Whistleblowing is not an easy task for the whistleblower. That is at least one take-away I glean from watching a few such efforts.
Harking back to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2001, the idea is that if someone speaks up about something that is "wrong" at their place of emplyment, any retalitory action taken against them should be reconciled.
This is, in principle, a good thing. But note the burdens placed on the whistleblower. As I understand whistleblowing, the whistleblower must first be able to document that something "wrong" has been done and effectively, covered-up. They also have to demonstrate that any workplace set backs were directly related to their speaking up, rather than say due to thier poor performance on the job.
The process for the whistle blower to gain relief can go on for a lengthy period of time, become expensive for the whistle blower, and even if they win, their may be negative consequences for their position, standing and relationships on the job.
The case of a former employee in one of the Philadelphia Housing Authority's nonprofit subsidiaries is one example - a case that has been going on for at least a year and has gone through several different levels of hearings and process.
I believe that Nonprofit Boards would do well to put in place policies and procedures that may be more supportive of those who see something and say something -- if the organization's values include integrity and concern for its employees.