Background

In 2005, we reported on key practices to enhance and sustain  interagency collaboration. 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 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).

	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.
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. 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.
Pub. L. No. 108-447, Division J, title VIII, 118 Stat. 2809, 3377-3393 (Dec. 8, 2004). 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.
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.
GAO, Intellectual Property: Federal Enforcement Has Generally Increased, but  Assessing Performance Could Strengthen Law Enforcement Efforts, GAO-08-157  (Washington, D.C.: Mar.11, 2008); and Intellectual Property: Agencies Progress in  Implementing Legislation, but Enhancements Could Improve Future Plans, GAO-11-39  (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 13, 2010). 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.
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.

		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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

	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.

		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?
Organizational Outcomes and Accountability: As we reported in 2008,  we interviewed experts in collaborative resource management. 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.
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   Agencies’ priority goals—and agency involvement in  improvement. federal government priority goals—provide additional opportunities to  articulate the goals of collaborative efforts.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   Specifically, the competencies now identify knowledge  on collaboration. of other agencies and interagency cooperation among the skill sets to be  assessed.increased interest in foreign policy advisor assignments, demonstrated by  the increase in the number of applicants to the program in recent years.
Agency officials said that this change, in part, resulted in  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. 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

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.
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. 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.
GAO, Influenza Pandemic: Lessons from the H1N1 Pandemic Should Be Incorporated  into Future Planning, GAO-11-632 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2011).
Frequent communication among collaborating agencies is another way to  facilitate working across agency boundaries to prevent  misunderstanding. 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.  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.

		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?
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. 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.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.
However, one expert said  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. 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. 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

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?
GAO, Federal Food Safety Oversight: Food Safety Working Group Is a Positive First  Step but Governmentwide Planning Is Needed to Address Fragmentation, GAO-11-289  (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 2011).
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.
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. personnel within the intelligence community.is helpful to use existing authorities whenever possible.

		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?
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.

		Resources

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.
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
Have participating agencies developed online tools or other resources  participate?  If relevant, do agencies have compatible technological systems?  that facilitate joint interactions?
Collaborating agencies should identify the human, information  technology, physical, and financial resources needed to initiate or sustain  their collaborative effort. 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. As noted below, in some  instances specific congressional authority may be necessary in order to  provide for the interagency funding of collaborative mechanisms.
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  program to identify and provide incentives for creative coordination and  sharing initiatives at the facility, regional, and national levels. 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. 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. 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.
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. 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. FEBs were exempted from this restriction in 1996, which then  permitted the interagency financing through member agency contributions  of funds and in-kind support.
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. 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. 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.
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.
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.
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.
GAO-12-386.
GAO, Biosurveillance: Developing a Collaboration Strategy Is Essential to Fostering  Interagency Data and Resource Sharing, GAO-10-171 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 2009). data systems compatible with HUD’s as part of their work with the  Interagency Council on Homelessness.

		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?
Our prior work found that agencies that articulate their agreements in  formal documents can strengthen their commitment to working  collaboratively. 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.
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. 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   The MOU expired in 2003 and  collaborate on rural lending activities. 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.
GAO, Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and USDA Could Be  Improved, GAO-08-1123 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2008).
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 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.

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.

	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:  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.

Appendix II: Key Collaboration Practices

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:
Roles and responsibilities; and
Resources.
Have participating agencies developed ways to continually update or  monitor written agreements?

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	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.

Summary:
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?