NATIONAL 

SECURITY 

PERSONNEL

Committed 

Leadership Is Needed 

for Implementation of 

Interagency Rotation 

Program

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2015

GAO-16-57

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-16-57, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2015

NATIONAL SECURITY PERSONNEL

Committed Leadership Is Needed for Implementation 

of Interagency Rotation Program

Why GAO Did This Study

Complex national security 

challenges—including nuclear 

proliferation and terrorist attacks—

require a federal government 

workforce that can collaborate 

effectively across agency lines.

Congress established the section 1107 

Interagency Rotation Program in which 

national security personnel could be 

assigned to work at another agency for 

professional development purposes 

and to enhance the government’s 

ability to collaborate and respond 

effectively to such challenges. Section 

1107 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 

included a provision for GAO to review 

the program. This report provides an 

assessment of the extent to which 

actions have been taken to establish 

and implement the Interagency 

Rotation Program, as required by law.

GAO analyzed actions taken by the 

Committee and assessed its Strategy

against 17 statutory requirements; 

reviewed other supporting 

documentation; and interviewed OPM, 

OMB, and Departments of Defense, 

State, and Homeland Security officials 

on the status of the program.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OPM, in 

collaboration with the Committee, 

establish a clear leadership and 

oversight structure to guide

implementation of the Interagency 

Rotation Program and work with the 

departments and agencies to identify 

and take action on necessary next 

steps for implementation. OPM 

generally concurred with the 

recommendations, but raised issues 

primarily about the roles and 

responsibilities that GAO addresses in 

the report.

What GAO Found

As required by section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 

for Fiscal Year 2013, the Committee on National Security Personnel (Committee)

has taken steps to establish the Interagency Rotation Program for national 

security personnel, including developing a National Security Human Capital 

Strategy (Strategy). However, implementation of the program has languished and 

no personnel have participated in the program as of September 2015. 

The Committee was established within the Executive Office of the President and

consists of representatives from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 

Office of Management and Budget, the Assistant to the President for National 

Security Affairs, and the Departments of Defense, State, and Homeland Security. 

The Committee issued the Strategy in March 2014, which addresses 13 of the 17 

statutory requirements. For instance, the Strategy discusses, among other 

things, training and education requirements, prerequisites or requirements for 

participation, and performance measures to be used for personnel participating in 

the program. The Strategy also partially addresses 2 requirements, but does not 

address 2 other requirements, including providing that, at a minimum, 20 

employees would participate in the section 1107 program in each of the first 4 

fiscal years after the NDAA was enacted. GAO had no basis to assess 2 

additional requirements, also related to the program’s implementation and 

reporting on performance measures, because these requirements are contingent 

on actions that had not yet occurred.

Implementing the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program has languished

because there has been limited leadership and oversight of the program, 

including necessary actions to be taken by the departments, agencies, and other 

organizations to complete their assigned roles, responsibilities, and tasks. The 

Strategy and other documents specifically assign roles, responsibilities, and 

tasks to the Committee on National Security Personnel, OPM, the Communities 

of Practice, and the participating departments and agencies. For instance, OPM 

is tasked with issuing guidance on the rights and responsibilities of employees 

returning from rotational service, but OPM officials told GAO that they have not 

done so and could not give timeframes for completion. Similarly, participating 

departments and agencies are tasked with identifying particular positions and 

personnel for rotations, but they have not used the procedures laid out in the 

Strategy because officials said they needed further guidance from OPM. OPM 

officials stated that the departments and agencies do not need further guidance 

from them to proceed with their assigned roles, responsibilities, and tasks. 

Importantly, the Strategy specifically identifies that the Committee will work with 

OPM to implement the Strategy. Further, officials that GAO interviewed stated 

they perceive that OPM is the lead for the program. Officials also noted that 

differing opinions about next steps have resulted in action not being taken on 

some assigned roles, responsibilities, and tasks, including the issuance of 

guidance. Without a clear leadership and oversight structure for the section 1107

program and efforts to identify and take action on next steps for implementation, 

it is unlikely that implementation of the program will move forward.

View GAO-16-57. For more information, 

contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or 

farrellb@gao.gov
Page i GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Letter 1

Background 4

Committee on National Security Personnel’s Strategy Addressed 

Most Statutory Requirements, but Implementation of the 

Program Has Languished 7

Conclusions 18

Recommendations for Executive Action 19

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 19

Appendix I Timeline of Key Implementation Dates 24

Appendix II Prior GAO Work on Interagency Collaboration and Coordination 26

Appendix III GAO’s Compliance Assessment of the Section 1107 Requirements 31

Appendix IV Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 34

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 39

Related GAO Products 40

Tables

Table 1: Major Roles, Responsibilities, and Tasks Assigned in the 

National Security Human Capital Strategy to 

Departments, Agencies, and Other Organizations 12

Table 2: GAO’s Assessment of the Extent to Which the 

Requirements in Section 1107 of the National Defense 

Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 Have Been 

Addressed 31

Contents
Page ii GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Figure

Figure 1: Timeline of Key Dates in the Establishment and 

Implementation of the Interagency Rotation Program and 

National Security Professional Development Program 25

Abbreviations

DOD Department of Defense

NDAA National Defense Authorization Act

NSPD National Security Professional Development

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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.
Page 1 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 17, 2015

Congressional Committees

The complex national security challenges of the 21st century—such as 

nuclear proliferation, terrorist attacks, and natural disasters—require a 

U.S. federal government workforce that can collaborate effectively across 

agency lines. Effective interagency rotational assignments, in which 

participants are assigned to work at another agency for the purpose of 

professional development, can help achieve collaboration-related 

results—for example, developing participants’ collaboration skills and 

building interagency networks. More effective interagency collaboration is 

key to U.S. national security and personnel involved with national security 

and can help improve the government’s ability to respond efficiently and 

effectively to challenges, both at home and abroad. In 2013, to help foster 

greater interagency experience among executive branch personnel on 

national security and homeland security matters, Congress, in section 

1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 

2013, established the Committee on National Security Personnel 

(Committee) within the Executive Office of the President and required the 

development and issuance of a human capital strategy that was to 

provide the policies, processes, and procedures for implementing an 

interagency rotation program for national security personnel.1

Section 1107 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 included a provision for 

us to review the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program and report to 

Congress by September 30, 2015.2 Specifically, this report provides an 

assessment of the extent to which actions have been taken to establish 

and implement the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program, as 

required by law.

To accomplish this objective, we obtained and analyzed information on 

the Committee’s actions and its strategy for implementing the section 

1107 Interagency Rotation Program. The documents we reviewed 

 1

Pub. L. No. 112-239, §1107 (2013). 

2

We provided a draft report to the Senate and House Armed Services Committees on 

September 30, 2015 to meet our statutory deadline. 

Letter
Page 2 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

included the Committee’s The Human Capital Strategy for Interagency 

Personnel Rotations (Strategy).3 We assessed the extent to which the 

Committee’s actions and the Strategy met the statutory requirements in 

section 1107 of the NDAA. To conduct this assessment, two analysts—

using a scorecard methodology—independently reviewed and scored the 

Strategy and identified whether it (1) addresses, (2) partially addresses, 

or (3) does not address the statutory requirements. The analysts 

assigned a rating of “addresses” if all elements of a legislative 

requirement were cited in the Strategy, even if specificity and details 

could be improved upon, or if all elements of a required action were 

taken. The analysts assigned a rating of “partially addresses” if the 

Strategy or associated actions did not include all of the elements of a 

legislative requirement. A rating of “does not address” was assigned in 

instances when no elements of a requirement were explicitly discussed or 

if any implicit references were either too vague or too general to be 

useful. The analysts then met to discuss any differences in their 

respective independent analyses and all differences were resolved in this 

manner. Subsequently, a representative from our Office of General 

Counsel served as an independent third party reviewer of the analysis. 

Any differences between the team’s rating and general counsel’s rating 

were resolved through discussion and review of evidence. The analysts

also solicited input from a methodologist before assigning a final score.

