# Presentation: 411392

## GSA OGP Advisory Committee Engagement SurveyACES 2004Overall Results March 25, 2004

## Background

**Assist committees/agencies in establishing and using performance measures (GPRA, President’s Management Agenda, PART)**
**Pre-survey process:**
**Needs assessment**
**Focus groups**
**Provide GSA OGP with a standardized method for collecting performance measurement data related to committee engagement**

## Background

**The data collected will be rolled up for OGP and Federal agencies to use in order for them to determine the effectiveness of their committees and, most importantly, the relative attention paid to those factors leading to successful committee outcomes**
**An important outcome of the survey process consists of comparisons between committees**
**ACES provides an objective assessment based upon feedback from your committee members and staff, helping you fine-tune your management approaches **
**Participation in ACES also fulfills requirements contained in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) relating to the development of performance measures**

## Background

**Individual, Agency-wide, and Governmentwide reports providing an accurate comparison between your committee’s results and the results of all other committees**** **
**A consistent “apples to apples” performance measurement system that measures progress over the short and long term**
**Clarity around the true dimensions of an “engaged committee”**
**Increased dialogue between committee members, staff, and senior executives based on objective feedback on how to increase engagement and improve performance relative to mission**
**Opportunities to network with each other and share best practices for successful committee outcomes**

## Methodology - 2003

**Survey Population: **
**Federal Advisory Board Committee Members, CMOs, and DFOs**
**Data Collection Methodology: **
**WEB **
**Survey Instrument:**
**22 items (5-point agreement scale)**
**3 demographics**
**Field Period: **
**December 13, 2002 –  January 22, 2003**
**Reminder e-mails: 4**
**12/18/02, 01/06/03, 01/13/03, 01/20/03 **

## Methodology - 2003

**Total Completes:  **
**n=4,809**
**Agency Participation:  29 (5+ respondents)**
**Range: 5 – 1,320 respondents**
**Mean participation:  166 respondents per agency**
**Committee Participation:  365 (5+ respondents)   **
**	****(470 Committees Total)                                                         **
**Range:  5 – 189 members**
**Mean participation:  12 respondents per committee**
**Respondent Classification**
**Committee Member: n=4,447**
**Designated Federal Official (DFO):  n=100**
**Decision Maker (DM):  n=100**
**Governmentwide Response Rate:**
**48.68%**

## Methodology - 2003

**Basic “Best Practices” study**
**Interviewed 40 DFO’s from high-scoring committees**
**3 Government-wide training sessions held **
**Approximately 250 DFOs, CMOs, Agency representatives, and committee members in attendence**
**Several independent committee and agency presentations**
**Debrief session**

## 2003 Overall Engagement and Satisfaction  Results

## Dispersion of Overall Mean Score Across Committees

**Committee Range^: 2.21 – 4.77**

- ^  n=365 Committees with 5+ respondents.

## Q01. Overall, I am satisfied with the work of this committee.

**Q01. Overall, I am satisfied with the work of this committee.**

**(n=4,464)**

**Mean:  3.98**

- ^  n=365 Committees with 5+ respondents.

**Committee Range^: 1.80 – 5.00**

## Dispersion of Q1 Mean Scores Across Committees

## 2003 SES Results

***Strengths***
***and***
***Priorities for improvement***

## Importance-Performance Leverage Analysis Results - 2003

**Government-Wide Strengths:**
**Our committee is a positive influence within its area of expertise.**
**The mission and goals of this committee are clearly defined.**
**Our committee’s recommendations or other contributions are responding to the agency’s needs.**
**If given the opportunity, I would choose to work with this committee again.**
**Our committee meetings are well-run.**
**Our committee’s operating procedures and guidelines are fair.**

## Importance-Performance Leverage Analysis Results - 2003

**Government-Wide Priorities for Improvement:**
**Thanks to our committee, the agency is more effective.**
**Our committee’s work helps to build trust in government.**
**Our committee’s recommendations or other contributions have a positive impact on the public and/or external stakeholders.**
**Our committee communicates effectively with senior managers and, if needed, with external stakeholders.**
**Our committee’s recommendations or other contributions are used effectively.**

## Conclusions - 2003

**Overall advisory committee members and Feds appear highly engaged**
**The longer people are associated with them the better they feel about their involvement**
**The more they participate the more engaged they are**
**Despite this........some boards are clearly in trouble and need intervention**
**All committees could improve in the area of communication and the usability of recommendations**
**There is really good news here!**

## Next Steps 2004

## Next Steps 2004