This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-12-1022 
entitled 'Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms' which was released on September 
27, 2012. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Requesters: 

September 2012: 

Managing for Results: 

Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative 
Mechanisms: 

GAO-12-1022: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-12-1022, a report to congressional requesters. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to 
achieve-—such as those related to protecting food and agriculture, 
providing homeland security, and ensuring a well-trained and educated 
workforce—-require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal 
agency and often more than one sector and level of government. Both 
Congress and the executive branch have recognized the need for 
improved collaboration across the federal government. The Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010 
establishes a new framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and 
integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government 
performance. Effective implementation of the act could play an 
important role in facilitating future actions to reduce duplication, 
overlap, and fragmentation. 

GAO was asked to identify the mechanisms that the federal government 
uses to lead and implement interagency collaboration, as well as 
issues to consider when implementing these mechanisms. To examine 
these topics, GAO conducted a literature review on interagency 
collaborative mechanisms, interviewed 13 academic and practitioner 
experts in the field of collaboration, and reviewed their work. GAO 
also conducted a detailed analysis of 45 GAO reports, published 
between 2005 and 2012. GAO selected reports that contained in-depth 
discussions of collaborative mechanisms and covered a broad range of 
issues. 

What GAO Found: 

Federal agencies have used a variety of mechanisms to implement 
interagency collaborative efforts, such as the President appointing a 
coordinator, agencies co-locating within one facility, or establishing 
interagency task forces. These mechanisms can be used to address a 
range of purposes including policy development; program 
implementation; oversight and monitoring; information sharing and 
communication; and building organizational capacity, such as staffing 
and training. Frequently, agencies use more than one mechanism to 
address an issue. For example, climate change is a complex, 
crosscutting issue, which involves many collaborative mechanisms in 
the Executive Office of the President and interagency groups 
throughout government. 

Although collaborative mechanisms differ in complexity and scope, they 
all benefit from certain key features, which raise issues to consider 
when implementing these mechanisms. For example: 

* Outcomes and Accountability: Have short-term and long-term outcomes 
been clearly defined? Is there a way to track and monitor their 
progress? 

* Bridging Organizational Cultures: What are the missions and 
organizational cultures of the participating agencies? Have agencies 
agreed on common terminology and definitions? 

* Leadership: How will leadership be sustained over the long-term? If 
leadership is shared, have roles and responsibilities been clearly 
identified and agreed upon?
* Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities: Have participating agencies 
clarified roles and responsibilities? 

* Participants: Have all relevant participants been included? Do they 
have the ability to commit resources for their agency? 

* Resources: How will the collaborative mechanism be funded and 
staffed? Have online collaboration tools been developed? 

* Written Guidance and Agreements: If appropriate, have participating 
agencies documented their agreement regarding how they will be 
collaborating? Have they developed ways to continually update and 
monitor these agreements? 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022]. For more 
information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202)512-6806 or 
mihmj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Agencies Use Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms to Meet a Range Of 
Purposes: 

There are Many Issues to Consider When Collaborating: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Key Collaboration Practices: 

Appendix III: Key Issues to Consider for Implementing Interagency 
Collaborative Mechanisms: 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Table: 

Table 1: Topic Areas Covered in Report Sample: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Mechanisms for Interagency Collaboration and Definitions: 

Figure 2: Selected Collaborative Mechanisms for Federal Climate Change 
Activities, as of May 2011: 

Abbreviations: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOD: Department of Defense: 

DOI: Department of the Interior: 

FEB: Federal Executive Board: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: 

GPRAMA: GPRA Modernization Act of 2010: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

MOU: Memorandum of Understanding: 

NIST: National Institute for Standards and Technology: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

SBA: Small Business Administration: 

USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture: 

VA: Department of Veterans Affairs: 

VISN: Veterans Health Administration's Veterans Integrated Service 
Network: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

September 27, 2012: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka: 
Chairman: 
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce, and the District of Columbia: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to 
achieve--such as those related to protecting food and agriculture, 
providing homeland security, and ensuring a well-trained and educated 
workforce--require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal 
agency and often more than one sector and level of government. We have 
reported about the importance of collaboration between federal 
agencies for many years. For example, we have noted that interagency 
mechanisms or strategies to coordinate programs that address 
crosscutting issues may reduce potentially duplicative, overlapping, 
and fragmented efforts.[Footnote 1] 

Both Congress and the executive branch have also recognized the need 
for improved collaboration across the federal government. Accordingly, 
in January 2011 the almost two-decades-old Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) was updated with the GPRA Modernization Act 
of 2010 (GPRAMA).[Footnote 2] Among other things, GPRAMA establishes a 
new framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated 
approach to focusing on results and improving government performance. 
Effective implementation of the act could play an important role in 
clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program performance that spans 
multiple organizations, and facilitating future actions to reduce 
duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.[Footnote 3] GPRAMA requires 
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to coordinate with agencies 
to establish outcome-oriented federal government priority goals--
otherwise referred to as crosscutting goals--covering a limited number 
of policy areas as well as goals to improve management across the 
federal government.[Footnote 4] It also requires that OMB--with the 
agencies--develop a federal government performance plan that defines 
the level of performance to be achieved toward the crosscutting goals. 
[Footnote 5] These new requirements provide additional opportunities 
for collaboration across federal agencies.[Footnote 6] 

At your request, in this report we are identifying the range of 
mechanisms that the federal government uses to lead and implement 
interagency collaboration, as well as issues to consider when 
implementing these mechanisms. To examine these topics, we conducted a 
literature review on interagency collaborative mechanisms, interviewed 
13 academic and practitioner experts in the field of collaboration, 
and reviewed their work. We also conducted a detailed analysis of 45 
of our prior reports that we selected, from more than 300 reports that 
we published between 2005 and 2012 that examined aspects of 
collaboration within the federal government. We selected reports that 
contained in-depth discussions of collaborative mechanisms. In 
addition, we ensured that the reports in our selection covered a broad 
range of issues across the federal government, such as homeland 
security, agriculture, and health, as well as a range of collaborative 
mechanisms. For a more detailed discussion on our scope and 
methodology, see Appendix I. 

We conducted our work from July 2011 to September 2012 in accordance 
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are 
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence 
to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our 
work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the 
analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and 
conclusions in this report. 

Background: 

In 2005, we reported on key practices to enhance and sustain 
interagency collaboration.[Footnote 7] In our report, we broadly 
defined collaboration as any joint activity that is intended to 
produce more public value than could be produced when the agencies act 
alone. We also described how agencies can enhance and sustain their 
collaborative efforts by engaging in the eight practices identified 
below: 

* define and articulate a common outcome; 

* establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; 

* identify and address needs by leveraging resources; 

* agree on roles and responsibilities; 

* establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to 
operate across agency boundaries; 

* develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; 

* reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through 
agency plans and reports; and: 

* reinforce individual accountability through performance management 
systems. 

We noted that running throughout these practices are a number of 
factors such as leadership, trust, and organizational culture that are 
necessary elements for a collaborative working relationship. The 
highlights page from that report is included in Appendix II. 

As required by GPRAMA, OMB included a set of 14 interim crosscutting 
priority goals in the 2013 federal budget. These goals covered a 
variety of issues such as veteran career readiness, energy efficiency, 
export promotion, and real property management. OMB also designated 
relevant agencies and programs that will be responsible for each 
interim goal. In order to address these goals, OMB is relying on a 
range of collaborative mechanisms. For example, in order to address 
the crosscutting goal of improving career readiness of veterans, OMB 
noted that it will rely, in part, on a Department of Defense-Veterans 
Affairs Task Force that includes representation from the Departments 
of Defense, Labor, Education, and Veterans Affairs, OMB, and the 
Office of Personnel Management (OPM).[Footnote 8] 

Agencies Use Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms to Meet a Range Of 
Purposes: 

Federal agencies have used a variety of mechanisms to implement 
interagency collaborative efforts, such as the President appointing a 
coordinator, agencies co-locating within one facility, or establishing 
interagency task forces. Figure 1 catalogues selected mechanisms that 
the federal government uses to facilitate interagency collaboration, 
which were identified through interviews with experts and a sample of 
our prior reports. Experts have defined an interagency mechanism for 
collaboration as any arrangement or application that can facilitate 
collaboration between agencies. This list may not be comprehensive; it 
reflects the mechanisms that were included in our sample. 