We obtained and analyzed additional program-related documents, 

including the Committee on National Security Personnel meeting minutes, 

to supplement the results of our compliance assessment and identify the 

progress made in implementing the program. We also interviewed 

knowledgeable officials from the implementing and participating 

departments and agencies—the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Department of Defense 

(DOD), the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of 

State—about the status of the program and steps taken to address the 

statutory requirements and assigned roles, responsibilities, and tasks, 

among other things. We attempted to contact and meet with staff from the 

Executive Office of the President through the National Security Council, 

but officials were unable to meet with us and answer our questions during 

 3

Committee on National Security Personnel, The Human Capital Strategy for Interagency 

Personnel Rotations, March 29, 2014. 
Page 3 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

the timeframes required by our review.4 We also interviewed three 

Community Managers—Emergency Management, Federal Operations

Centers, and Defense Intelligence and Security—to identify the status of 

their efforts to implement the section 1107 Interagency Rotation 

Program.5 Specifically, we discussed the extent to which steps, such as 

developing further guidance and conducting rotational assignments, have 

occurred. We reviewed prior GAO work on managing for results and other 

interagency coordination and collaboration efforts,6 as well as internal 

control standards, to determine the extent to which the efforts of the 

Committee, participating departments and agencies, and Communities of 

Practice are consistent with identified practices for implementing 

successful interagency efforts, such as clarity of roles and responsibilities, 

and other programs.7

We conducted this performance audit from May 2015 to November 2015 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

 4

The National Security Council is the President’s principal forum for considering national 

security and foreign policy matters with the senior national security advisors and cabinet 

officials. The National Security Council is chaired by the President and its regular 

attendees are the Vice President, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of the Treasury, 

the Secretary of Defense, and the Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs.

5

The Community Manager serves as a coordinator and principle spokesperson for the 

Community of Practice and, among other things, leads professional networking within the 

community and helps ensure that communications within the community and between the 

community and program leadership occurs. Communities of Practice are comprised of 

members who engage in joint activities. We provide further information on these 

communities later in the report. 

6

GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012). For that 

report, we conducted a literature review on interagency collaborative mechanisms, 

interviewed academic and practitioner experts in the field of collaboration, and reviewed 

their work. We also conducted a detailed analysis of prior GAO reports that examined 

aspects of collaboration within the federal government. We did not make any 

recommendations in the report. 

7

GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1

(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). 
Page 4 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Section 1107 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 established the 

Committee on National Security Personnel within the Executive Office of 

the President.8 The Committee was required to include, at a minimum, 

representatives from OMB, OPM, the Assistant to the President for 

National Security Affairs, DOD, and the Departments of State and 

Homeland Security.9 As part of the implementation of the section 1107 

Interagency Rotation Program, the statute required the policies, 

processes, and procedures included in the Strategy to provide that the 

program be carried out in at least two Interagency Communities of 

Interest—Emergency Management and Stabilization and 

Reconstruction—and that no fewer than 20 executive branch employees 

be assigned to participate in the program in each of the first 4 fiscal years 

after the enactment of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013—fiscal years 2014, 

2015, 2016, and 2017.10 Section 1107 indicated that the purpose of the 

program was 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.

Section 1107 defines an “Interagency Community of Interest” as positions 

in the executive branch of the government that (1) as a group, are 

positions within multiple agencies of the executive branch of government; 

and (2) have significant responsibility for the same substantive, functional, 

or regional subject area related to national security or homeland security 

that requires integration of the positions and activities in that area across 

multiple agencies to ensure that the executive branch of the government 

operates as a single, cohesive enterprise to maximize mission success 

and minimize cost. Additionally, the Strategy defines “Community of 

 8 Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1107 (2013). 

9

According to a November 2013 progress report, the Committee held its inaugural 

meeting on September 24, 2013. The Office of Personnel Management, National Security 

Professional Development Annual Progress Report: June 2011 to September 2013

(Washington, D.C.: November 2013). 

10The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 also called for the identification of specific Interagency 

Communities of Interest for the purpose of carrying out the section 1107 program. Pub. L. 

No. 112-239 §1107 (c)(2)(A) (2013). 

Background

Statutory Requirements 

and Organizational 

Responsibilities for the 

Section 1107 Interagency 

Rotation Program
Page 5 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Practice” as a Community of Interest that has, among other things, 

identified members to engage in joint activities, experiences, and 

discussions and share information as an identified network.11 For 

example, according to the charter for the Emergency Management 

Community of Practice, the community will advance whole-of-government 

goals pertaining to national preparedness through unified, collaborative, 

interagency approaches to the prevention of, protection from, response 

to, recovery from, and mitigation of manmade and natural disasters. This 

will be accomplished by providing integrated education, training, and 

experiential activities to promote familiarization with emergency 

management missions, operations, and interagency structures across the 

federal government and to optimize operational planning and execution.

Prior to the establishment of the section 1107 program, in May 2007, 

Executive Order 13434 established the National Security Professional 

Development Executive Steering Committee and designated OPM as its 

chair.12 Executive Order 13434 also called for the development of a 

strategy that set forth a framework that would become the National 

Security Professional Development (NSPD) Program—we will discuss the 

status of this program later in the report. The NSPD Program’s goal was 

to promote the education, training, and experience of current and future 

professionals in national security positions. To facilitate the 

implementation of the NSPD Program, the Executive Steering Committee 

established an Integration Office, which was originally housed at DOD 

and staffed by employees from other departments and agencies on 

temporary detail assignment. In 2012, the NSPD Integration Office was 

moved from DOD to OPM.13 Appendix I provides key dates in the 

 11For the purposes of this review, we will use the term “Communities of Practice,”

consistent with the terminology in the Strategy and other documents, when referring to the 

communities that have been established at the time of this review. However, in instances 

where we reference the specific statutory requirement, we will use the term “Interagency 

Community of Interest,” consistent with the law. 

12Executive Order 13434, National Security Professional Development (May 17, 2007).

13According to DOD officials, the NSPD Integration Office was moved from DOD to OPM 

as part of an effort to align the program more with the intent of the Executive Order and 

the assigned roles and responsibilities. The officials further stated that the move was to 

change the perception that NSPD was a DOD program since DOD was providing the 

resources and assets and was encouraging the other departments and agencies to 

become more involved in the program. However, according to OPM officials, the NSPD 

Integration Office has not had any staff on detail to the office since May 2014.

The National Security 

Professional Development 

Program
Page 6 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

establishment and implementation of both the section 1107 Interagency 

Rotation Program and NSPD Program.

In 2010, we identified 225 professional development activities available 

for national security professionals that have a goal of improving 

interagency collaboration.14 Of the 225 activities, 7 were interagency 

rotation programs. Five of these seven programs involved rotating 

personnel between civilian agencies and the defense community. During 

that review, many departments and agencies reported the existence of 

other interagency assignments, but we found that the departments and 

agencies did not manage these as professional development programs 

and they lacked an explicit goal of improving interagency collaboration.15

The NSPD Program, which resulted from Executive Order 13434, was 

included as one of the professional development activities identified by 

this review.

GAO also has a large body of work on the need for interagency 

coordination and collaboration to facilitate the federal government’s 

response to natural disasters and homeland security issues, among other 

things. Although this body of work does not directly call for an interagency 

rotation program similar to the section 1107 Interagency Rotation 

Program, it highlights the continued importance of improving interagency 

coordination and collaboration, more than a decade after catastrophic 

events such as the terrorist attacks of September 2001 and Hurricane 

Katrina in August 2005. For example, in 2006, we found that key issues 

with the federal response to Hurricane Katrina—the largest, most 

destructive natural disaster in our nation’s history—were reminiscent of 

 14GAO, National Security: An Overview of Professional Development Activities Intended to 

Improve Interagency Collaboration, GAO-11-108 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2010). 

15We did not make any recommendations in that report. 

GAO’s Prior Work on 

Interagency Coordination 

and Collaboration Efforts
Page 7 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

the issues identified in the wake of Hurricane Andrew in 1992.16 Among 

other things, clearly defining and communicating leadership roles, 

responsibilities, and lines of authority for catastrophic event response and 

clarifying and applying procedures for activating the National Response 

Plan could have improved the federal government’s response efforts after 

Hurricane Katrina.17 See Appendix II for additional information on our 

prior work identifying the need for interagency coordination and 

collaboration.

In March 2014, the Committee issued the Strategy required by section 

1107 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013. The Strategy complies with most 

of the statutory requirements and describes the basic policies, processes, 

and procedures for the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program. 

However, implementation of the program has languished because there 

has been limited leadership and oversight of the program, and no national 

security personnel had been assigned for rotations as of September 

2015. The departments and agencies also cited various actions that 

needed to be taken in order for the section 1107 program to be 

implemented in a timely manner. Examples of these actions include the 

development and issuance of guidance outlined in the Strategy.

