Evidence of Reputational Priorities of a Sample of U.S. Federal Offices of Inspector General: A Mixed Methods Analysis of Workforce, Budgetary Data, and Statutes

Abstract

Offices of inspector general (OIGs) have become an important part of the United States government, located in virtually every agency and providing oversight through audits and investigations that examine fraud, waste, abuse, ineffectiveness, and inefficiency. Yet, scholars know little about their activities. Conventional wisdom suggested that investigations would be favored over audits partially because the OIGs would want to bolster their reputation with Congress and the public. This research examines 11 departmental OIGs to explore whether investigations are prioritized over audits, especially in the context of declining budgets. Quantitative workforce data from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management show that contrary to expectation these OIGs largely prioritize auditing through an allocation of more full-time equivalent (FTE) employees. Budget data, adjusted for inflation, show that funding since the 2010s was flat followed by marked increases for some OIGs during the Trump Administration, which doesn’t help explain these priorities; however, a qualitative analysis of statutes shows Congress assigns auditing tasks more often than investigative tasks. Overall, this mixed methods research provides preliminary evidence that OIGs’ desire to maintain or improve their reputation and be responsive to Congress leads them to focus on improving agency performance and helping their agencies fulfill their missions.