Figure 1: Mechanisms for Interagency Collaboration and Definitions: 

[Refer to PDF for image: list] 

1. Presidential Assistants and Advisors: A Presidential appointee who 
is solely focused on an issue of great magnitude, or policy 
collaboration in the Executive Office of the President. 

2. Collaboration Structures within the Executive Office of the 
President: Permanent or temporary groups that are sometimes referred 
to as task forces, councils, commissions, committees, or working 
groups. 

3. National Strategies and Initiatives: A document or initiative that 
is national in scope and provides a broad framework for addressing 
issues that cut across federal agencies and often across other levels 
of government and sectors. 

4. Interagency Groups: 
a. Interagency Group Led by Agency and Department Heads: These groups 
are sometimes referred to as task forces, working groups, councils, 
and committees; 
b. Interagency Group Led by Component and Program-Level Staff: These 
groups are sometimes referred to as task forces, working groups, 
councils, and committees. 

5. Designation of Leadership: 
a. Lead Agencies: Designation of one agency or department to be 
accountable for an initiative, particularly if it requires the efforts 
of several different agencies exercising different statutory 
authorities; 
b. Shared Leadership: Designation of, or agreement by, more than one 
agency or department to be accountable for an initiative. 

6. Geographic-Based Offices/Co-location: One office maintaining 
responsibility for collaborating with federal agencies or departments 
that are located in the same geographic region. Also, in some cases, 
the location of more than one program office from different federal 
agencies into a facility with the intention of personnel from the 
agencies collaborating with one another. 

7. Positions and Details: 

a. Interagency Collaborator Positions: The designation of an 
individual within one federal agency or department to collaborate 
within or between agencies or departments; 
b. Liaison Positions: An employee of one organization assigned to work 
primarily or exclusively with another agency; 
c. Personnel Details: A specialist or professional designated to 
perform certain tasks for another agency while remaining employed by 
his or her home agency. 

8. Specially Created Interagency Offices: An office with its own 
authority and resources with responsibility to cover a policy area 
that crosses a number of separate agencies or departments. 

9. Interagency Agreements and Memorandum of Understanding: A written 
agreement between more than one federal agency or department. 

10. Joint Program Efforts: 
a. Joint Budgeting and Funding: A set of resources that are 
administered by more than one federal agency; 
b. Joint Exercising and Training: Exercising or training that involves 
participants from more than one federal agency; 
c. Joint Development of Policies, Procedures, and Programs: More than 
one federal agency developing a policy, procedure or program. 

11. Conferences and Communities of Practice: A meeting that brings 
together representatives of different agencies or departments for the 
discussion of common problems, the exchange of information, or the 
development of agreements on issues of mutual interest. 

12. Collaboration Technologies: Tools that facilitate collaboration, 
such as shared databases and web portals. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Mechanisms Can be Used to Serve Multiple Purposes: 

Based on our analysis of expert interviews and literature, as well as 
a sample of our prior reports, the mechanisms for interagency 
collaboration can serve the following general purposes. According to 
our analysis, and as demonstrated by the examples below, most 
collaborative mechanisms serve multiple purposes. 

* Policy Development: For example, Congress established the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy in 1976 to serve as a source of 
scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President 
with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the federal 
government, among other things.[Footnote 9] The Office of Science and 
Technology Policy's mission includes leading interagency efforts to 
develop and coordinate sound science and technology policies across 
the federal government. 

* Program Implementation: As we reported in 2010, in the case of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency's Joint Field Offices, co-locating 
personnel meets the purpose of program implementation during an 
emergency. Specifically, personnel from a range of agencies 
temporarily co-locate to provide services to disaster victims in one 
location.[Footnote 10] 

We reported in 2006 that Congress passed the Federal Lands Recreation 
Enhancement Act,[Footnote 11] in part, to standardize the types of 
recreation fees collected at federal lands and waters and to increase 
flexibility for fee revenue expenditures. To assist with implementing 
this act, Department of the Interior (DOI) and U.S. Department of 
Agriculture (USDA) established four working groups, including a Fee 
Collection/Expenditure working group to address organizational 
concerns, implementation issues, and coordination among the agencies 
as they relate to fee collections and expenditures.[Footnote 12] For 
example, the working group assisted with developing an interagency: 

handbook with common definitions and implementation policy guidance. 

* Oversight and Monitoring: For example, as we reported in 2008, the 
Maritime Security Working Group, working on behalf of the Maritime 
Security Policy Coordination Committee, was responsible for monitoring 
and assessing implementation of actions related to the National 
Strategy for Maritime Security.[Footnote 13] 

* Information Sharing and Communication: As we reported in 2008 and 
2010, in the case of the National Intellectual Property Rights 
Coordination Center, co-locating personnel was intended to promote 
information sharing. Specifically, personnel from agencies responsible 
for combating counterfeiting, piracy, and related intellectual 
property rights crimes are co-located for the purpose of sharing 
information across organizational boundaries.[Footnote 14] 

As we reported in 2010, the Department of Justice has established 
several interagency groups to coordinate and share information on 
gangs and gang enforcement efforts across department and agency 
boundaries, including the Gang Unit; the National Gang Targeting, 
Enforcement, and Coordination Center; the National Gang Intelligence 
Center; and others.[Footnote 15] 

* Building Organizational Capacity: Capacity may include areas such as 
staffing, training, and information technology. For example, in 2011 
we identified 225 professional development activities for national 
security personnel which were intended to improve certain agencies' 
abilities to collaborate across organizational lines. These ranged 
from 10-month joint professional military education programs and year-
long rotations to 30-minute online courses. The developmental 
activities we identified included training courses and programs, 
training exercises, interagency rotational programs, joint 
professional military education, and leadership development programs. 
[Footnote 16] 

The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College's Interagency 
Fellowship Program is an example of one of these professional 
development activities. The College places Army officers at other 
federal agencies to learn the culture of the host agency, hone 
collaborative skills such as communication and teamwork, and establish 
networks with civilian counterparts. At the same time, participants 
increase workforce capacity at their host civilian agencies, such as 
the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development. 
In turn, the civilian agencies can free up resources to send personnel 
to teach or attend courses at the College.[Footnote 17] 

Mechanisms Are Frequently Used In Combination to Address Complex 
Issues: 

Additionally, in many cases, agencies use more than one mechanism to 
address an issue. For example, climate change is a complex, 
crosscutting issue, which involves many collaborative mechanisms. As 
we reported in 2011, these mechanisms include entities within the 
Executive Office of the President and interagency groups throughout 
government, including task forces and working groups.[Footnote 18] As 
shown in figure 2 below, the collaborative mechanisms in place to 
address climate change vary with regard to membership and purpose. The 
collaboration structures within the Executive Office of the President 
provide high-level policy direction for federal climate change 
programs and activities.[Footnote 19] Other mechanisms are in place--
including specially created interagency offices and interagency 
groups--to provide coordination of science and technology policy 
across the federal government.[Footnote 20] For example, the U.S. 
Global Change Research Program, which began as a presidential 
initiative in 1989, was codified by the Global Change Research Act of 
1990.[Footnote 21] This program coordinates and integrates federal 
research on changes in the global environment and their implications 
for society, and is led by an interagency governing body, the 
Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability 
Subcommittee on Global Change Research. The subcommittee, facilitated 
by a national coordination office, provides overall strategic 
direction and is responsible for developing and implementing an 
integrated interagency program. 

Figure 2: Selected Collaborative Mechanisms for Federal Climate Change 
Activities, as of May 2011: 

[Refer to PDF for image: chart] 

Executive Office of the President: 
Key entities within the Executive Office of the President: 
* Office of Science and Technology Policy; 
* Council on Environmental Quality; 
* Office of Management and Budget; 
* Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy: 
* Green Cabinet: OECC Director, CEQ Chair; OSTP Director; Secretaries of
DOE, DOI, DOL, DOT HUD, USDA, Administrators of EPA and SBA; 
All together: 
* Formal and Informal Interagency Task Forces and Working Groups: 
- Climate Change Adaptation Task Force: Co-chaired by: CEO, NOAA, and 
OSTP. Participating agencies: CEA, DHS, DOC, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOS, DOT, 
EPA, HHS, HUD, MCC, NASA, NEC, NIC, NSS, OECD, OMB, Education, 
Treasury, USAID, USDA; 
- Interagency Task Force on Carbon Capture and Storage: Participating 
agencies: CEQ, DOC, DOE, DOI, DOJ, DOL, DOS, DOT, EPA, FERC, OMB, 
OSTP, Treasury, USDA; 
- Federal Sustainability Initiative: Participating agencies: CIA, DOD, 
DOE, DOI, DOL, DOT, EPA, GSA, HHS, Smithsonian, SSA, USPS, VA, other 
agencies; 
- Other Task Forces and Working Groups: 
National Ocean Council (Co-chaired by: OSTP and CEQ);       
Recovery through Retrofit; 
Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+). 