 16GAO, Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and Accountability 

Controls Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation’s Preparedness, Response, and 

Recovery System. GAO-06-618 (Washington D.C: Sept. 6, 2006). We made six 

recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security—including, among other things, 

that the department should rigorously re-test, train, and exercise its recent clarification of 

the roles, responsibilities, and lines of authority for all levels of leadership, implementing 

changes needed to remedy identified coordination problems. In addition, we identified five 

matters for congressional consideration. The Department of Homeland Security generally 

concurred with our six recommendations and, as of September 2015, has addressed five 

of the six recommendations. Congress also took action to address four of the five matters 

for congressional consideration. 

17GAO, Hurricane Katrina: GAO’s Preliminary Observations Regarding Preparedness, 

Response, and Recovery. GAO-06-442T (Washington D.C: Mar. 8, 2006).

Committee on 

National Security 

Personnel’s Strategy 

Addressed Most 

Statutory 

Requirements, but 

Implementation of the 

Program Has 

Languished
Page 8 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

In addition to establishing the Committee on National Security Personnel, 

section 1107 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 required the Committee to 

develop and issue a National Security Human Capital Strategy that 

provided for the implementation of an interagency rotation program.18 On 

March 29, 2014, the Committee issued the required National Security 

Human Capital Strategy—entitled The Human Capital Strategy for 

Interagency Personnel Rotations.

Our analysis of the Committee’s actions and the Strategy showed that 

they address most of the statutory requirements set forth in section 1107. 

Section 1107 included 19 requirements related to the development and 

issuance of the Strategy and the subsequent implementation and 

monitoring of the section 1107 program. However, for 2 of these 

requirements we had no basis to judge, because these requirements are 

contingent on actions that had not yet occurred, and, therefore, we did not 

assess these requirements.

We found that the Committee’s actions and its Strategy address 13 of the 

17 statutory requirements we assessed, for example, by (1) including 

provisions that specifically address the requirements, such as by 

including specific policy requirements; (2) assigning various departments 

and agencies tasks, such as developing policy or guidance; and (3) 

directing other organizations, including the Communities of Practice, to 

carry out the section 1107 program. We also found that the Committee’s 

actions and the Strategy partially address 2 and do not address 2 of the 

17 statutory requirements we assessed. Appendix III includes our 

assessment of the Committee’s and Strategy’s compliance with each of 

the 17 section 1107 requirements we could assess.

Among the 13 requirements addressed, we found that the Strategy 

identifies Interagency Communities of Interest for the purposes of 

carrying out the section 1107 program.19 The Strategy specifically 

identifies the two Communities called for in section 1107—Emergency 

Management and Stabilization and Reconstruction—but also names other 

 18We provide further discussion of the actions taken by the Committee, departments and 

agencies, and other organizations to develop and implement the section 1107 Interagency 

Rotation Program in the next section. 

19See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239 

§1107(c)(2)(A) (2013).

The Committee on 

National Security 

Personnel Developed and 

Issued a Strategy that 

Addresses Most of the 

Statutory Requirements
Page 9 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

possible Communities, including cyber-security, climate change 

adaptation, and energy security, among others.20 We also found that the 

Strategy discusses (1) training and education requirements; (2) 

prerequisites or requirements for participation; and (3) performance 

measures, reporting requirements, and other accountability devices 

associated with participation in and evaluation of the program.

We found that the Strategy partially addresses 2 of the 17 requirements. 

Those are the requirements that (1) the Committee issue a National 

Security Human Capital Strategy within 270 days of enactment of the 

statute and (2) the Strategy designate agencies to be included or 

excluded from the program.21 The Committee issued the Strategy on 

March 29, 2014, but it was 6 months late and, therefore, did not meet the 

required deadline. In addition, the Strategy states that the Committee will 

determine which departments and agencies will participate as each 

Community is formed, and that a process will be described in further 

detail in a subsequent part of the Strategy. We determined that these 

statements make reference to a process for making decisions about 

which agencies and departments will participate; however, we found that 

the Strategy does not designate which departments and agencies will be 

included or excluded, as called for in section 1107. The Strategy does, 

however, state that agencies with national security missions will 

incorporate the Strategy into their training priorities.

We found that the Strategy does not address 2 of the 17 requirements. 

Specifically, it does not address the requirements for the Strategy’s 

policies, processes, and procedures to provide that in each of the 4 fiscal 

years after enactment of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 (1) the section 

1107 Interagency Rotation Program shall be carried out in at least two 

Communities of Interest—one of which should be Emergency 

Management and the other Stabilization and Reconstruction; and (2) at 

 20According to its charter, the Emergency Management Community of Practice intends to 

advance whole-of-government goals pertaining to national preparedness through unified, 

collaborative, interagency approaches to the prevention of, protection from, response to, 

recovery from, and mitigation of manmade and natural disasters. As discussed in more 

detail below, a Stabilization and Reconstruction Community of Practice has not been 

established and, as a result, there is not a charter that defines the purpose of such a 

community. 

21The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, was 

enacted on January 2, 2013. The statute required that the Committee issue the Strategy 

by September 29, 2013.
Page 10 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

least 20 employees should be assigned to participate in the program.22

We found that the Strategy only reiterates that the statute identifies the 

Emergency Management and the Stabilization and Reconstruction 

Communities and allows for additional Communities to be added, subject 

to approval by the Committee. However, the Strategy does not provide 

that, at a minimum, the program would be carried out in at least the two 

designated Interagency Communities of Interest or by at least 20 

employees in each of the first 4 fiscal years after the NDAA was 

enacted.23 Specifically, the Strategy is silent on the number of participants 

that would rotate through the program and does not provide assurance 

that the rotations should occur each year in at least the two named 

Communities. As we discuss further in the next section, to date, no 

rotations have occurred under the section 1107 program.

Finally, there were two statutory requirements for which we had no basis 

to judge. These are requirements for (1) the heads of each participating 

agency to help ensure that strong preference is given to those who 

participate in interagency rotational service when selecting individuals for 

senior positions; and (2) the Committee to assess and report on the 

established performance measures by September 30, 2015. With regard 

to the first requirement, because no rotations have occurred under the 

section 1107 program, we cannot assess whether agency heads have 

given such a preference to participants. With regard to the second 

requirement to assess and report on established performance measures, 

as discussed in the next section of this report, because the section 1107 

program has not been implemented, we could not assess compliance 

 22Prior to the establishment of the section 1107 program, a single cohort of 16 employees 

participated in a rotational assignment in 2012 under the previously existing NSPD 

Program—established by Executive Order 13434. This rotation is the only such 

interagency rotation undertaken under either program. 

23Because the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 was enacted on January 2, 2013, the first 4 

fiscal years following enactment would be 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2017. 
Page 11 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

with this requirement due to the reporting date.

24 Further, our draft report 

and the report on performance measures were due on the same day.25

Agencies and organizations have taken limited steps to address the roles, 

responsibilities, and tasks assigned to them in the Strategy for 

implementing the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program, and they 

had not implemented that program as of September 2015. More 

specifically, no rotational assignments have occurred. By September 30, 

2015, at least 40 employees should have been assigned to rotational 

assignments (20 each in fiscal years 2014 and 2015). Agency officials 

report that, as of September 2015, no employees had been assigned to 

rotations under the section 1107 program. According to officials we spoke 

with and documents we reviewed, the program’s implementation is 

behind schedule because (1) there has been limited leadership and 

oversight over its implementation and (2) a number of actions need to be 

completed to address some of the roles, responsibilities, and tasks 

assigned to the departments and agencies.

As noted above, the Committee on National Security Personnel issued 

the Strategy that assigned specific roles, responsibilities, and tasks to the 

various entities—OPM; the NSPD Executive Steering Committee, which 

OPM chairs; the participating departments and agencies; and the 

Communities of Practice—to implement the section 1107 Program.26

 24Without having conducted any rotations or developing performance measures at the 

time of our review as part of the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program, we are 

unable to assess—as specified in our mandate–the extent to which interagency rotational 

service has improved or is expected to improve interagency integration and coordination 

or the extent to which employees have benefitted from participation in the program. 

25During the finalization of our review, the September 30, 2015 deadline for the 

Committee’s report to Congress passed. According to OPM officials, OPM and the 

Committee conferred on this reporting requirement and the Committee requested that 

OPM issue the report on the Committee’s behalf, as Chair of the NSPD Executive 

Steering Committee. OPM officials further stated that, as of November 2015, the report is 

undergoing final review and approval at OPM. We note that this report will be late. 

