7 percent,
63.5 percent for VHA title 5, and 67.3 percent for
non-VHA.

After calculating the weighting of responses to
our questionnaire based on the number of VA
employees a given response represents, we weighted
the 784 usable returned questionnaires to
represent the population of 219,036 VA employees
at VHA, VBA, NCA, and VA headquarters.  Because we
sampled a portion of VA employees, the results of
our questionnaire are estimates of all VA
employees' views and are subject to sampling
error.  For example, the estimate that 36 percent
of employees reported hearing from sources other
than VA about their right to protection from
reprisal when reporting misconduct at VA is
surrounded by an error margin of + 4 percentage
points at the 95-percent confidence level.  This
error margin thus indicates that there is a 95-
percent chance that the actual percentage falls
between 32 and 40 percent.  The overall survey
results in this report have 95 percent confidence
intervals of less than + 5 percentage points
unless otherwise noted.  The confidence interval
for the title 38 medical employees was no greater
than +6 percentage points unless otherwise
indicated.

The overall results are generalizable to all VA
employees.  The results for the VHA title 38
medical employees are generalizable to this group
within VA.  Although we did not test the validity
of the respondents' answers or the comments they
made, we took several steps to check the quality
of our questionnaire data.  We reviewed and edited
completed questionnaires, made internal
consistency checks on selected items, and checked
the accuracy of data entry on a sample of
questionnaires.

In addition to sampling errors, the practical
difficulties of conducting any survey may
introduce other types of errors, commonly referred
to as nonsampling errors.  For example,
differences in how a particular question is
interpreted, in the sources of information that
are available to respondents, or in the types of
people who do not respond can introduce unwanted
variability into the survey results.  We took
steps in the development of the questionnaire, the
data collection, and the data editing and analysis
to minimize nonsampling errors.  These steps,
which we discussed earlier, included pretesting
and editing the questionnaires.

This report expresses the viewpoints and attitudes
of VA employees.  All responses were anonymous.
We did not determine if their views accurately
reflected situations that existed within the
various VA facilities or major components.

To provide information on the number and
disposition of whistleblower reprisal complaints
VA employees filed with agencies responsible for
providing whistleblower protection, we asked
federal agencies, that are required by law to
assist federal employees who believe that they
have been retaliated against for whistleblowing,
to provide us with such data for fiscal years 1994
through 1998, the year for which the most recent
data were available for all agencies.  The federal
agencies we contacted were the Office of Special
Counsel (OSC), the Merit Systems Protection Board
(MSPB), and the Department of Labor's Occupational
Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).  We also
gathered information from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC), which investigates nuclear
safety concerns and may investigate whistleblower
reprisal complaints under its statutory authority;
however, federal employees must file such
complaints with OSHA to receive personal remedies
for whistleblower retaliation.  From these data,
we categorized the dispositions into broad,
general groupings, including corrective or
favorable actions, reprisal not proven, and
dismissed.  We did not verify the accuracy of the
data provided by the agencies.

To aid us in meeting our objectives, we also
reviewed applicable laws, regulations, and
guidance regarding whistleblower reprisal.

_______________________________
1 Whistleblower Protection: Survey of Federal
Employees on Misconduct and Protection From
Reprisal (GAO/GGD-92-120FS, July 14, 1992).
2Most federal employees in the executive branch
are in the competitive civil service, which is
employed under a set of personnel laws contained
in title 5 of the U.S. Code.
3Because VA needed to recruit physicians,
dentists, and nurses in an expedited manner after
World War II, a separate personnel system was
created for these occupations under title 38 of
the U.S. Code in 1946.  Other occupations were
periodically added to title 38, including
optometrists, physician assistants, podiatrists,
expanded-function dental auxiliary, occupational
therapists, pharmacists, practical nurses, and
respiratory therapists and technicians.  However,
not all staff in medical professions are covered
under title 38.

Appendix II
Survey of VA Employees on Whistleblower Protection
Page 39  GAO/GGD-00-70 VA Whistleblower Protection

Appendix III
Responses of VA Employees Who Support Reporting
Misconduct
Page 41  GAO/GGD-00-70 VA Whistleblower Protection
To determine possible reasons that VA employees
who stated in their questionnaire responses that
they supported reporting misconduct to a great or
very great extent but were generally or very
unwilling to do so ("unwilling"), we looked more
closely at their responses to other questions.  We
also compared their responses to those of
employees who stated that they supported reporting
misconduct to a great or very great extent and
were generally or very willing to report it
("willing").  Table III. 1 shows the opinions of
those respondents who supported reporting
misconduct at VA (question 11) and whether they
were willing or unwilling to report it (question
15) as well as the confidence intervals for these
estimates.