Under the Office of Science and Technology Policy: 
National Science and Technology Council Committees: 
* National Science Technology Council; 
- Committee on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) 
Education; 
- Committee on Science; 
- Committee on Technology; 
- Committee on Homeland and National Security; 
- Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability: 
Co-Chairs: EPA, NOAA, OSTP; Members: CEA, CEO, OHS, DOC, DOD, DOE, 
DOI, DOJ, DOS, DOT, DPC, EPA, FEMA, HHS, NASA, NEC, NSF, Smithsonian, 
OMB, OSTP, USDA; Coordinating agencies: HUD, TVA; 

Under Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability: 
- Air Quality Research; 
- Integration of Science and Technology for Sustainability Task Force; 
- Disaster Reduction; 
- Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee; 
- Water Availability and Quantity; 
- Toxics and Risks; 
- Ecological Systems; 
- U.S. Group on Earth Observation; 
- Ocean Science and Technology; 
- Roundtable on Climate Information and Services; 
- National Earth Observations Task Force; 
- USGCRP and the Climate Change Technology Program; including: 
* U.S. Global Change Research  Program/Subcommittee on Global Change 
Research: Director: Senior-Level Appointee, DOE; Members: CEQ, DOC, 
DOD, DOE, DOI, DOS, DOT, EPA HHS, NASA, NSF, OMB, OSTP, Smithsonian, 
USAID, USDA; 
* National Climate Assessment: Members: CDC, Census, CEQ, CIA, DHS, 
DOD, DOE, DOI, DOT, Education, EPA, HUD, NASA, NIH, NOAA, NSF, 
Smithsonian, OMB, OSTP, USAID, USDA, USGCRP;  
* Climate Change Technology Program: Director Senior-Level Appointee, 
DOC; Members: CEQ, DOC, DOD, DOE, DOI, DOS, DOT EPA, HHS, NASA, NSF, 
OMB, OSTP, USAID, USDA. 

International: Activities: 
DOE, DOS, USAID, and other agencies. 

CDC - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 
CEA - Council of Economic Advisors. 
Census - Census Bureau. 
CEQ - Council on Environmental Quality. 
CIA - Central Intelligence Agency. 
DHS - Department of Homeland Security. 
DOC - Department of Commerce. 
DOD - Department of Defense. 
DOE - Department of Energy. 
DOI - Department of the Interior. 
DOJ - Department of Justice. 
DOL - Department of Labor. 
DOS - Department of State. 
DOT - Department of Transportation. 
DPC - Domestic Policy Council. 
Education - Department of Education. 
EPA - Environmental Protection Agency. 
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency. 
FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. 
GSA - General Services Administration. 
HHS - Department of Health and Human Services. 
HUD - Department of Housing and Urban Development. 
IARP - Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee. 
MCC - Millennium Challenge Corporation. 
NASA - National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 
NEC - National Economic Council. 
NIC - National Intelligence Council. 
NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 
NSF - National Science Foundation. 
NSS - National Security Staff. 
OECC - Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy. 
OMB - Office of Management and Budget. 
OSTP - Office of Science and Technology Policy. 
SBA - Small Business Administration. 
SSA - Social Security Administration. 
Smithsonian - Smithsonian Institution. 
Treasury - Department of the Treasury. 
TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority. 
USAID - United States Agency for International Development. 
USDA - United Slates Department of Agriculture. 
USGCRP - United Slates Global Change Research Program. 
USPS - United States Postal Service. 
VA - Veterans Administration. 

Source: GAO analysis of Climate Change Science Program Strategic Plan, 
Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan, NSTC organizational 
chart and CEO initiatives.  

[End of figure] 

There are Many Issues to Consider When Collaborating: 

Although the mechanisms we list in figure 2 differ in complexity and 
scope, they all benefit from certain key features, which raise issues 
to consider when implementing these mechanisms. According to expert 
views and our prior work, these key features fall into the categories 
of outcomes and accountability; bridging organizational cultures; 
leadership; clarity of roles and responsibilities; participants; 
resources; and written guidance and agreements. Many of these key 
features are related to our previously-identified collaboration 
practices.[Footnote 22] 

Outcomes and Accountability: 

Issues to Consider: 
* Have short-term and long-term outcomes been clearly defined? 
* Is there a way to track and monitor progress toward the short-term 
and long-term outcomes? 
* Do participating agencies have collaboration-related competencies or 
performance standards against which individual performance can be 
evaluated? 
* Do participating agencies have the means to recognize and reward 
accomplishments related to collaboration? 

Organizational Outcomes and Accountability: As we reported in 2008, we 
interviewed experts in collaborative resource management.[Footnote 23] 
Based on these interviews, we found that most of the experts 
emphasized the importance of groups having clear goals. They explained 
that in a collaborative process, the participants may not have the 
same overall interests--in fact they may have conflicting interests. 
However, by establishing a goal based on what the group shares in 
common, rather than on where there is disagreement among missions or 
philosophies, a collaborative group can shape its own vision and 
define its own purpose. When articulated and understood by the members 
of a group, this shared purpose provides people with a reason to 
participate in the process. For example, in 2012, we reported that 
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Housing and 
Urban Development (HUD), in collaboration with other federal agencies, 
shared a joint commitment to preventing and ending veteran 
homelessness by 2015. Representatives at two veteran and homeless 
advocacy organizations told us that sharing a common strategic goal 
between VA and HUD had been beneficial.[Footnote 24] 

[Side bar: This key feature is related to the collaboration practices: 
* Define and articulate a common outcome.
* Develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results.
* Reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through 
agency plans and reports. 
End of side bar] 

Federal agencies can use their strategic and annual performance plans 
as tools to drive collaboration with other agencies and other partners 
and establish complementary goals and strategies for achieving 
results. We have found that agencies that create a means to monitor, 
evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts can better 
identify areas for improvement.[Footnote 25] Agencies' priority goals--
and agency involvement in federal government priority goals--provide 
additional opportunities to articulate the goals of collaborative 
efforts.[Footnote 26] Agencies and OMB are required under GPRAMA to 
monitor the federal government and agency priority goals on at least a 
quarterly basis, which provides additional opportunities for 
collaboration with contributing partners. 

Individual Accountability: Agencies link personal accountability to 
collaboration by adding a collaboration-related competency or 
performance standard against which individual performance can be 
evaluated. As we previously reported, the Department of State revised 
the competencies used to evaluate the Foreign Service Officers to 
focus on collaboration.[Footnote 27] Specifically, the competencies 
now identify knowledge of other agencies and interagency cooperation 
among the skill sets to be assessed.[Footnote 28] Agency officials 
said that this change, in part, resulted in increased interest in 
foreign policy advisor assignments, demonstrated by the increase in 
the number of applicants to the program in recent years. 

[Side bar: This key feature is related to the collaboration practices: 
* Reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts 
through performance management systems. 
End of side bar] 

We reported in October 2000, that the Veterans Health Administration's 
Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), headquartered in 
Cincinnati, implemented performance agreements that focused on patient 
services for the entire VISN and were designed to encourage the VISN's 
medical centers to work collaboratively.[Footnote 29] In 2000, the 
VISN Director had a performance agreement with "care line" directors 
for patient services, such as primary care, medical and surgical care, 
and mental health care. In particular, the mental health care line 
director's performance agreement included improvement goals related to 
mental health for the entire VISN. To make progress towards these 
goals, this care line director had to work across each of the VISN's 
four medical centers with the corresponding care line managers at each 
medical center. As part of this collaboration, the care line director 
needed to establish consensus among VISN officials and external 
stakeholders on the strategic direction for the services provided by 
the mental health care line across the VISN; develop, implement, and 
revise integrated clinical programs to reflect that strategic 
direction for the VISN; and allocate resources among the centers for 
mental health programs to implement these programs. 