26The Departments of Defense, State, and Homeland Security are the participating 

departments identified in section 1107 of the NDAA, however, the statute contemplates 

that additional members may be designated, and the Strategy notes that each Community 

of Practice identifies its own participating departments and agencies; therefore this list of 

participating entities may change as implementation of the Program progresses. See 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1107 

(2013).

Agencies and 

Organizations Have Taken 

Limited Steps to Address 

Assigned Roles, 

Responsibilities, and 

Tasks to Implement the 

Interagency Rotation 

Program
Page 12 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Table 1 summarizes the major roles, responsibilities, and tasks the 

Strategy assigned to the departments, agencies, and other organizations, 

as well as those the Committee reserved for itself.

Table 1: Major Roles, Responsibilities, and Tasks Assigned in the National Security Human Capital Strategy to Departments, 

Agencies, and Other Organizations

Department, 

agency, or other organization Assigned roles, responsibilities, and tasks

Committee on National Security 

Personnel (Committee)a

• Work with OPM to implement the National Security Human Capital Strategy (Strategy);

• Determine participating departments and agencies in each Community; and

• Approve charters for additional Communities of Practice.

Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM)

• Work with the Committee to implement the Strategy;

• Issue guidance on the rights and responsibilities of employees returning from rotational 

service; and

• Issue guidance on how performance appraisals for employees on rotational assignments 

are to comply with the appraisal system in their home agency.

National Security Professional 

Development (NSPD) Executive 

Steering Committee—chaired by 

OPM

• Provide oversight of the Communities of Practice through periodic updates from the 

Communities;

• Approve performance metrics from the Communities of Practice; and

• Prepare an assessment of these metrics for incorporation into the section 1107

Interagency Rotation Program report to Congress.

Participating departments and 

agencies

b

• Incorporate the Strategy into the agency’s training priorities;

• Determine specific positions and personnel to participate in the Communities of Practice 

and rotational service;

• Report on existing rotational programs to the Committee; and

• Propose charters for additional Communities of Practice.

Communities of Practicec • Develop innovative rotational experiences and broad Community engagement;

• Help ensure accountability for the Community’s execution of its charter and performance; 

and

• Develop performance metrics for approval by the NSPD Executive Steering Committee. 

Source: GAO analysis of the National Security Human Capital Strategy.| GAO-16-57.

a

Membership of the Committee on National Security Personnel, per section 1107 of the National 

Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, was to include designees of the Director of 

the Office of Management and Budget, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the 

Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of 

State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security, as well as any such members as the President 

designates.

b

The Department of Defense, Department of State, and Department of Homeland Security were 

identified as participating departments in section 1107 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013; however, 

the statute contemplates that additional departments and agencies may be designated and the 

strategy provides that additional departments and agencies may be identified and added as 

implementation of the section 1107 program progresses.

c

As of September 2015, the charters for three Communities of Practice have been approved by the 

NSPD Executive Steering Committee—Emergency Management, Federal Operations Center, and 

Defense Intelligence and Security. However, additional Communities of Practice may be identified 

and added as implementation of the section 1107 program progresses.
Page 13 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

We identified other roles, responsibilities, and tasks assigned to the 

departments and agencies, among others, during our review of 

supporting documentation, including meeting minutes, organization 

charters, and implementation plans. For example, the charter for the 

Emergency Management Community of Practice states that OPM will 

lead the Committee to implement an interagency rotation system that 

complies with the law.27 The charter also states, for example, that the 

Department of Homeland Security will designate the Community Manager 

for the Emergency Management Community of Practice. We also found 

that assignments were made to departments and agencies during NSPD 

Executive Steering Committee meetings. These assignments were 

documented in the form of action items included in the minutes of the 

meetings and included creating inventories of current rotational 

assignment opportunities from participating departments and agencies 

and developing further guidance on personnel issues from OPM.

We found, however, that implementation of the section 1107 Interagency 

Rotation Program is behind schedule because there has been limited 

leadership and oversight in place to guide the implementation effort and 

because a number of actions need to be completed to address some of 

the roles, responsibilities, and tasks assigned to the departments and 

agencies to help ensure the program is implemented in a timely manner. 

Officials we spoke with from OPM and the departments were not aware of 

the existence of a charter or similar document for the Committee, which 

we would expect to identify an organizational structure that clearly defines 

key areas of authority and responsibility and establish appropriate lines of 

reporting. With regard to leadership, officials we spoke with stated that 

the section 1107 program has not been a priority for those individuals 

currently overseeing the Committee. OPM officials also told us that they 

are not responsible for the performance of the section 1107 program 

because (1) they are not the lead for the Committee on National Security 

Personnel and (2) the NSPD Executive Steering Committee, which holds 

joint meetings with the Committee on National Security Personnel, is 

more of a collaborative effort of the participants. However, officials from 

multiple participating departments stated that they perceive OPM to be 

the lead for the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program and look to 

the agency for leadership based on its role in the oversight of federal 

 27The charter is dated March 2012, but OPM officials told us that this was a revised 

version of the charter. They agreed that the date on the charter was incorrect and that it 

was revised after the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 was enacted on January 2, 2013. 
Page 14 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

government personnel issues. Neither section 1107 or the Strategy 

specifies who should be the lead or chair for the Committee on National 

Security Personnel; however, OPM has been designated the chair of the 

NSPD Executive Steering Committee and, more importantly, the Strategy 

specifically identifies that the Committee will work with OPM to implement 

the Strategy.

Officials from departments and agencies we interviewed told us that an 

office to oversee the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program has not 

been established, but was needed. The managers for all three currently 

existing Communities of Practice also identified the need for a program 

office to help oversee and ensure the accountability of the implementation 

efforts, among other things. Further, officials told us that the individuals 

who have been tasked with carrying out the implementation of the section 

1107 program and sit on the Committee have other responsibilities. For 

those individuals, responsibilities associated with the section 1107 

program are collateral duties. Officials noted that the meetings of the 

NSPD Executive Steering Committee, which, as noted above, are held 

jointly with the Committee on National Security Personnel, are 

infrequent—with meetings being scheduled with only a few weeks’ notice 

or canceled. They also stated that very little communication or progress 

occurs on any task between meetings, further slowing the implementation 

of the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program.

Several documents identify OPM’s leadership roles with regard to 

developing further guidance and implementing the section 1107 

Interagency Rotation Program, but we found that the existing leadership 

structure is not providing needed oversight of the program’s 

implementation. For example, OPM has an additional leadership role, in 

its capacity as the chair of the NSPD Executive Steering Committee, to 

provide oversight over the Communities of Practice through periodic 

updates from the Communities. As of September 2015, three 
Page 15 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Communities of Practice28—Emergency Management, Federal 

Operations Centers, and Defense Intelligence and Security—had been 

approved by the NSPD Executive Steering Committee, which OPM 

chairs, and for which the NSPD Executive Steering Committee would 

have oversight responsibilities.29 One Community Manager stated that in 

2014, when the Intelligence Community, which had previously established 

the Joint Duty Assignment program, submitted a charter for the Defense 

Intelligence and Security Community of Practice to be considered and 

approved by the NSPD Executive Steering Committee, it took OPM—as 

chair of the NSPD Executive Steering Committee—months to process the 

request and move it forward to the Committee on National Security 

Personnel for final approval, delaying the establishment of the 

community.30 According to OPM officials, Community Managers’ oral 

presentations at the NSPD Executive Steering Committee meetings 

provide the necessary oversight of the actions of the Communities of 

 28The Emergency Management and Stabilization and Reconstruction Communities of 

Interest were required by section 1107 of the NDAA. See National Defense Authorization 

Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1107(d)(1)(A) (2013). However, a

Stabilization and Reconstruction Community has not yet been established. According to 

Department of State officials, by the time the section 1107 legislation was enacted, 

reconstruction was no longer a priority of the U.S. Government, and the department 

realigned its Stabilization and Reconstruction Office to the Conflict and Stabilization 

Office. According to the November 2013 progress report spanning June 2011 to 

September 2013, the NSPD Integration Office planned to replace this required community 

with a “Sector Security Assistance” Community of Practice. However, as of September 

2015, no agency or department had established the Sector Security Assistance 

Community. 