Table III.1: Opinions of VA Employees Who Support
VA Employees Reporting Misconduct
                 VA employees supporting to a
                great or very great extent that
                VA employees should report
                misconduct (n=182,449)
                 Those    95        Those    95
                general  percent   generall percent
                ly or    confiden  y or     confiden
                very     ce        very     ce
                willing  interval  unwillin interval
                to                g to
                report            report
                miscond           miscondu
                uct               ct
                (n=104,           (n=27,06
                738)              4)a
VA supported to      26 %   20% to      2 %    0% to
a great or very               31%              4%b
great extent the
federal policy
of ensuring that
employees who
report
misconduct
should be
protected from
reprisal
VA protection        23  17 to 28     65  53 to 78
for its
employees
against
reprisals was
either generally
or very
inadequate
If reprisals had     71  65 to 77     93  86 to 98
previously been
taken against
whistleblowers
at VA, it would
have a great or
very great
importance of
discouraging you
from reporting
misconduct
VA would reprise     20  14 to 25     71  59 to 82
or strongly
reprise against
them if they
reported
misconduct
Ways VA would                                       
probably or
definitely
reprise against
them
Deny them an         24  19 to 30     58  46 to 71
expected cash
award
Deny them an         29  23 to 35     65  53 to 77
expected
promotion
Harass them          28  23 to 34     61  48 to 73
Lower their next     29  23 to 34     72  61 to 83
performance
appraisal
Note: We also compared our survey results for
those who were generally or very willing to report
misconduct with those who reported being generally
unwilling to report misconduct, very unwilling,
undecided, or did not know/had no basis to judge.
The differences between the two groups for the
same set of questions contained in the table were
also statistically significant.
aThose who were undecided or did not know/had no
basis to judge about reporting misconduct
accounted for 50,374.
b"0%" is a rounded 0.
Source: GAO analysis of questionnaire responses.

Appendix IV
Comments From the Department of Veterans Affairs
Page 43  GAO/GGD-00-70 VA Whistleblower Protection
See comment 2.
See comment 1.
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the
report text appear at the end of this appendix.

See comment 3.

See comment 4.

The following are GAO's comments on VA's March 13,
2000, letter.

GAO Comments
1.  VA suggested that we revise the title to
reflect either the current state of its
whistleblower program or the nature of the review.
We do not believe that the title of the report
needs to be changed.  In our view, the title
captures the central message of the report.  VA
acknowledges that it could have done more in the
past to educate employees about their
whistleblower protection rights, and we believe
the title reflects this fact.  We also believe
that the report fairly and comprehensively
discusses the actions VA has taken over the course
of the past year.

2.  VA included as an enclosure to its letter a
summary of actions that VA has taken to address
whistleblowing in VA.  Most of these actions were
shared with us by VA during our work and were
included in our draft report.  We have included
additional actions brought to our attention in the
text, where appropriate.

VA also provided us with 3 binders of information
it collected from 42 VHA field facilities on
whistleblower initiatives implemented at the local
level.  As we reported on page 10, VA officials
told us that they instructed VHA field offices to
include information on whistleblowing in local
newsletters and E-mails, but they could not verify
that their instructions were met.  Subsequently,
VA surveyed some facilities to learn what actions
were taken.  VA also surveyed VHA field Human
Resources Managers about whether they had
incorporated whistleblower information into local
supervisory training and new employee orientation.
We agree with VA that collecting and analyzing
this type of information will aid it in reviewing
the effectiveness of its efforts and help ensure
that VA initiatives are implemented by field
facilities.

3.  VA was concerned that our reference to its
decision not to distribute the OSC pamphlet on
"The Role of the Office of Special Counsel" could
be misconstrued as based solely on cost.  On page
13 of the report, we recognize that VA did not
purchase the pamphlet based in part on factors
other than cost.  While we do not believe that the
report could be misconstrued to say that VA chose
not to distribute the pamphlet solely because of
cost, we have added to the report information on
other methods VA has used to provide information
contained in the pamphlet.  For example, we added
that VA advised its Human Resources offices to
place copies of the pamphlet on display and
forward copies to union officials.

4. VA stated that it understood that the data we
obtained from MSPB did not show that the
corrective actions in reversal or mitigation cases
were due to whistleblower reprisal. The MSPB data
included in the draft report were provided by that
agency for cases it classified as whistleblower
reprisal cases.  MSPB later clarified these data
and informed us that seven cases may have been
decided on violations of prohibited personnel
practices other than whistleblower reprisal.  MSPB
did not rule out whistleblower reprisal as the
violation but said that a review of the individual
cases would be needed before a definitive
statement could be made.  Information on the
individual cases was not readily available at MSPB
to make such a determination. We have adjusted the
data, accordingly.

VA also stated that MSPB data provided to us for
the period October 1, 1993, through March 31,
1999, indicated that there were five VA cases
where corrective action was ordered. The period
covered by our review ends with fiscal year 1998,
and the data provided to us by MSPB for the fiscal
years 1994 through 1998 show that MSPB ordered
corrective actions in five cases.  MSPB data also
show that there were two cases where corrective
action was ordered during the first 6 months of
fiscal year 1999.

Appendix V
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
Page 51  GAO/GGD-00-70 VA Whistleblower Protection
GAO Contacts
Michael Brostek (202) 512-8676

Richard W. Caradine (202) 512-8676

Acknowledgments
     In addition to the individuals named above,
Ronald J. Cormier, Kiki Theodoropoulos, James W.
Turkett, Gregory H. Wilmoth, and Cleofas Zapata,
Jr., made key contributions to this report.

*** End of Document ***