Administrative non litigation execution procuratorial supervision is an important part of the procuratorial organs fulfilling their legal supervision functions, and it is also an important lever for grassroots procuratorates to carry out administrative prosecution and integrate into social governance. In recent years, grassroots procuratorates have accumulated certain case handling experience through continuous exploration and practice in carrying out administrative non litigation execution procuratorial supervision work. However, some problems have also been exposed: firstly, the quality and effectiveness of supervision are not obvious. The supervision of administrative non litigation execution activities by grassroots procuratorates is often post supervision. Many cases have problems that have already been executed and are difficult to turn back, and the problems discovered are mostly minor defects, such as overdue filing, non-standard production and delivery procedures of execution notices, etc. The focus of the prosecution's suggestions is mostly on improving the work, which has little impact on the case itself and makes it difficult to reflect the quality and effectiveness of supervision. Secondly, there is insufficient rigidity in supervision. When handling administrative non litigation execution supervision cases, grassroots procuratorates mainly provide written prosecutorial suggestions for non litigation execution activities. Compared to prosecutorial suggestions for protest or retrial, the rigidity is clearly insufficient. If the court and administrative organs do not cooperate, the procuratorial organs will find it difficult to implement more powerful and effective means of restraint, directly affecting the strength and effectiveness of procuratorial supervision. Thirdly, there is a lack of sources of supervisory clues. The administrative action that is applied for non litigation execution is an administrative action that the party has waived remedies and has passed the statute of limitations. In this case, the party generally does not actively apply for supervision. In practice, grassroots procuratorates have relatively few clues to initiate supervision based on the application of the parties involved. Often, they can only discover clues based on their authority and initiate supervision, resulting in insufficient sources of clues. Fourthly, the ability to handle cases needs to be improved. Administrative non litigation execution procuratorial supervision cases involve numerous laws and regulations, with strong professionalism. However, personnel handling administrative prosecution cases in grassroots procuratorates often shoulder other tasks such as civil prosecution and public interest litigation prosecution at the same time, lacking professional case handling capabilities. The ability and level of carrying out administrative non litigation execution supervision need to be improved. In response to the above issues, the author proposes the following suggestions based on actual situations: firstly, to increase the intensity of case handling through special supervision. In recent years, the Supreme People's Procuratorate has attached increasing importance to the supervision of administrative non litigation execution, and has carried out special supervision in areas such as administrative non litigation execution supervision and land law enforcement investigation, forming experiences and practices that can be followed, and releasing a series of typical cases. Grassroots procuratorates can actively learn from relevant experiences and practices, understand typical cases, deepen special supervision, increase the supervision of administrative non litigation execution, and focus on prominent issues based on local realities, handling a number of supervision cases with local characteristics, and expanding the influence of administrative non litigation execution procuratorial supervision. The second is to enhance the rigidity of prosecutorial suggestions. Focusing on key cases and key links, identify the main illegal situations in administrative non litigation execution cases, strengthen communication with courts and administrative agencies, accurately propose prosecutorial suggestions, improve the quality of prosecutorial suggestions, and enhance the recognition of prosecutorial suggestions by courts and administrative agencies. Strengthen the follow-up, tracking, and accountability of prosecutorial suggestions, timely report the adoption of prosecutorial suggestions to higher-level procuratorial organs, and for those who do not accept supervision, promptly submit them to higher-level procuratorates for follow-up supervision, or submit them to the higher-level supervisory units of the units being recommended