Bridging Organizational Cultures: 

Issues to Consider: 
* What are the missions and organizational cultures of the 
participating agencies? 
* What are the commonalities between the participating agencies' 
missions and cultures and what are some potential challenges? 
* Have participating agencies developed ways for operating across 
agency boundaries? 
* Have participating agencies agreed on common terminology and 
definitions? 

Different agencies participating in any collaborative mechanism bring 
diverse organizational cultures to it. Accordingly, it is important to 
address these differences to enable a cohesive working relationship 
and to create the mutual trust required to enhance and sustain the 
collaborative effort. To address these differences, we have found that 
it is important to establish ways to operate across agency boundaries. 
This can involve measures such as developing common terminology, 
compatible policies and procedures, and fostering open lines of 
communication. We reported in 2012 that the Interagency Council on 
Homelessness had taken initial steps to develop a common vocabulary 
for discussing homelessness and related terms, as recommended in our 
June 2010 report. The Council held a meeting with participants from 
stakeholder organizations in January 2011 and issued a report to 
Congress in June 2011 that summarized feedback received during the 
meeting. The report notes that a common vocabulary would allow federal 
agencies to better measure the scope and dimensions of homelessness 
and may ease program implementation and coordination. Additionally, 
the Council held three meetings in 2011 to discuss implementation of a 
common vocabulary with key federal agencies.[Footnote 30] 

[Side bar: 
This key feature is related to the collaboration practice: 
* Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to 
operate across agency boundaries.
Related collaborative mechanisms: Personnel details; joint training 
and exercising; and communities of practice. 
End of side bar] 

Positive working relationships between participants from different 
agencies bridge organizational cultures. These relationships build 
trust and foster communication, which facilitates collaboration. 
Experts have stated that relationship-building is vital in responding 
to an emergency. For example, we reported in 2011, that through 
interagency planning efforts federal officials built relationships 
that helped facilitate the federal response to the H1N1 influenza 
pandemic.[Footnote 31] Officials from the Department of Health and 
Human Services' (HHS) Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and 
Response and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the Department of Education 
said that these interagency meetings, working together on existing 
pandemic and non-pandemic programs, and exercises conducted prior to 
the H1N1 pandemic built relationships that were valuable for the H1N1 
pandemic response. Specifically, HHS officials said that federal 
coordination during the H1N1 pandemic was much easier because of these 
formal networks and informal relationships built during pandemic 
planning activities and exercises. 

Frequent communication among collaborating agencies is another way to 
facilitate working across agency boundaries to prevent 
misunderstanding.[Footnote 32] We reported in 2005 that open 
communication was an important factor in the successful transfer of 
the Plum Island Animal Disease Research Center (Plum Island) from USDA 
to DHS.[Footnote 33] Specifically, several scientists at Plum Island 
had stated that the Plum Island Director's successful efforts in 
facilitating open communication among staff had fostered a 
collaborative environment. Moreover, several scientists noted that the 
director--who was based on the island at that time--valued the 
comments and ideas expressed by the scientists. One lead scientist 
concluded that the director's ability to establish positive 
relationships with staff had brought greater focus to the research and 
diagnostic programs. USDA officials also noted to us that the 
leadership of the director and the entire Senior Leadership Group, 
working as a team, contributed to effective cooperation at Plum 
Island.[Footnote 34] 

Leadership: 

Issues to Consider: 
* Has a lead agency or individual been identified? 
* If leadership will be shared between one or more agencies, have 
roles and responsibilities been clearly identified and agreed upon? 
* How will leadership be sustained over the long-term? 

Leadership Models: As previously discussed, leadership models range 
from identifying one agency or person to lead, to assigning shared 
leadership over a collaborative mechanism. Experts explained that 
designating one leader is often beneficial because it centralizes 
accountability and can speed decision making. For example, as we 
reported in 2007, under the National Pandemic Strategy and 
Implementation Plan, HHS and DHS share leadership responsibilities for 
pandemic response. In a pandemic, HHS is responsible for areas such as 
the public health response, while DHS is responsible for areas such as 
border security and critical infrastructure protection.[Footnote 35] 
In 2007, we reported that it was unclear from the strategy and plan 
how this shared leadership model would be implemented. In that regard, 
we recommended that HHS and DHS clarify these roles through tests and 
exercises. As we reported in 2011, these tests and exercises had not 
occurred at the start of the H1N1 pandemic and we found that HHS and 
DHS were not able to effectively coordinate their release of 
information to state and local governments. Once it became clear that 
the H1N1 pandemic required primarily a public health response, HHS had 
responsibility for most of the key activities.[Footnote 36] However, 
one expert said that centralized leadership is not always the best 
model, particularly when the collaboration needs to have buy-in from 
more than one agency. By sharing leadership, agencies can convey their 
support for the collaborative effort. 

Top-level Commitment: Influence of leadership can be strengthened by a 
direct relationship with the President, Congress, and/or other high-
level officials. According to a number of former practitioners we 
interviewed, their association with the President, members of 
Congress, or other high-level officials enabled them to influence 
individuals and organizations within the federal government to 
collaborate with one another. As we reported in 2008, Department of 
Energy officials said to us that the fact that the Hydrogen Fuel 
Initiative was a presidential initiative with congressional backing 
helped Hydrogen Fuel Initiative managers garner support from industry 
and within the federal government. Our subsequent work found that the 
Hydrogen Fuel Initiative worked well as an interagency effort for a 
number of years and research and development progressed rapidly. 
However, as one agency official noted, when congressional funding and 
presidential support waned, so did the program.[Footnote 37] In 
developing the interim federal government priority goals required 
under GPRAMA, a majority of the goal leaders designated by OMB are in 
the Executive Office of the President, which provides a direct 
connection to the President. 

Continuity in Leadership: Given the importance of leadership to any 
collaborative effort, transitions and inconsistent leadership can 
weaken the effectiveness of any collaborative mechanism. As we 
illustrate below, lack of continuity is a frequent issue with 
presidential advisors or mechanisms that are tied to the Executive 
Office of the President, particularly when administrations change. As 
we reported in 2011, the future of the presidentially-appointed Food 
Safety Working Group was uncertain. We explained that this uncertainty 
was based on the experience of the former President's Council on Food 
Safety, the predecessor to the Food Safety Working Group, which was 
disbanded less than 3 years after it was created.[Footnote 38] 
According to the Congressional Research Service, presidential advisors-
-who are frequently responsible for collaboration around a singular 
issue--are rarely replaced after they vacate a position, which can 
leave a void in leadership around an issue. Our prior reports have 
identified other cases where leadership changed--or was briefly absent-
-and accordingly, the mechanism either disappeared or became less 
useful. 

Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities: 

Issues to Consider: 
* Have participating agencies clarified the roles and responsibilities 
of the participants? 
* Have participating agencies articulated and agreed to a process for 
making and enforcing decisions? 

Clarity can come from agencies working together to define and agree on 
their respective roles and responsibilities, as well as steps for 
decision making. We reported in 2009, that as part of the Partnership 
for Sustainable Communities, HUD and the Department of Transportation 
started to define and agree on their respective roles and 
responsibilities. As part of this effort, the agencies began to 
clarify who will do what, identified how to organize their joint and 
individual efforts, and articulated steps for decision making. For 
example, the Department of Transportation and HUD planned to give 
responsibility to HUD to administer the Regional Integrated Planning 
Grants program. They also agreed that HUD would assume this 
responsibility in consultation with the Department of Transportation, 
the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies. 
[Footnote 39] 

[Side bar: This key feature is related to the collaboration practices: 
* Define and articulate a common outcome.
* Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies.
* Agree on roles and responsibilities.
Related collaborative mechanisms: Lead agencies; joint budgeting and 
funding; and interagency agreements and memorandum of understanding. 
End of side bar] 

Clarity about roles and responsibilities can be codified through laws, 
policies, memorandum of understanding, or other requirements. For 
example, as we reported in 2012, in enacting the Intelligence Reform 
and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress included a provision 
requiring the Director of National Intelligence to prescribe 
mechanisms to facilitate the rotation of intelligence community 
personnel to other intelligence community elements during their 
careers.[Footnote 40] Amongst other duties, the law requires the 
Director to encourage and facilitate assignments and details of 
personnel to national intelligence centers, and to set standards for 
educating, training, and career development of: 

personnel within the intelligence community.[Footnote 41] Experts 
emphasized that it is helpful to use existing authorities whenever 
possible. 