29Two different processes were used to approve the three Community charters. The 

charters for the Emergency Management and Federal Operations Center Community of 

Practice were previously approved under the NSPD Program—established under 

Executive Order 13434—while the charter for Defense Intelligence and Security was 

recommended by the NSPD Executive Steering Committee, signed by OPM, and 

submitted to the Committee on National Security Personnel for final approval under the 

process set forth in the Strategy. However, OPM officials stated that they are unsure of 

the steps the Committee takes to approve the establishment of a community and its 

charter. We were, therefore, unable to determine the status of the Defense Intelligence 

and Security Community of Practice. Additional Communities of Practice may be identified 

and added as implementation of the section 1107 program progresses. 

30The Joint Duty Assignment program includes interagency rotations for members of the 

Intelligence Community. Section 1107 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 includes an 

exclusionary provision that states the section “shall not apply to any element of the 

Intelligence Community.” See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, 

Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1107(i) (2013). However, the Strategy clarifies that, although the 

legislation exempts elements of the Intelligence Community, the Intelligence Community is 

not excluded from voluntary participation. 
Page 16 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Practice. However, two of the three Communities’ charters require that 

additional written reports be provided to the NSPD Executive Steering 

Committee for oversight. One Community Manager reported that he had 

only been invited to provide oversight updates at the meetings starting in 

2015, despite serving in the role since December 2013. That same 

manager had previously been unaware that the Strategy had been issued 

and that the Strategy required the Communities to develop performance 

metrics. Further, that Community Manager also stated the NSPD 

Executive Steering Committee recently began requesting information on 

the community’s performance metrics and first sent a document template 

in mid-August 2015 that requested performance information by the end of 

that month.31

Department and agency officials we spoke with also cited a number of 

actions that are needed in order for them to complete some of their 

assigned roles, responsibilities, and tasks, including steps that need to be 

taken and in what order to implement the section 1107 program. For 

example, OPM officials stated that their agency has not yet issued the 

personnel guidance required by the Strategy, but were unable to provide 

timeframes for when the guidance would be issued. Officials from 

participating departments told us they could not proceed with taking 

action on their tasks because they were waiting for further guidance from 

OPM.32 Those officials also told us that their departments have not taken 

steps to update previous lists33 of identified national security positions and 

personnel—another assigned task—because, according to officials from 

one of the departments, they are waiting for further guidance from OPM 

on the criteria for selecting employees and positions for participation in 

 31We met with OPM officials on July 28, 2015, at which point we asked about whether the 

NSPD Executive Steering Committee had received the Communities’ status reports and 

requested any existing documentation pertaining to the status reports. OPM officials did 

not provide such documentation; however, according to the Community Manager, the 

NSPD Executive Steering Committee subsequently made a request to the Community for 

data on metrics and other accountability tools on August 13, 2015. 

32According to OPM, part of the agency’s roles include developing human resource 

policies for executive branch agencies and providing policy direction and leadership in 

designing, developing, and promulgating government-wide human resources systems and 

programs for, among other things, recruitment, staffing, classification, training, and 

performance management. 

33In 2008, agencies participating in the NSPD Program created an inventory of positions 

and employees who were eligible to participate in the NSPD Program.
Page 17 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

the program.34 Department officials also told us that they are waiting for 

guidance on how to develop policies for providing preference to those 

employees who had previously participated in the section 1107 program 

when they apply for senior level positions.35 DOD officials stated that 

they, as well as representatives from other departments and agencies, 

have requested guidance from OPM at least twice at NSPD Executive 

Steering Committee meetings and had not, as of September 2015, 

received such guidance. When asked about the need for such guidance, 

OPM officials stated that the departments and agencies do not need 

additional guidance from OPM to proceed with their assigned roles, 

responsibilities, and tasks under the Strategy. Although section 1107 

requires the head of each agency to take certain actions to incorporate 

preference for the selection of individuals to senior positions and the 

Strategy requires the departments and agencies to select personnel and 

positions to participate in the program, confusion about such roles, 

responsibilities, and tasks has contributed to delays in the section 1107 

program’s implementation.

In 2012, we found that federal departments and agencies use a variety of 

mechanisms to implement interagency collaborative efforts that 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.36 Specifically, 

we found that, to implement interagency collaborative mechanisms, 

federal agencies should, among other things, consider (1) leadership; (2) 

 34Section 1107 requires that the Strategy establish processes by which the heads of 

relevant agencies may identify individual employees who are available to participate in 

rotational assignments. As a result, the Strategy tasks the departments and agencies with 

identifying the specific positions and personnel that will participate in the section 1107 

program. See National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-

239, § 1107(c)(2)(D)(ii)(2013). 

35Section 1107(e) of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 requires that the heads of agencies 

participating in the program ensure that, in selecting individuals to fill senior positions, the 

agency gives a strong preference to individuals who have performed interagency 

rotational service. OPM officials stated that its 2008 Memorandum for Chief Human 

Capital Officers, Recommended National Security Professional Qualification for NSP SES, 

provided guidance to the departments and agencies on developing their own qualification 

requirement that includes demonstrated ability to lead interagency activities for specific 

senior positions. Office of Personnel Management, Memorandum for Chief Human Capital 

Officers, Recommended National Security Professional Qualification for NSP SES

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 2008). 

36GAO-12-1022. 
Page 18 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

clarity of roles and responsibilities, and (3) outcomes and accountability. 

Such considerations should include plans to sustain leadership over time, 

clearly identified and agreed upon roles and responsibilities, and tracking 

and monitoring of progress. In addition, with regard to actions not taken 

by the departments and agencies to implement the program, internal 

control standards state that management needs to comprehensively 

identify risks and should consider all significant interactions to 

accomplishing a stated objective. Risk identification methods may include 

qualitative and quantitative ranking activities, management conferences, 

and considerations of findings from audits and other assessments, among 

other things.37

Without committed leadership and oversight from all of the relevant 

entities—most specifically, the Committee on National Security Personnel 

and OPM—to oversee the implementation of the section 1107 

Interagency Rotation Program and actions taken on necessary steps to 

proceed with the program’s implementation, it is unlikely that the goals of 

section 1107 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 will be addressed and that 

the section 1107 program will be implemented within the specified 

timeframes. Further, the executive branch will not be positioned to realize 

the expected benefits of the program, which could include improved 

interagency coordination and integration in preparing for and responding 

to national security challenges, among other things.

Over a decade after catastrophic events such as the terrorist attacks of 

September 2001 and Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, interagency 

coordination and integration continue to be a challenge for the federal 

government’s national security and homeland security missions. 

Providing opportunities for national security personnel to gain interagency 

experience can benefit not only those individuals, but also enhance 

interagency coordination and integration. The section 1107 Interagency 

Rotation Program for national security personnel, when implemented, 

could support these goals. However, limited leadership and oversight, as 

well as inaction on a number of assigned roles, responsibilities, and tasks 

have caused the program’s implementation to languish. Until OPM, the 

Committee on National Security Personnel, departments and agencies, 

and other organizations take actions necessary to move forward with 

 37GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

Conclusions
Page 19 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

implementation, the program is likely to remain unrealized. Without a 

clear leadership structure for the Committee that can work with 

departments and agencies to identify and take action on any steps that 

are necessary for the program’s implementation, Congress’s intentions 

for the program and the benefits that could stem from it will also remain 

unfulfilled.

To provide greater assurance that the Interagency Rotation Program for 

national security personnel will be implemented as provided in section 

1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, we 

recommend that the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in 

collaboration with the Committee on National Security Personnel, take the 

following two actions:

(1) establish a clear leadership and oversight structure to guide future

implementation efforts, and

(2) work with the departments and agencies to identify and take action on 

necessary next steps to proceed with the program’s implementation, 

including developing and issuing required guidance for 

implementation within identified timeframes.

We provided OPM, OMB, DOD, the Department of State, the Department 

of Homeland Security, and the National Security Council with a draft of 

this report for comment. OMB, DOD, the Department of Homeland 

Security, and the National Security Council had no comments on our draft 

report. The Department of State provided technical comments, which we 

considered and incorporated where appropriate. In comments on a draft 

of this report, OPM partially concurred with one recommendation and 

concurred with the second recommendation. OPM’s comments are 

reprinted in their entirety in appendix IV. 

In its response, OPM stated that our draft report made recommendations 

only to OPM, despite section 1107 establishing the Committee within the 

Executive Office of the President and delegating program and policy 

responsibilities to the heads of participating departments and agencies. 

We believe that this characterization misconstrues our recommendations. 

