State level mechanisms for learning from whistleblowing cases at institutions of higher education in the United States

State level mechanisms for soliciting, validating, and learning from whistleblower claims of fraud, theft, or misconduct against public colleges and universities are explored in four US states: California, Massachusetts, Michigan, and Ohio. Sequential public information requests were used to understand the methods that were used in each state, the types of claims that each state experienced, and to understand their processes for learning from such claims. The types of claims, breadth of scope that the claims span, and disposition of the claims is used to characterize each state’s approach and compare and contrast results with other states in the sample. There was a wide variation in responses and approaches used in each state. Varying from no information solicited or maintained (Michigan) to full histories that include case level detail (Ohio), excellent multi-year case tracking and reporting (California) to the voluminous tracking of every property loss or damage in every institution (Massachusetts). An organic rubric is developed and used to compare and contrast the responses and service level provided by each of the states. Although anonymous whistleblower claims are essential to the governance and administration of higher education, state level mechanisms vary widely in their approaches to administering this process and ensuring better future outcomes. Establishing a standard based upon best practices would ensure that institutions are making the best use of all information available to them to improve their immunity from employee fraud and theft and misconduct.