Participants: 

Issues to Consider: 
* Have all relevant participants been included? 
* Do the participants have: 
- Full knowledge of the relevant resources in their agency? 
- The ability to commit these resources? 
- The ability to regularly attend activities of the collaborative 
mechanism? 
- The appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities to contribute? 
End of side bar] 

It is important to ensure that the relevant participants have been 
included in the collaborative effort. This can include other federal 
agencies, state and local entities, and organizations from the private 
and nonprofit sectors. Experts said that it is helpful when the 
participants in a collaborative mechanism have full knowledge of the 
relevant resources in their agency; the ability to commit these 
resources and make decisions on behalf of the agency; the ability to 
regularly attend all activities of the collaborative mechanism; and 
the knowledge, skills, and abilities to contribute to the outcomes of 
the collaborative effort. 

For example, we reported in 2010 that even when the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency's Long-Term Community Recovery Branch did have the 
right agencies at the table, their efforts were limited when they did 
not have the right staff to resolve policy and program challenges. One 
of the reasons for this challenge was that interagency coordination 
meetings did not always include agency officials with a sufficient 
level of authority to resolve the challenges that the group 
identified.[Footnote 42] In another example, as we reported in 2008, 
to ensure appropriate authority inside each agency for making hydrogen-
related budget and policy decisions during meetings, the Hydrogen and 
Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee recommended in October 2006 
that the participants of the Interagency Working Group be elevated to 
require participation of an assistant secretary or higher. In 
response, the Department of Energy created the: 

Interagency Task Force--a new entity composed of deputy assistant 
secretaries, program directors, and other senior officials.[Footnote 
43] 

Resources: 

Issues to Consider: 
* How will the collaborative mechanism be funded? If interagency 
funding is needed, is it permitted? 
* If interagency funding is needed and permitted, is there a means to 
track funds in a standardized manner? 
* How will the collaborative mechanism be staffed? 
* Are there incentives available to encourage staff or agencies to 
participate? 
* If relevant, do agencies have compatible technological systems? 
* Have participating agencies developed online tools or other 
resources that facilitate joint interactions?. 

Collaborating agencies should identify the human, information 
technology, physical, and financial resources needed to initiate or 
sustain their collaborative effort.[Footnote 44] Many experts have 
emphasized that collaboration can take time and resources in order to 
accomplish such activities as building trust among the participants, 
setting up the ground rules for the process, attending meetings, 
conducting project work, and monitoring and evaluating the results of 
work performed. Consequently, it is important for groups to ensure 
that they identify and leverage sufficient funding to accomplish the 
objectives.[Footnote 45] As noted below, in some instances specific 
congressional authority may be necessary in order to provide for the 
interagency funding of collaborative mechanisms. 

Funding: 

While not all collaborative mechanisms raise funding considerations, 
our work does point to a range of authorities that have been used for 
funding them. The National Defense Authorization Act required VA and 
the Department of Defense (DOD) to establish the Joint Incentive Fund 
[Footnote 46] program to identify and provide incentives for creative 
coordination and sharing initiatives at the facility, regional, and 
national levels.[Footnote 47] To facilitate the incentive program, 
Congress established a U.S. Treasury account to fund the Joint 
Incentive Fund activities and required DOD and VA each to contribute a 
minimum of $15 million each year to the account. This program is 
authorized through September 2015.[Footnote 48] Additionally, as we 
reported in 2011, in the case of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, 
Congress appropriated more than $6 billion in direct and contingent 
funding into an HHS emergency fund in order to prepare for and respond 
to an influenza pandemic.[Footnote 49] This appropriation contained 
authority for the Secretary of HHS to transfer funds to other HHS 
accounts and to other federal agencies, which the Secretary used to 
transfer funds to the Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, State, 
and Agriculture to assist with the response.[Footnote 50] 

[Side bar: This key feature is related to the collaboration practice: 
* Identify and address needs by leveraging resources.
End of side bar] 

In another example, as we reported in 2007, Federal Executive Boards 
(FEBs) are supported by a host agency, usually the agency with the 
greatest number of employees in the region. These host agencies 
provide varying levels of staffing, usually one or two full-time 
positions--an executive director and an executive assistant. Some 
agencies also temporarily detail employees to the FEB staff to assist 
their local boards and to provide developmental opportunities for 
their employees. Additionally, the FEBs are supported by member 
agencies through contribution of funds as well as in-kind support, 
such as office space, personal computers, telephone lines, and 
Internet access.[Footnote 51] We noted in our report that FEBs had 
previously been limited in the methods available to fund operations 
because of the governmentwide restriction against interagency 
financing of boards, commissions, councils, committees, and similar 
groups without statutory approval. Under this restriction, it was 
permissible for one participant agency with a primary interest in the 
success of the interagency venture to pay the entire cost of 
supporting the functions and administration of the group, but it was 
not permissible to support the group through cash and in-kind support 
from participating agencies.[Footnote 52] FEBs were exempted from this 
restriction in 1996, which then permitted the interagency financing 
through member agency contributions of funds and in-kind support. 
[Footnote 53] 

In addition, working capital funds have been used to finance the 
sharing/leveraging of business-like services between agencies. As we 
reported in 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology 
(NIST) serves as the focal point for conducting scientific research 
and developing measurements, standards, and related technologies in 
the federal government.[Footnote 54] In 1950, Congress established 
NIST's working capital fund, giving the agency broad statutory 
authority to use the fund to support any activities NIST is authorized 
to undertake as an agency. NIST's working capital fund is a type of 
intragovernmental revolving fund. These funds--which include 
franchise, supply, and working capital funds--finance business-like 
operations. An intragovernmental revolving fund charges for the sale 
of products or services it provides and uses the proceeds to finance 
its operations. In another example, as we reported in 2011, federal 
customer agencies use the Department of the Census' nationwide polling 
structure, expertise, and address lists, which would otherwise be 
uneconomical for them to replicate on their own.[Footnote 55] For 
example, Census supports HUD's American Housing Survey by gathering 
information on the size and composition of the housing inventory in 
the United States.[Footnote 56] 

Regardless of the funding model used, participating agencies need to 
find compatible methods for tracking funds for accountability. For 
example, the Mérida Initiative is a partnership between the United 
States and Mexico to combat narcotics. As we noted in a December 2009 
report, tracking funds for the Mérida Initiative was difficult because 
each of the three bureaus in the Department of State managing Mérida 
funds had a different method for tracking the money. Each bureau used 
different budgeting terms as well as separate spreadsheets for the 
Mérida funds it administered, and the State Department had no 
consolidated database for these funds.[Footnote 57] 

Staffing: 

[Side bar: Related collaborative mechanisms: Personnel details and 
joint budgeting and funding. 
End of side bar] 

Relying on agencies to participate can present challenges for 
collaborative mechanisms. In cases where staff participation was 
insufficient, collaboration often failed to meet key objectives and 
achieve intended outcomes. According to experts, establishing "win-
win" arrangements, and aligning incentives to reward participation, 
makes individuals and organizations more likely to participate in 
collaborative arrangements, particularly in cases where participation 
is voluntary. In a March 2012 report, we identified a number of 
individual incentives that can be used to bolster participation in 
collaborative efforts, such as: 

* Factoring participation into promotion decisions: Personnel may be 
encouraged to participate in collaborative programs if agencies factor 
interagency experience into their promotion decisions.[Footnote 58] 

* Providing public recognition: In addition to providing incentives 
through performance management systems, agencies can publicly 
acknowledge or reward participants in other ways. For example, 
agencies could confer awards to individuals who exhibit exemplary 
teamwork skills or accomplishments during an interagency rotation. 
[Footnote 59] 

Technology: 

[Side bar: This key feature is related to the collaboration practice: 
* Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to 
operate across agency boundaries. 
Related collaborative mechanism: Collaboration technologies. 
End of side bar] 

We identified a number of technological applications that agencies are 
using to enhance and sustain joint activities. Specifically, agencies 
have developed information-sharing websites, integrated electronic 
reporting processes and procedures, and negotiated data-sharing 
arrangements. For example, the Department of Defense's National Center 
for Medical Intelligence hosts an encrypted information-sharing portal 
called Wildfire that is intended for use by members of the 
Biosurveillance Indications and Warnings Analytic Community, which is 
a self-governing interagency body, composed of federal officials who 
are responsible for pursuing a biosurveillance mission.[Footnote 60] 
Second, we reported in 2012, that HHS, the Department of Education, 
the Department of Justice, and the White House, established a central 
federal website [hyperlink, http://www.stopbullying.gov], which was 
launched in March 2011 at the White House conference on bullying. The 
central website sought to consolidate the content of different federal 
sites into one location to provide free materials to the 
public.[Footnote 61] Third, we reported in 2012, that HHS and VA have 
been working to make their homelessness programs' data systems 
compatible with HUD's as part of their work with the Interagency 
Council on Homelessness.[Footnote 62] 

Written Guidance and Agreements: 

Issues to Consider: 
* If appropriate, have the participating agencies documented their 
agreement regarding how they will be collaborating? A written document 
can incorporate agreements reached in any or all of the following 
areas: 
- Leadership; 
- Accountability; 
- Roles and responsibilities; and; 
- Resources. 
* Have participating agencies developed ways to continually update or 
monitor written agreements? 

