# Presentation: 777135

## GSA OGP Advisory Committee Engagement SurveyACES 2004Overall Results October 14, 2004

## Background

**Assist committees/agencies in establishing and using performance measures (GPRA, President’s Management Agenda, PART). **
**Participation in ACES 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.**
**Provide GSA OGP, your agency, and your committee with a standardized method for collecting performance measurement data related to committee engagement and satisfaction.**

## Background

**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 **
**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 - 2004

**Survey Population: **
**Federal Advisory Board Committee Members, CMOs, and DFOs**
**Data Collection Methodology: **
**WEB **
**Survey Instrument:**
**22 items (5-point agreement scale)**
**3 demographics**
**1 open-ended item for additional comments**
**Field Period: **
**July/August 2004**
**Reminder e-mails**
**CMO & DFO involvement in communication**

## Methodology - 2004

**Total Completes:  **
**n=933**
**Agency Participation:  9 (5+ respondents)**
**Range: 5 – 258 respondents**
**Committee Participation:  81 (5+ respondents)   **
**	****(85 Committees Total)                                                         **
**Range:  5 – 43 Respondents**
**Respondent Classification**
**Committee Member: n=819**
**Former Committee Member: n=42**
**Designated Federal Official (DFO):  n=47**
**Decision Maker (DM):  n=18**
**Governmentwide Response Rate:**
**52.50%**
**Range of Committee Response Rates: 23% - 100%**

## Summary2004 Overall Engagement and Satisfaction  Results

## Summary - 2004

**Overall, advisory committee members and staff are highly engaged**
**Engagement government-wide has increased since the previous survey period (4.16 vs. 3.98)**
**There is a range of Engagement scores according to committee function:**
**Grant Review (n=78):****	****	****	****	****4.28**
**Non-scientific Program Advisory Boards (n=304):****	****4.18**
**National Policy Issues Advisory Boards (n=180):****	****	****3.98**
**Scientific Technical Program Advisory Boards (n=332):****	****4.42**
**There has been an increase in scores across all 22 attributes measured (3.62 – 4.56)**

## Summary - 2004

**The lowest scoring items are centered around feedback and communication:**
**Our committee receives sufficient feedback from the agency on our recommendations or other contributions (3.62 vs. 3.43)**
**Our committee’s recommendations or other contributions have a positive impact on the public and/or external stakeholders (3.72 vs. 3.54)**
**Our committee meets the right amount to accomplish its work (3.85 vs. 3.65)**
**Our committee has access to adequate resources (3.98 vs. 3.84)**

## Summary - 2004

**The highest scoring items are centered around committee management and preparedness:**
**If given the opportunity, I would choose to work with this committee again (4.21 vs. 3.98)**
**Our committee’s staff is well-prepared for meetings (4.50 vs. 4.40)**
**Our committee meetings are well-run (4.50 vs. 4.29) **
**Our committee’s operating procedures and guidelines are fair (4.48 vs. 4.30)**
**The results of our committee’s work are available to others as needed (4.42 vs. 4.22)**

## Summary - 2004

**There has been a meaningful increase in scores in 9 of the attributes measured:**
**Overall, I am satisfied with the work of this committee (4.21 vs. 3.98)**
**Our committee members are well-prepared for meetings (4.08 vs. 3.86)**
**Our committee meetings are well-run (4.50 vs. 4.29)**
**Our committee meets the right amount to accomplish its work (3.85 vs. 3.65)**
**Our committee communicates effectively with senior managers and, if needed, external stakeholders (4.11 vs. 3.86)**
**The results of our committee’s work are available to others as needed (4.42 vs. 4.22)**
**Thanks to our committee, the agency is more effective (4.03 vs. 3.82)**
**Our committee’s work helps to build trust in government (4.09 vs. 3.88)**
**Our committee is a positive influence within its area of expertise (4.43 vs. 4.22)**

## 2004 ACES Results

*** ******Government-wide Strengths***
***and***
***Priorities for improvement***

## Importance-Performance Leverage Analysis Results - 2004

**Government-Wide Strengths:**
**Our committee meetings are well-run.**
**Our committee’s operating procedures and guidelines are fair.**
**Our committee is a positive influence within its area of expertise.**
**Our committee’s ****recommendations or other contributions are responding to the agency’s needs.**
**Our committee communicates effectively with senior managers and, if needed, with external stakeholders.**** **

## Importance-Performance Leverage Analysis Results - 2004

**Government-Wide Opportunities for Improvement:**
**Our committee receives sufficient feedback from the agency on our recommendations or other contributions.**** **
**Our committee’s recommendations or other contributions are used effectively.**
**Thanks to our committee, the agency is more effective.**** **
**Our committee’s recommendations or other contributions have a positive impact on the public and/or external stakeholders.**
**Our committee’s work helps to build trust in government.**

## Best Practices Summary

**Key findings:**
**Strong, solid leadership**
**Agenda and pre-meeting materials**
**One point of contact**
**Properly prepared guest speakers**
**Constant communication and feedback with external stakeholders**
**Communication between meetings**
**Relationships**
**Mentor programs/Pairing**
**Right mix of individuals and carefully planned turnover**
**Staff interaction/participation with committee members**
**Agency/Department director present at every meeting**
**Updates and feedback throughout year**

## Next Steps

**“****Best Practices” study**
**11 Committees identified**
**Top 10% of all committees interviewed (GrandMean Score) **
**GrandMean: >4.50**
**Currently in the field **
**50-80 completes expected**
**1 Government-wide training session planned**
**80 participants expected**
**Thursday, October 14****th**** (9:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.)**
**3 Agency presentations planned**
**EPA**
**VA**
**DHS **
**Debrief session**

## ACES – 2005 and Beyond

**GSA will work with Agencies to determine**
**Agency participation levels **
**Frequency and Timing of Survey**
**Evaluation of costs**
**Likely Outcome**
**Beginning in January 2006, we anticipate that the ACES will be conducted annually for one third of the Participating Committees.  GSA will explore mechanisms to subsidize some of the survey costs.**
**Participation in the ACES is open to all Committees in any given year, if they desire.**