As our report shows, OPM’s role with regard to the section 1107 

Interagency Rotation Program includes responsibilities specific to OPM, 

but also responsibilities to act in collaboration with other departments and 

agencies based on its roles as a member of the Committee on National 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Page 20 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Security Personnel and as the Chair of the NSPD Executive Steering 

Committee. To that end, both of our recommendations were not directed 

solely to OPM, but rather to OPM in collaboration with the Committee on 

National Security Personnel, as a joint effort. As specified in section 1107, 

the Committee is comprised of multiple departments and agencies, 

including OPM, OMB, and DOD, among others. Moreover, our second 

recommendation also includes working with the departments and 

agencies when identifying and taking action on next steps for the 

program’s implementation. OPM is not the sole recipient or target of our 

recommendations, but OPM and the Committee on National Security 

Personnel are both focal points because of their responsibilities.38

OPM also stated that table 1 of our report oversimplifies the Committee’s 

delegation of responsibilities to the various departments and agencies. 

We find this table an appropriate portrayal of the roles and responsibilities 

specifically outlined in the Strategy as the table describes only the major 

roles and responsibilities, which was our intent. In addition, in its

response to our draft report, OPM criticized our methodology for not 

including interviews with the Executive Office of the President in our 

review. As we stated in our report, we made multiple attempts to meet 

with the Executive Office of the President through the National Security 

Council, but they were unable to meet with us during the statutory 

timeframes required by our review. However, when provided the 

opportunity to comment on our draft report, the National Security Council 

responded that it did not have any comments on our report. As a result, 

we worked with OPM, as well as the other departments and agencies, to 

obtain necessary clarification on the roles and responsibilities, the 

 38OPM also stated that our approach does not seem to be consistent with Congress’ 

specific direction to us in section 1107(h) of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

Fiscal Year 2013. We disagree and note that our reporting requirement included four 

detailed questions, not just the single question referenced in OPM’s response. 

Additionally, section 1107(h) called for GAO to address the four statutory questions “at a 

minimum,” clearly indicating that the four statutory questions were not intended to be 

exhaustive. Because the program has not been fully implemented as required by law, we 

focused our review on the actions that have been taken to date to establish and 

implement the program. For example, we identified that the Committee issued the 

required Strategy that detailed the assigned roles, responsibilities, and tasks for each of 

the various entities—including OPM. However, we found that a lack of committed 

leadership and oversight by all relevant entities—in particular, OPM and the Committee, to 

whom we addressed our recommendations—contributed to delays in implementing the 

program. For those reasons, OPM’s concerns about the scope of the engagement are 

misplaced. 
Page 21 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

distinction between the work carried out by the two committees, and the 

status of the program’s implementation, among other things. 

Regarding our first recommendation to establish a clear leadership and 

oversight structure to guide future implementation efforts, OPM partially 

concurred. OPM stated that it agrees that a more formal system of 

reporting to the NSPD Executive Steering Committee and more frequent 

Executive Steering Committee review of performance metrics would 

improve the program’s accountability. However, OPM added that it cannot 

establish a charter or leadership structure for the program as a whole, 

because it would contravene section 1107(b) of the National Defense 

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, which established the Committee 

as the policy lead on national security personnel rotations and specified 

OPM as only one of several participating agencies. 

We agree that such steps may help improve the program’s accountability, 

but we disagree with OPM’s assessment of our recommendation—

particularly the portion about a clear leadership structure. Specifically, we 

do not intend for OPM to act unilaterally, and we reiterate that our 

recommendation is directed at OPM in collaboration with the Committee. 

Further, as stated in our report, the Emergency Management Community 

of Practice charter—which was revised after the enactment of section 

1107, approved by the NSPD Executive Steering Committee, and signed 

by the Chief Operating Officer of OPM—states that OPM will lead the 

Committee on National Security Personnel to implement an interagency 

rotation program that complies with the law. This statement clearly 

articulates OPM’s key role in the implementation of the system. Moreover, 

during the course of our review, officials we met with from the 

departments that comprise the Committee pointed to OPM as having a 

lead role in the program’s implementation and those officials continue to 

look to OPM for direction and guidance. 

Regarding our second recommendation to identify and take action on 

necessary next steps to proceed with the program’s implementation, 

including developing and issuing required guidance for implementation 

within identified timeframes, OPM concurred. OPM agreed with our 

assessment that OPM has not issued two guidance documents required 

by the Strategy and has agreed to develop at least two guidance 

documents, including, for example, guidance specifically addressing 

performance appraisals for employees participating in interagency 

rotations. 
Page 22 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

We appreciate OPM’s acknowledgment of its responsibility to produce 

these guidance documents, but we believe that these statements miss 

the intent of our recommendation and will only address the 

recommendation in part. We continue to believe that OPM—in its capacity 

as both a member of the Committee and as the Chair of the NSPD 

Executive Steering Committee—needs to work with the Committee and

the other departments and agencies to determine the steps needed to 

proceed with the implementation of the program. These steps may 

include OPM’s issuing additional guidance, but also may include, for 

example, identifying timeframes for next steps to help ensure 

implementation within the timeframes identified in section 1107. More 

specifically, the steps we identify here and in our report, including the 

aforementioned guidance documents, may not include all of the steps 

necessary to help ensure the implementation of the program. Thus, we 

continue to believe that OPM should work with the Committee and the 

departments and agencies to determine necessary next steps.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees, the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the Secretary of 

Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, the Secretary of State, 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 has any questions regarding this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@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 major contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V.

Brenda S. Farrell

Director

Defense Capabilities and Management
Page 23 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

List of Committees

The Honorable John McCain

Chairman

The Honorable Jack Reed

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

United States Senate

The Honorable Mac Thornberry

Chairman

The Honorable Adam Smith

Ranking Member

Committee on Armed Services

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Timeline of Key Implementation 

Dates

Page 24 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

The following timeline identifies key dates in the establishment and 

implementation of the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program and 

the National Security Professional Development (NSPD) Program.1

Section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal 

Year 2013 established the Committee on National Security Personnel and 

required the development and issuance of a National Security Human 

Capital Strategy that was to provide for the implementation of an 

interagency rotation program with the intent of increasing the efficiency 

and effectiveness of the federal government by fostering greater 

interagency experience among executive branch personnel on national 

security and homeland security matters. Prior to the establishment of the 

section 1107 program, in May 2007, Executive Order 13434 established 

the NSPD Executive Steering Committee to facilitate the implementation 

of a national strategy that set forth the framework for what would become 

the NSPD Program.2

 1

Pub. L. No. 112-239 §1107 (2013). For the purposes of this review, we will refer to the 

provisions of section 1107 as the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program. 

2

Executive Order 13434, National Security Professional Development (May 17, 2007).

Appendix I: Timeline of Key Implementation 

Dates
Appendix I: Timeline of Key Implementation 

Dates

Page 25 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Figure 1: Timeline of Key Dates in the Establishment and Implementation of the Interagency Rotation Program and National 

Security Professional Development Program

a

Pub. L. No. 112-239 §1107 [2013]. For the purposes of this review, we refer to the provisions of 

section 1107 as the section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program.
Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on Interagency 

Collaboration and Coordination

Page 26 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

GAO has a large body of work highlighting interagency coordination and 

collaboration efforts across the federal government, as well as the need 

for such efforts to facilitate national security and homeland security 

operations, among other things. For example, in 2009, we highlighted 

past work that identified situations in which a lack of interagency 

coordination and collaboration hindered national security objectives.1 The 

following provides summary examples of how interagency coordination 

and collaboration could have been improved over the last decade and 

how interagency rotations among personnel could improve collaboration 

and coordination.

• In the years after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, we 

found that multiple federal agencies took action to address challenges 

and strategies in fulfilling our national security objectives, such as 

instituting interagency collaboration through intelligence sharing; 

however, in 2004, we continued to identify further actions that could 

be taken to fully address these needs.2 For example, the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation established a National Joint Terrorism 

Taskforce to assist with information sharing between agencies. 

However, we noted that a comprehensive and coordinated national 

plan to facilitate information-sharing on critical infrastructure was 

needed.

• Between 2005 and 2008, we found that multiple federal agencies—

including the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of State, 

and the U.S. Agency for International Development—participated in 

efforts to build the capacity of key Iraqi ministries to govern the 

country. Our work found that there was no overarching direction and 

coordination from a lead entity, which contributed to U.S efforts not 

 1

GAO, Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of National 

Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and Information Sharing. GAO-09-904SP

(Washington D.C., Sept. 25, 2009). We did not make any recommendations in this report. 

2

GAO, 9/11 Commission Report: Reorganization, Transformation, and Information 

Sharing. GAO-04-1033T (Washington D.C.: Aug. 3, 2004). We did not make any 

recommendations in this testimony.

Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on Interagency 

Collaboration and Coordination
Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on Interagency 

Collaboration and Coordination

Page 27 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

meeting their goal of key Iraqi ministries having the capacity to govern 

reconstruction projects.3

• In 2010, we found that coordination with federal partners is essential 

to DOD’s homeland security mission—including homeland defense 

and civil support.4 To improve coordination, we recommended that the 

department (1) establish a timeline and update and ensure the 

integration and comprehensiveness of DOD policy and guidance that 

delineates the roles and responsibilities of and relationships between 

DOD entities; (2) establish a timeline to develop and issue a partner 

guide that identifies the roles and responsibilities of DOD entities, 

processes, and agreed-upon approaches for interagency coordination 

for homeland defense and civil support efforts; (3) ensure 

implementation of DOD’s current instruction on the tracking of DOD 

liaisons’ assignments to other federal agencies, as well as the 

establishment of position descriptions for uniformed military and DOD 

civilian personnel; and (4) develop and issue additional workforce 

management policy and guidance regarding DOD liaisons to other 

federal agencies, as well as other federal agencies’ liaisons to DOD, 

to include routine staffing needs-assessments and position 

descriptions, among other things. DOD concurred with all four 

recommendations we made and has taken action to address those 

recommendations.

 3

GAO, Iraq and Afghanistan: Security, Economic, and Governance Challenges to 

Rebuilding Efforts Should Be Addressed in U.S. Strategies, GAO-09-476T (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 25, 2009); Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: Actions Needed to Address 

Inadequate Accountability over U.S. Efforts and Investments, GAO-08-568T (Washington, 

D.C.: Mar. 11, 2008); Stabilizing and Rebuilding Iraq: U.S. Ministry Capacity Development 

Efforts Need an Overall Integrated Strategy to Guide Efforts and Manage Risk, 

GAO-08-117 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2007). We recommended that the Department of 

State, in consultation with the Iraqi government, complete an overall integrated strategy 

for U.S. capacity development efforts and that Congress consider conditioning future 

appropriations on the completion of an overall integrated strategy incorporating the key 

components identified. In commenting on our report, the Department of State recognized 

the value of such a strategy, but expressed concern about conditioning further capacity 

development investment on the completion of such a strategy. However, the department 

subsequently took action to address the recommendation. Since the department took 

action to address our recommendation but no additional appropriations were provided for 

capacity-building efforts, we determined that the matter for congressional consideration 

was no longer necessary. 

4

GAO, Homeland Defense: DOD Needs to Take Actions to Enhance Interagency 

Coordination for Its Homeland Defense and Civil Support Missions, GAO-10-364

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2010). 
Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on Interagency 

Collaboration and Coordination

Page 28 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

• In 2010, we found that the activities of U.S. Southern Command 

demonstrated a number of key practices that enhance interagency 

coordination and collaboration to achieve their mission objectives.5

However, the military relief efforts in response to the 2008 earthquake 

in Haiti challenged the organizational collaborative structure of U.S. 

Southern Command. Specifically, we found that initial relief efforts 

were hindered by weaknesses in the command’s organizational 

structure and a lack of augmentation planning. We concluded that the

U.S. Southern Command must have a structure that is not only 

prepared for military activities, but that can also be effective in 

supporting other stakeholders or interagency groups in meetings 

challenges like corruption, crime, and poverty in the region.

• In 2012, we found that Department of State and Department of 

Defense’s rotational assignment programs, which include State’s 

Foreign Policy Advisor Program and the Army Command and General 

Staff College Interagency Fellowship program, help achieve 

collaboration-related results, as reported by program participants in a 

survey.6 Effective interagency rotation programs can achieve 

interagency collaboration results, by developing program participants’ 

collaboration skills and building interagency networks. To build on the 

success of these programs, we made seven recommendations to the 

Department of State, which included (1) expand the scope of current 

efforts by routinely evaluating the Foreign Policy Advisor Program’s 

effectiveness to determine if desired results are being achieved; (2) 

clarify how assignments will achieve shared national security goals; 

(3) work with host agency counterparts to develop orientation 

materials to maximize the benefit of the rotation; (4) routinely evaluate 

 5

GAO, Defense Management: U.S. Southern Command Demonstrates Interagency 

Collaboration, but Its Haiti Disaster Response Revealed Challenges Conducting a Large 

Military Operation, GAO-10-801 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 28, 2010). We recommended that 

to improve U.S. Southern Command’s ability to conduct the full range of military activities 

that may be necessary in the region, while balancing efforts to support interagency groups 

and other stakeholders in regional stability the Command should (1) revise the 

Command’s Organization and Functions Manual to align its organizational structure and 

manpower resources to meet missions requirements and (2) identify personnel 

augmentation requirements for a range of contingency operations, develop plans to obtain 

these personnel when needed, and exercise and assess these augmentation plans. DOD 

concurred with both recommendations and has taken action to address the 

recommendations.

6

GAO, Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel Rotation Programs Can 

Build on Positive Results with Additional Preparation and Evaluation, GAO-12-386

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2012).
Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on Interagency 

Collaboration and Coordination

Page 29 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

the effectiveness of State’s interagency rotations to other government 

agencies to determine if desired results are being achieved for 

participating individuals and agencies; (5) improve incentives for civil 

service personnel to participate in interagency rotations by providing 

guidance to supervisors on how to consider interagency experience 

for, among other things, ratings and awards; (6) improve incentives for 

supervisors to support civil service personnel’s participation in 

interagency rotations by establishing performance expectations that 

supervisors share human resources; and (7) develop guidance on 

how to ensure that the knowledge, skills, and networks gained during 

rotation can be used upon the personnel’s return.7 Additionally, we 

recommended that the Secretary of Defense (1) work with host 

agency counterparts to develop orientation materials to maximize the 

benefits of the rotational assignment and (2) routinely evaluate the 

effectiveness of the program to determine if desired results are being 

achieved.8

• More recently, in 2014, we found that interagency collaboration is 

necessary for assessing and closing capability gaps in federal 

agencies’ emergency support functions for unexpected catastrophic 

disasters—such as an earthquake or improvised nuclear device.9

 7

GAO made seven recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Foreign 

Policy Advisor Program and State’s interagency rotations to other government agencies 

and federal learning institutes. The Department of State, in its written comments on the 

draft report, generally agreed with the seven recommendations. Subsequently, the 

Department of State has taken action to address four and did not take action to address 

three of our seven recommendations, citing insufficient resources as the reason further 

action was not taken.

8

The Department of Defense concurred with our recommendations for the Army 

Command and General Staff College Interagency Fellowship Program. As of September 

2015, DOD has taken action to address one of our two recommendations.

9

GAO, Emergency Preparedness: Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Interagency 

Assessments and Accountability for Closing Capability Gaps, GAO-15-20 (Washington 

D.C.: Dec. 4, 2014). We recommended that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the 

Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (1) coordinate and 

collaborate with other federal departments and agencies in developing guidance on 

standards to demonstrate preparedness, (2) coordinate and collaborate with the National 

Security Council Staff and other federal departments and agencies to collect information 

on and regularly report to the Secretary of Homeland Security on the status of corrective 

actions, and (3) coordinate and collaborate with other federal departments and agencies 

to develop detailed program management information for federal interagency closure of 

the capability gaps identified in the Department of Homeland Security Improvised Nuclear 

Device Strategy. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with all three 

recommendations, but has not taken action to address the recommendations.
Appendix II: Prior GAO Work on Interagency 

Collaboration and Coordination

Page 30 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Lessons learned from the federal response to Hurricane Sandy 

underscored the importance of assessing gaps in interagency 

emergency response preparedness. The National Security Council’s 

after action report identified challenges that delayed the federal 

government’s response to the disaster. One such challenge was that 

some response efforts were conducted through intra-department 

approaches, rather than as part of a coordinated, integrated 

approach.
Appendix III: GAO’s Compliance Assessment 

of the Section 1107 Requirements

Page 31 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

On March 29, 2014, the Committee on National Security Personnel 

issued the required National Security Human Capital Strategy—entitled 

The Human Capital Strategy for Interagency Personnel Rotations

(Strategy)—in response to requirements set forth in section 1107 of the 

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013.1 The statute 

included 19 requirements related to the development and issuance of the 

Strategy and the subsequent implementation and monitoring of the 

section 1107 Interagency Rotation Program; however, for 2 of these 

requirements we had no basis to judge because these requirements are 

contingent on actions that had not yet occurred.2 Therefore, we did not 

assess these requirements. Table 2 provides our assessment of the 

extent to which the Committee, through its actions and issued Strategy, 

complied with each of the 17 section 1107 requirements we could 

assess.3

Table 2: GAO’s Assessment of the Extent to Which the Requirements in Section 1107 of the National Defense Authorization 

Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013 Have Been Addressed

 1

National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013, Pub. L. No. 112-239, § 1107 

(2013).

