Inspectors General Integrity Committee: Strengthened Oversight and Policy Needed to Ensure Consistent Investigations
Fast Facts
The Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency—an independent executive branch agency—addresses integrity, economy, and effectiveness issues at the offices of federal Inspectors General. The council’s Integrity Committee investigates complaints involving allegations against senior-level officials in these offices.
We found that this committee did not always follow its policies and requirements when reviewing these complaints. For instance, many cases were not reviewed in a timely manner, nor was all required information properly documented.
Our recommendations address this and other issues we found.
A binder that says investigations on a desk with office supplies and documents.
Highlights
What GAO Found
From fiscal year 2021 through the first half of fiscal year 2025, the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency (CIGIE)’s Integrity Committee (IC) received 16,245 complaints, resulting in 460 cases for review. The IC also completed 15 reports of investigations during that period.
Integrity Committee’s Intake, Review, and Investigations Processes
GAO found that IC intake processes did not consistently comply with documented policies. To the IC’s credit, GAO estimates that 97 percent of complainants received an immediate response acknowledging complaint receipt. However, although required by policy, GAO found the IC lacked a process for legal counsel to conduct secondary reviews of program manager decisions on potentially frivolous complaints. Without such reviews, cases with merit could go uninvestigated, thereby undermining the IC’s work.
GAO also estimates that 24 percent of cases met all time frame requirements for opening and review. The remaining 76 percent did not always meet timeliness requirements for, among other things, providing legal analyses for IC member review before meetings. Additionally, the IC did not always document required information in case summaries, including recusals of members with conflicts of interest. Without adherence to time frame and documentation requirements, members risk inconsistently handling cases and not fully evaluating them due to reduced review time and incomplete information.
GAO’s review of five investigations completed between October 2020 and March 2025 found that
--none was completed within the 150-day time frame required by law. Instead, investigation length for the five reviewed investigations ranged from 427days to 1,246 days. Although mandated to do so, the IC did not provide updates to Congress in some instances when investigations exceeded 150 days;
--the IC conducted limited oversight to ensure that assisting Offices of Inspectors General (OIG), who were responsible for performing investigations, complied with CIGIE’s Quality Standards for Investigations. This oversight was hampered by assisting OIGs not providing required monthly status updates to the IC in 37 of 90 instances; and
--the IC’s final investigative reports did not always reflect the conclusions reached by the assisting OIG and lacked detailed explanations for differences.
Why GAO Did This Study
The Inspector General community serves a critical role across the federal government by detecting and preventing fraud, waste, and abuse in federal agencies and helping ensure integrity and effectiveness in agency programs. Given this important role, the leadership in each OIG is held to the highest standards of professional conduct. The Integrity Committee within CIGIE is responsible for investigating noncriminal allegations against senior-level OIG personnel.
GAO was asked to assess the IC’s policies related to its processes. This report addresses the extent that the IC processes for (1) intake, (2) review, and (3) investigation of complaints comply with applicable policies and standards required by the IG Act of 1978, as amended.
GAO reviewed the IC’s policies and procedures and interviewed IC personnel and personnel from two OIG offices. GAO also analyzed a generalizeable sample of opened cases and a judgmental, nongeneralizeable sample of completed investigations from fiscal years 2021 through the first half of fiscal year 2025.
Recommendations
GAO is making eight recommendations to CIGIE, including adhering to policy on conducting secondary reviews of potentially frivolous complaints; strengthening policies to enhance compliance with required time frames and documentation; improving statutorily required reporting to Congress; and providing full explanations for IC investigative conclusions that conflict with conclusions reached by assisting OIGs.
CIGIE agreed with the recommendations and plans several actions to implement them.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency | The CIGIE chair should require the IC to design and implement a process to ensure that the IC legal counsel reviews potentially frivolous complaints identified by the program manager and documents the review and conclusion. (Recommendation 1) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency | The CIGIE chair should demonstrate the importance of meeting timelines by implementing strategies to improve the IC's ability to meet required timelines. This includes the timelines for completion of ARG reviews by all members, presentation of cases at the next IC meeting, completion of written legal analysis for IC members, and finalization of letters implementing the decisions made at the IC meeting. (Recommendation 2) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency | The CIGIE chair should require the IC to ensure that it documents all required information in case summaries, including recusals by IC members. (Recommendation 3) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency | The CIGIE chair should ensure that the IC begins monitoring its compliance with the 30-day reporting requirement to inform Congress about the status of investigations. (Recommendation 4) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency | The CIGIE chair should require the IC to develop and implement strategies to better oversee how assisting OIGs conduct investigations, including ensuring that the investigations comply with CIGIE's Quality Standards for Investigations and that the assisting OIGs provide monthly status updates on investigations. (Recommendation 5) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency | The CIGIE chair should require the IC to develop and implement a policy that helps ensure that assisting OIGs submit sufficient details in their request for reimbursement, including labor rates, hours worked, and other investigative costs. (Recommendation 6) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency | The CIGIE chair should require the IC to develop and implement a process to help ensure that the review and approval of assisting OIG requests for reimbursement are documented. (Recommendation 7) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|
| Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency | The CIGIE chair should direct the IC to require that IC final reports to a subject's appointing authority at the closure of an investigation conducted by an assisting OIG contain (1) a final determination of all allegations against a subject; (2) distinctions between partial and full substantiation of allegations, if applicable; and (3) detailed reasons for the IC reaching differing conclusions from the assisting OIG on allegations, if applicable. (Recommendation 8) |
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
|