[Side bar: This key feature is related to: 
* All of our collaborative practices. 
End of side bar] 

Our prior work found that agencies that articulate their agreements in 
formal documents can strengthen their commitment to working 
collaboratively.[Footnote 63] As we have previously reported, having a 
clear and compelling rationale to work together--such as that 
described above--is a key factor in successful collaborations. 
Agencies can overcome significant differences when such a rationale 
and commitment exist.[Footnote 64] 

Not all collaborative arrangements need to be documented through 
written guidance and agreements, particularly those that are informal. 
However, we have found that at times it can be helpful to document key 
agreements related to the collaboration. One expert we interviewed 
stated that the action of two agencies articulating a common outcome 
and roles and responsibilities into a written document was a powerful 
tool in collaboration. Accordingly, we have recommended many times 
that collaborations would benefit from a formal written agreement, 
such as a memorandum of understanding (MOU). For example, in 2008, we 
recommended that the Chairman of the Council on Environmental Quality, 
working with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, direct 
an interagency task force to identify goals, actions, responsible work 
groups and agencies, and time frames for carrying out the actions 
needed to implement the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, including 
collaborative resource management, and document these through a 
written plan, memorandum of understanding, or other appropriate means. 
[Footnote 65] This recommendation was implemented in January of 2009 
when the Council on Environmental Quality, and other departments 
involved in cooperative conservation, signed an MOU to create a 
framework for collaborative resource management. 

We have also reported that written agreements are most effective when 
they are regularly updated and monitored. For example, we reported in 
2008, that the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Rural 
Development offices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Rural 
Development) entered into an MOU in 2000 that provided an approach to 
collaborate on rural lending activities.[Footnote 66] The MOU expired 
in 2003 and SBA and Rural Development did not appear to have 
implemented the MOU when it was active. We found that the ineffective 
implementation of the MOU had likely contributed to the sporadic and 
limited amount of collaboration that was taking place between the two 
agencies. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and other interested parties. In addition, this report is 
available at no charge on the GAO website at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, 
please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points 
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be 
found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key 
contributions to this report are listed in enclosure IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

J. Christopher Mihm: 
Managing Director, Strategic Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

To identify mechanisms that the federal government uses to lead and 
implement interagency collaboration as well as issues to consider when 
implementing these mechanisms we conducted a literature review of 
academic work, interviewed a number of experts in governmental 
collaboration, and analyzed a sample of our prior work. 

Specifically, we conducted a literature review of scholarly and peer-
reviewed articles, as well as magazine and journal articles. The 
review relied on Internet search databases to identify literature 
published or issued between January 2006, and August 2011. The search 
of the published research databases produced 75 articles. We reviewed 
these articles to further determine the extent to which they were 
relevant to our engagement, that is, whether they discussed approaches 
used by the federal government to lead and implement interagency 
collaboration or provided definitions of collaborative governance or 
interagency collaboration. We found that 24 (32 percent) of these 
documents were relevant to our objectives. Specifically, 11 articles 
discussed mechanisms used by the federal government to lead and 
implement interagency collaboration, 5 articles provided definitions 
of collaborative governance or interagency collaboration, and 8 
articles discussed the benefits and challenges of a specific 
interagency collaborative approach. The remainder of the documents did 
not meet our criteria because they discussed public-private 
partnerships, collaboration between state and local government 
agencies, or collaboration between foreign government agencies. 

To identify experts and practitioners in the field of collaboration, 
we reviewed the bibliographies of 11 articles from our sample of 24 
articles we determined were relevant to our objectives. In addition, 
we identified a number of experts and practitioners who had recently 
published work on governmental collaboration, or who had implemented 
collaborative mechanisms in the federal government. We then 
judgmentally selected a total of 13 experts and practitioners for 
interviews. Specifically, we selected 8 academic experts in the area 
of collaboration based on citations in the research literature, and 
the recommendations of other experts. We selected 5 practitioners 
based on the range and depth of their experience in implementing 
federal collaboration undertakings, and the recommendations of other 
experts. Our list of experts covered a range of academic institutions, 
think tanks, and professional organizations such as the National 
Academy of Public Administration. Below we list the experts and 
practitioners we interviewed: 

Experts and Practitioners Interviewed: 

Robert Agranoff - Professor Emeritus, Indiana University: 

Eugene Bardach - Professor Emeritus, University of California, 
Berkeley: 

G. Edward DeSeve - Former Special Advisor to the President for 
Recovery Implementation: 

Heather Getha-Taylor - Assistant Professor, University of Kansas: 

Dwight Ink - President Emeritus, Institute of Public Administration 
and Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration: 

Frederick Kaiser - Congressional Research Service (retired): 

John Koskinen - Former Deputy Director for Management of the Office of 
Management and Budget and Chair of the President's Council on Year 
2000 Conversion: 

Janine O'Flynn - Associate Professor, Australian National University: 

Rosemary O'Leary - Professor, Syracuse University: 

Stephen Page - Associate Professor, University of Washington: 

Barbara Romzek - Professor, University of Kansas: 

Ronald Sanders - Former Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of the 
Director of National Intelligence: 

Thomas Stanton - Member of the Board of Directors, National Academy of 
Public Administration, and Fellow of the Center for the Study of 
American Government at Johns Hopkins University: 

We conducted in-depth interviews with each expert using a standard set 
of questions. We asked them to comment on a draft list of mechanisms 
and discussed key issues to consider in implementing collaborative 
mechanisms. We supplemented the information we received during the 
interview with information that had been published by the experts. We 
also met with staff from the Congressional Research Service, who have 
studied presidential advisors. 

Additionally, we conducted an analysis of our prior reports that 
addressed collaborative mechanisms and key implementation issues. To 
do this we first selected a judgmental sample of reports that were 
published between January 2005 and August 2011 that contained detailed 
information regarding collaborative mechanisms. During this search, we 
identified over 200 reports. In order to reduce the size of the 
sample, we selected reports that met two or more of the following 
criteria: 

* discussed collaboration between more than one federal department, 

* included a mechanism for collaboration, and: 

* provided an in-depth discussion of the collaborative mechanism. 

To make our final selection, we identified reports that we generally 
agreed met the criteria and reached agreement over selection of 
reports when there was disagreement. To refine the sample and ensure 
that we covered collaboration across the federal government, we 
divided the reports by topic area, and selected reports to ensure that 
each area was covered. The reports fell into the topic areas listed in 
table 1: 

Table 1: Topic Areas Covered in Report Sample: 

International Affairs; 
National Defense; 
Homeland Security: 
Government Operations; 
Science, Space, and Technology; 
Justice and Law Enforcement;
Health; 
Veterans Affairs; 
Natural Resources; 
Information Management;
Agriculture and Food; 
Financial Management;
Environmental Protection; 
Transportation;
Energy; 
Economic Development;
Housing; 
Business, Industry, and Consumers;
Income Security; 
Education;
Social Services. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

We assessed the depth of each report's discussion on collaborative 
mechanisms, and constructed a sample to ensure representation of the 
range of categories above and mechanism types. In total, we selected 
36 reports that met our criteria. 