2

During the finalization of our review, the September 30, 2015 deadline for the 

Committee’s report to Congress passed. According to OPM officials, OPM and the 

Committee conferred on this reporting requirement and the Committee requested that 

OPM issue the report on the Committee’s behalf, as Chair of the NSPD Executive 

Steering Committee. OPM officials further stated that, as of November 2015, the report is 

undergoing final review and approval at OPM. We note that this report will be late. 

3

The two requirements for which we had no basis to judge were omitted from this table.

Appendix III: GAO’s Compliance Assessment 

of the Section 1107 Requirements

Assessed statutory requirements Our comments Our assessment

(c) PROGRAM ESTABLISHED.—

(1) Not later than 270 days after the date of the enactment 

of this act, the Committee on National Security Personnel, 

in consultation with representatives of such other agencies 

as the Committee determines to be appropriate, shall 

develop and issue a National Security Human Capital 

Strategy providing policies, processes, and procedures for a 

program for the interagency rotation of personnel among 

positions within National Security Interagency Communities 

of Interest.

The statute required that the Committee issue the 

Strategy by September 29, 2013. The Strategy 

was issued, but was issued March 29, 2014—6

months late. Therefore, this requirement was 

partially addressed. 

◐
Appendix III: GAO’s Compliance Assessment 

of the Section 1107 Requirements

Page 32 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

(2) The strategy required by paragraph (1) shall, at a 

minimum—,

(A) identify specific Interagency Communities of Interest for 

the purpose of carrying out the program;

We found this requirement was addressed. 

(B) designate agencies to be included or excluded from the 

program;

The Strategy designates that the Committee will 

determine which departments and agencies will 

participate as each Community is formed. 

However, because the Strategy does not 

designate which agencies will be included or 

excluded, the strategy partially addresses this 

requirement. 

◐

(C) define categories of positions to be covered by the 

program; 

We found this requirement was addressed. 

(D) establish processes by which the heads of relevant 

agencies may identify—

(i) positions in Interagency Communities of Interest that 

are available for rotation under the program; and

(ii) individual employees who are available to 

participate in rotational assignments under the 

program; and

We found this requirement was addressed.

We found this requirement was addressed. 





(E) promulgate procedures for the program, including—

(i) any minimum or maximum periods of service for 

participation in the program;

(ii) any training and education requirements associated with 

participation in the program;

(iii) any prerequisites or requirements for participation in the 

program; and

(iv) appropriate performance measures, reporting 

requirements, and other accountability devices for the 

evaluation of the program.

We found this requirement was addressed.

We found this requirement was addressed.

We found this requirement was addressed.

We found this requirement was addressed.









(d) PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS.—The policies, processes, and procedures

established pursuant to subsection (c) shall, at a minimum, provide that—

(1) during each of the first 4 fiscal years after the fiscal year 

in which this Act is enacted—

(A) the interagency rotation program shall be carried out in 

at least 2 Interagency Communities of Interest, of which 1 

shall be an Interagency Community of Interest for 

emergency management and 1 shall be an Interagency 

Community of Interest for stabilization and reconstruction; 

and

The Strategy does not address this requirement, 

because it reiterates that the statute identifies the 

two named communities and, as of September 

2015, the interagency rotation program has not 

been carried out in any Interagency Communities 

of Interest, including Emergency Management and 

Stabilization and Reconstruction and no 

participants have participated in rotations under 

the program.a



(B) not fewer than 20 employees in the executive branch of 

the Government shall be assigned to participate in the 

interagency personnel rotation program;

The Strategy does not address this requirement 

because it does not address the number of 

participants that should be assigned to participate 

in rotations.


Appendix III: GAO’s Compliance Assessment 

of the Section 1107 Requirements

Page 33 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Legend: Addresses () = The Committee’s actions and/or Strategy discussed or fulfilled all elements of the statutory requirement.

Partially Addresses (◐) = The Committee’s actions and/or Strategy discussed or fulfilled some elements of the statutory requirement

Does Not Address () = The Committee’s actions and/or Strategy did not discuss or fulfill any elements of the statutory requirement

Source: GAO analysis of actions taken by the Committee on National Security Personnel’s and the National Security Human Capital Strategy. | GAO-16-57

a

Prior to the establishment of the section 1107 program, a single cohort of 16 employees participated 

in a rotational assignment in 2012 under the previously existing National Security Professional 

Development Program—established by Executive Order 13434. This rotation is the only such 

interagency rotation undertaken under either program.

(2) an employee’s participation in the interagency rotation 

program shall require the consent of the head of the agency 

and shall be voluntary on the part of the employee;

We found this requirement was addressed. 

(3) employees selected to perform interagency rotational 

service are selected in a fully open and competitive manner 

that is consistent with the merit system principles set forth in 

paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 2301(b) of title 5, United 

States Code, unless the Interagency Community of Interest 

position is otherwise exempt under another provision of law;

We found this requirement was addressed. 

(4) an employee performing service in a position in another 

agency pursuant to the program established under this 

section shall be entitled to return, within a reasonable period 

of time after the end of the period of service, to the position 

held by the employee, or a corresponding or higher position, 

in his or her employing agency;

We found this requirement was addressed. 

(5) an employee performing interagency rotational service 

shall have all the rights that would be available to the 

employee if the employee were detailed or assigned under 

a provision of law other than this section from the agency 

employing the employee to the agency in which the position 

in which the employee is serving is located; and 

We found this requirement was addressed. 

(6) an employee participating in the program shall receive 

performance evaluations from officials in his or her 

employing agency that are based on input from the 

supervisors of the employee during his or her service in the 

program that are based primarily on the contribution of the 

employee to the work of the agency in which the employee 

performed such service, and these performance evaluations 

shall be provided the same weight in the receipt of 

promotions and other rewards by the employee from the 

employing agency as performance evaluations for service in 

the employing agency. 

We found this requirement was addressed. 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 34 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 35 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 36 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 37 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 38 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 39 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov

In addition to the above named contact, Vincent Balloon, Assistant 

Director; Jason Bair; Clifton Douglas, Jr; Rebecca Gambler; Terry 

Richardson; Justin Riordan; John Van Schaik; Jennifer Weber; Erik 

Wilkins-McKee; and Michael Willems made key contributions to this 

report.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Related GAO Products

Page 40 GAO-16-57 Interagency Rotation Program

Critical Technologies: Agency Initiatives Address Some Weaknesses, but 

Additional Interagency Collaboration Is Needed. GAO-15-288. 

Washington D.C.: February 10, 2015.

Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance 

Collaboration in Interagency Groups. GAO-14-220. Washington, D.C.: 

February 14, 2014.

Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. Washington, D.C.: September 

27, 2012.

Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel Rotation Programs 

Can Build on Positive Results with Additional Preparation and Evaluation. 

GAO-12-386. Washington D.C.: March 9, 2012.

National Security: An Overview of Professional Development Activities 

Intended to Improve Interagency Collaboration. GAO-11-108. 

Washington, D.C.: November 15, 2010.

National Security: Interagency Collaboration Practices and Challenges at 

DOD’s Southern and Africa Commands. GAO-10-962T. Washington, 

D.C.: July 28, 2010.

Defense Management: U.S. Southern Command Demonstrates 

Interagency Collaboration, but Its Haiti Disaster Response Revealed 

Challenges Conducting a Large Military Operation. GAO-10-801. 

Washington, D.C.: July 28, 2010.

Homeland Defense: DOD Needs to Take Actions to Enhance Interagency 

Coordination for Its Homeland Defense and Civil Support Missions. 

GAO-10-364. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2010.

Interagency Collaboration: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight of 

National Security Strategies, Organizations, Workforce, and Information 

Sharing. GAO-09-904SP. Washington, D.C.: September 25, 2009.

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 

Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies. GAO-06-15. Washington, 

D.C.: October 21, 2005.

Related GAO Products

(352041)
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.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (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 http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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, 

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 on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. 

Listen to our Podcasts and read The Watchblog.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.