To identify our final list of collaborative mechanisms, we reviewed 
the 36 reports in our sample to identify all of the mechanisms, and 
variations of the mechanisms, that were included. We then organized 
and grouped the mechanisms according to the main types that we found 
in our review. For example, we identified three distinct mechanisms 
that involved positions and personnel details, including interagency 
collaborator positions, liaisons, and personnel details between 
agencies. Our goal was to identify and understand the major mechanisms 
that have been reported in academic literature and our prior work that 
have examined interagency collaboration. As a result, we did not 
attempt to identify all possible collaborative mechanisms. After 
developing a draft list of mechanisms, we shared it with our 
collaboration experts and practitioners to gather their feedback and 
identify any additional mechanisms, as discussed above. Five experts 
agreed that our list of mechanisms was complete, and we made a number 
of technical changes to the list based on the feedback we received. 

This engagement had two phases, which required some updating of the 
sample to include more recent reports. As a result, we used the GAO 
database to find an additional 100 reports, which were published 
between August 2011 and June 2012. This brought the total number of 
reports in our sample to 300. Through this process, we selected an 
additional 9 reports of the 100, which brought the total number of 
reports we reviewed to 45. We did not add any mechanisms or key 
features to the list as a result of this judgmental sample. We relied 
on this sample to supplement the analysis of key issues to consider in 
implementing the interagency collaborative mechanisms. 

To identify the purposes for which collaborative mechanisms can be 
used, we reviewed our sample of academic literature, discussed the 
purposes of interagency collaboration in our interviews with experts, 
and analyzed our judgmental sample of prior work. We found that 
academic experts and practitioners have used a variety of methods to 
categorize the purposes of collaborative mechanisms. The purposes we 
identified in our analysis are supported by a number of experts and 
our prior work. 

To identify the categories of the issues for consideration, we 
identified issues that had been raised in expert interviews and the 
reports that we reviewed. We selected and organized the issues into 
the key features that we present in this report based on factors such 
as the number of times issues were raised, the importance experts 
attached to issues, and the evidence of their importance that we found 
in prior GAO work. Additionally, where possible, we looked for areas 
where there was overlap between the issues that we identified and the 
practices that we identified in GAO-06-15. While we have generally 
found that when agencies address as many of these issues as possible 
it leads to more effective implementation of the collaborative 
mechanisms, we also recognize that there is a wide range of situations 
and circumstances in which agencies work together. Consequently, in 
some cases, addressing a few selected issues may be sufficient for 
effective collaboration. 

We conducted our work from July 2011 to September 2012 in accordance 
with all sections of GAO's Quality Assurance Framework that are 
relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and 
perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence 
to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our 
work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the 
analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and 
conclusions in this report. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Key Collaboration Practices: 

October 2005: 

Results-Oriented Government: 

Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal 
Agencies: 

GAO-06-15: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-15, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the 
District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The federal government faces a series of challenges in the 21st century 
that will be difficult, if not impossible, for any single agency to 
address alone. Many issues cut across more than one agency and their 
actions are not well coordinated. Moreover, agencies face a range of 
barriers when they attempt to work collaboratively. 

This report identifies key practices that can help enhance and sustain 
agency collaboration. GAO also considered how the Government 
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) address collaboration among agencies. To illustrate these 
practices, we selected the Healthy People, wildland fire management, 
and Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense’s health resource 
sharing collaborations. 

What GAO Found: 

Collaboration can be broadly defined as any joint activity that is 
intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the 
organizations act alone. Agencies can enhance and sustain their 
collaborative efforts by engaging in the eight practices identified 
below. Running throughout these practices are a number of factors such 
as leadership, trust, and organizational culture that are necessary 
elements for a collaborative working relationship: 

* define and articulate a common outcome;
* establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; 
* identify and address needs by leveraging resources;
* agree on roles and responsibilities; 
* establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate 
across agency boundaries;
* develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; 
* reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through 
agency plans and reports; and
* reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts through 
performance management systems. 

GAO has previously reported that GPRA, with its focus on strategic 
planning, the development of long-term goals, and accountability for 
results, provides a framework Congress, OMB, and executive branch 
agencies can use to consider the appropriate mix of long-term strategic 
goals and strategies needed to identify and address issues that cut 
across agency boundaries. In addition, to provide a broader perspective 
on the federal government’s goals and strategies to address issues that 
cut across agencies, we previously recommended that (1) OMB develop a 
governmentwide performance plan as required by GPRA and (2) Congress 
consider amending GPRA to require a governmentwide strategic plan. 

OMB, through the PMA, has emphasized improving government performance 
through governmentwide and agency-specific initiatives. One of these 
focuses specifically on improving coordination, but only between the 
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense for health programs and 
systems. However, many other areas that cut across agency boundaries 
would benefit from greater OMB focus and attention, including 
information sharing for homeland security, which GAO recently 
designated as a high-risk area. OMB has also used its PART diagnostic 
tool to determine, among other things, whether individual programs 
duplicate other efforts and if agencies coordinate and collaborate 
effectively with related programs. The PART tool provides general 
guidance for assessing effective program coordination and 
collaboration, but does not discuss practices for enhancing and 
sustaining collaboration, such as those described and illustrated in 
this report. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Director of OMB focus on additional programs in 
need of collaboration and promote the practices in this report. Options 
include expanding the focus on collaboration in the President’s 
Management Agenda (PMA) and supplementing the Program Assessment Rating 
Tool (PART) guidance with information about these practices. OMB agreed 
with this recommendation. Agencies involved in the collaborations 
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at 
(202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Key Issues to Consider for Implementing Interagency 
Collaborative Mechanisms: 

Outcomes and Accountability: 

* Have short-term and long-term outcomes been clearly defined? 

* Is there a way to track and monitor progress toward the short-term 
and long-term outcomes? 

* Do participating agencies have collaboration-related competencies or 
performance standards against which individual performance can be 
evaluated? 

* Do participating agencies have the means to recognize and reward 
accomplishments related to collaboration? 

Bridging Organizational Cultures: 

* What are the missions and organizational cultures of the 
participating agencies? 

* What are the commonalities between the participating agencies' 
missions and cultures and what are some potential challenges? 

* Have participating agencies developed ways for operating across 
agency boundaries? 

* Have participating agencies agreed on common terminology and 
definitions? 

Leadership: 

* Has a lead agency or individual been identified? 

* If leadership will be shared between one or more agencies, have 
roles and responsibilities been clearly identified and agreed upon? 

* How will leadership be sustained over the long-term? 

Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities: 

* Have participating agencies clarified the roles and responsibilities 
of the participants? 

* Have participating agencies articulated and agreed to a process for 
making and enforcing decisions? 

Participants: 

* Have all relevant participants been included? 

* Do the participants have: 

- Full knowledge of the relevant resources in their agency? 

- The ability to commit these resources? 

- The ability to regularly attend activities of the collaborative 
mechanism? 

- The appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities to contribute? 

Resources: 

* How will the collaborative mechanism be funded? If interagency 
funding is needed, is it permitted? 

* If interagency funding is needed and permitted, is there a means to 
track funds in a standardized manner? 

* How will the collaborative mechanism be staffed? 

* Are there incentives available to encourage staff or agencies to 
participate? 

* If relevant, do agencies have compatible technological systems? 

* Have participating agencies developed online tools or other 
resources that facilitate joint interactions? 

Written Guidance and Agreements: 

* If appropriate, have the participating agencies documented their 
agreement regarding how they will be collaborating? A written document 
can incorporate agreements reached in any or all of the following 
areas: 

- Leadership; 

- Accountability; 

- Roles and responsibilities; and: 

- Resources. 

* Have participating agencies developed ways to continually update or 
monitor written agreements? 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant 
Director, and Mallory Barg Bulman, Analyst-in-Charge, supervised the 
development of this report. Peter Beck, Martin De Alteriis, Don 
Kiggins, and Jasmin Paikattu made significant contributions to all 
aspects of this report. Karin Fangman provided legal counsel. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Managing for Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation 
Provides Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-617T] (Washington, 
D.C.: May 10, 2011). 

[2] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). GPRAMA amends 
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-
62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

[3] GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, 
Overlap, Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP] (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential 
Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance 
Revenue, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-318SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011). 

[4] 31 U.S.C. § 1120(a)(1). 

[5] 31 U.S.C. § 1115(a). 

[6] GAO, Managing for Results: GAO's Work Related to the Interim 
Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620R]. (Washington, 
D.C.: May 31, 2012). 

[7] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance 
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620R]. 

[9] Presidential Science and Technology Advisory Organization Act of 
1976, Pub. L. No. 94-282, title II, 90 Stat. 459. 463-68 (May 11, 
1976). 42 U.S.C. § 6614(a). 

[10] GAO, Disaster Recovery: FEMA's Long-term Assistance Was Helpful 
to State and Local Governments but Had Some Limitations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-404] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 
2010). 

[11] Pub. L. No. 108-447, Division J, title VIII, 118 Stat. 2809, 3377-
3393 (Dec. 8, 2004). 

[12] GAO, Recreation Fees: Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal 
Lands Recreation Enhancement Act and Account for Fee Revenues, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1016] (Washington, 
D.C.: Sept. 22, 2006). 

[13] GAO, Maritime Security: National Strategy and Supporting Plans 
Were Generally Well-Developed and Are Being Implemented, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-672] (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 
2008). 

[14] GAO, Intellectual Property: Federal Enforcement Has Generally 
Increased, but Assessing Performance Could Strengthen Law Enforcement 
Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-157] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar.11, 2008); and Intellectual Property: Agencies 
Progress in Implementing Legislation, but Enhancements Could Improve 
Future Plans, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-39] 
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 13, 2010). 

[15] GAO, Combating Gangs: Better Coordination and Performance 
Measurement Would Help Clarify Roles of Federal Agencies and 
Strengthen Assessment of Efforts, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-708] (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 
2009). 

[16] GAO, National Security: An Overview of Professional Development 
Activities Intended to Improve Interagency Collaboration, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-108] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 
2010). 

[17] GAO, Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel Rotation 
Programs Can Build on Positive Results with Additional Preparation and 
Evaluation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-386] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2012). 

[18] GAO, Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National 
Priorities and Better Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-317] (Washington, D.C.: 
May 20, 2011). 

[19] In March 2011, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy 
joined the Domestic Policy Council. 

[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-317]. 

[21] Pub. L. No. 101-606 (1990). For more information about the U.S. 
Global Change Research Program, see [hyperlink, 
http://www.globalchange.gov/]. (Accessed September, 2012). 

[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[23] GAO, Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance 
Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and 
Improve Natural Resource Conditions, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-262] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 
2008). 

[24] GAO, Veteran Homelessness: VA and HUD Are Working to Improve Data 
on Supportive Housing Program, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-726] (Washington, D.C: June 26, 
2012). 

[25] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620R]. 

[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-386]. 

[28] Foreign Service terminology for competencies are "precepts," 
which according to Department of State's documentation, define "the 
specific skills to be considered and the level of accomplishment 
expected at different grades." 

[29] GAO, Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits From Selected 
Agencies' Use of Performance Agreements, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-115] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 
2000). 

[30] GAO, Homelessness: Fragmentation and Overlap in Programs 
Highlight the Need to Identify, Assess, and Reduce Inefficiencies, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-491] (Washington, D.C.: 
May 10, 2012). 

[31] GAO, Influenza Pandemic: Lessons from the H1N1 Pandemic Should Be 
Incorporated into Future Planning, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-632] (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 
2011). 

[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[33] The livestock industry, which contributes over $100 billion 
annually to the national economy, is vulnerable to foreign animal 
diseases that, if introduced in the United States, could cause severe 
economic losses. To protect against such losses, critical research and 
diagnostic activities are conducted at Plum Island in New York. USDA 
was responsible for Plum Island until June 2003, when provisions of 
the Homeland Security Act of 2002 transferred the facility to DHS. 
Under an interagency agreement, USDA continues to work on foreign 
animal diseases at the island. 

[34] GAO, Plum Island Animal Disease Center: DHS and USDA Are 
Successfully Coordinating Current Work, but Long-Term Plans Are Being 
Assessed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-132] 
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2005). 

[35] GAO, Influenza Pandemic: Further Efforts Are Needed to Ensure 
Clearer Federal Leadership Roles and an Effective National Strategy, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-781] (Washington, D.C.: 
Aug. 14, 2007). 

[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-632]. 

[37] GAO, Hydrogen Fuel Initiative: DOE Has Made Important Progress 
and Involved Stakeholders but Needs to Update What It Expects to 
Achieve by Its 2015 Target, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-305] (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 
2008). 

[38] GAO, Federal Food Safety Oversight: Food Safety Working Group Is 
a Positive First Step but Governmentwide Planning Is Needed to Address 
Fragmentation, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-289] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 2011). 

[39] GAO, Affordable Housing in Transit-Oriented Development: Key 
Practices Could Enhance Recent Collaboration Efforts between DOT-FTA 
and HUD, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-871] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009). 

[40] For purposes of this report, references to the intelligence 
community elements include the Office of the Under Secretary of 
Defense for Intelligence, the Defense Security Service, and other 
intelligence community components, which are subject to the Joint Duty 
Program requirement. Although the Defense Security Service is 
technically not part of the intelligence community, it is also 
included in our scope because Defense Security Service civilian 
personnel fall under the Under Secretary for Defense for Intelligence 
and are subject to the Joint Duty Program requirement. 

[41] Pub. L. No. 108-458, § 1011, 118 Stat. 3638, 3644-55 (Dec. 17, 
2004) (amending § 102A of the National Security Act of 1947, as 
codified at 50 U.S.C. § 403-1). GAO, Intelligence Community Personnel: 
Strategic Approach and Training Requirements Needed to Guide Joint 
Duty Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-679] 
(Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2012). 

[42] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-404]. 

[43] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-305]. 

[44] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[45] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-262]. 

[46] Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2003, Pub. L. No. 107-314, § 721, 116 Stat. 2458, 2589-95 (Dec. 2, 
2002), required VA and DOD to establish a joint incentive program, 
which is administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs-Department 
of Defense Joint Executive Committee, under procedures jointly 
prescribed by the two Secretaries. VA and DOD refer to this as the 
Joint Incentive Fund program. 

[47] GAO, VA and DOD Health Care: Opportunities to Maximize Resource 
Sharing Remain, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-315] 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2006). 

[48] See, 38 U.S.C. § 8111(d). 

[49] Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-32, 123 
Stat. 1859, 1884-86 (June 24, 2009). 

[50] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-632]. 

[51] GAO, The Federal Workforce: Additional Steps Needed to Take 
Advantage of Federal Executive Boards' Ability to Contribute to 
Emergency Operations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-515] (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 
2007). 

[52] 65 Comp. Gen. 689 (1986) and 67 Comp. Gen. 27 (1987). 

[53] Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 
613, 110 Stat. 3009, 3009-356 (1996). 

[54] GAO, Intergovernmental Revolving Funds: NIST's Interagency 
Agreements and Workload Require Management Attention, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-41] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 
2010). 

[55] GAO, Intragovernmental Revolving Funds: Commerce Departmental and 
Census Working Capital Funds Should Better Reflect Key Operating 
Principles, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-56] 
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2011). 

[56] Federal agencies are prohibited by law from transferring funds 
from one agency to another, unless otherwise authorized by law. The 
Economy Act of 1932 authorizes a federal agency to provide goods or 
services to another federal agency and generally provides authority 
for federal agencies to enter into intragovernmental transactions when 
no other, more specific, authority applies. However, the Economy Act 
restricts flexibility by requiring the client agency to deobligate 
fiscal year funds at the end of the period of availability to the 
extent that these funds have not been obligated by the performing 
agency. 

[57] GAO, Status of Funds for the Mérida Initiative, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-253R] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 3, 
2009). 

[58] The Interagency Personnel Rotation Act of 2011, pending before 
the Senate and House, would encourage interagency rotations by 
requiring interagency experience for national security and homeland 
security personnel prior to promotion to certain senior positions. The 
purpose of this act is to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of 
the government by fostering greater interagency experience among 
executive branch personnel on national security and homeland security 
matters involving more than one agency. See S. 1268 and H.R. 2314. 

[59] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-386]. 

[60] GAO, Biosurveillance: Developing a Collaboration Strategy Is 
Essential to Fostering Interagency Data and Resource Sharing, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-171] (Washington, D.C.: 
Dec. 18, 2009). 

[61] GAO, School Bullying: Extent of Legal Protections for Vulnerable 
Groups Needs to Be More Fully Assessed, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-349] (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 
2012). 

[62] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-491]. 

[63] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15]. 

[64] GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation: Collaborative Efforts 
with European Union Generally Mirror Effective Practices, but Near-
Term Challenges Could Delay Implementation, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-48] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 3, 
2011). 

[65] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-262]. 

[66] GAO, Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and 
USDA Could Be Improved, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1123] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 
2008). 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

[End of document] 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, DC 20548.