INTERAGENCY 

COLLABORATION

State and Army 

Personnel Rotation 

Programs Can Build 

on Positive Results 

with Additional 

Preparation and 

Evaluation

Report to Congressional Requesters

March 2012

GAO-12-386

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-386, a report to 

congressional requesters

March 2012

INTERAGENCY COLLABORATION

State and Army Personnel Rotation Programs Can 

Build on Positive Results with Additional 

Preparation and Evaluation

Why GAO Did This Study

Federal government personnel must 

be able to collaborate across agencies 

to meet complex 21st century national 

security challenges. GAO found in a 

prior report that interagency rotations 

are a type of professional development 

activity that can help improve 

interagency collaboration. However, 

government officials, policy 

researchers, human capital experts, 

and others cite many challenges to 

successful rotation programs. 

To understand how interagency 

rotation programs can be designed to 

address these challenges, GAO was 

asked to (1) identify desirable 

collaboration-related program results; 

(2) identify policies and practices that 

help rotation programs achieve those 

results; and (3) determine the extent to 

which three rotation programs were 

viewed as effective and incorporated 

those policies and practices.

To address these objectives, GAO 

reviewed the literature; reviewed 

rotation program documents; surveyed 

program participants and their 

supervisors; and interviewed human 

resources experts, agency human 

resources practitioners, and program 

officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations to 

the Secretaries of State and Defense 

to direct State and Army Command 

and General Staff College officials to 

build on successful efforts by 

establishing program evaluation 

processes, among other actions. 

Officials from both agencies reviewed 

a draft of this report and generally 

agreed with our recommendations.

What GAO Found

Effective interagency rotational assignments can achieve collaboration-related 

results—such as developing participants’ collaboration skills and building 

interagency networks—but programs must be a “win-win” for the individuals and 

organizations involved in order to be effective. 

GAO found policies and practices that help interagency rotation programs 

achieve collaboration-related results as indicated in the figure below. The policies 

and practices addressed challenges to participation, and included incentives, 

preparation, and feedback. 

Most participants and host supervisors of State’s Foreign Policy Advisor 

(POLAD) program, State’s other interagency rotations, and the Army Command 

and General Staff College (CGSC) Interagency Fellowship reported that their 

programs were effective in contributing to improved collaboration among 

agencies with national security responsibilities. The figure below also shows the 

extent to which these programs incorporated the policies and practices GAO

identified. 

Extent to Which State and Army Rotation Programs Incorporated Policies and Practices That 

Can Achieve Collaboration Results

a

State’s POLAD program is managed according to Foreign Service career development and staffing 

processes, which are based, in part, on individual initiative and preferences for subsequent 

assignments. Because these processes were beyond the scope of this report, GAO did not evaluate 

the effectiveness of how State planned for its Foreign Service participants’ next assignments.

b

GAO’s finding associated with this practice is limited to the few civil service personnel that 

participated in other State rotations.

View GAO-12-386. To view the e-supplement

online, click GAO-12-387SP. For more 

information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at 

(202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Letter 1 

Background 4

Effective Interagency Rotation Programs Achieve CollaborationRelated Results for Individuals and Organizations 6

Effective Interagency Rotation Programs Support Shared Goals 

and Incorporate Incentives, Preparation, and Feedback 8

State and DOD Rotation Programs Viewed As Effective in 

Achieving Results; and Incorporated or Partially Incorporated 

Most Desirable Policies and Practices 16

Conclusions 37

Recommendations for Executive Action 38

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 40

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 43

Appendix II Results from GAO’s Questionnaire on Desirable Outcomes and 

Effective Policies and Practices Associated with Interagency Rotation 

Programs 51

Appendix III Comments from the Department of State 58

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Defense 62

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 65

Related GAO Products 66

Tables

Table 1: Response Rates to Surveys by Program 48

Table 2: Percentage Responses to Part I of Questionnaire 53

Table 3: Percentage Responses to Part II of Questionnaire 56

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Figures

Figure 1: Effective Interagency Rotations Achieve CollaborationRelated Results for Individuals and Organizations 7

Figure 2: Examples of Interagency Rotation Program Elements 

That Can Be Evaluated 15

Figure 3: Responses of Participants and Host Supervisors to the 

Survey Question “How effective, if at all, is the 

interagency rotational assignment program in 

contributing to improved collaboration among agencies 

with national security responsibilities?” 16

Figure 4: Extent to Which State and Army Rotation Programs 

Incorporated Policies and Practices that Can Achieve 

Collaboration Results 17

Figure 5: Responses of POLAD Participants to the Questions “Did 

you take part in an orientation or training intended to 

prepare you for your interagency rotational assignment?” 

and “Were you provided with written guidance or other 

materials intended to prepare you for your interagency 

rotational assignment?” 21

Figure 6: Responses of POLAD Host Supervisors to the Questions 

“Did you take part in an orientation or training intended to 

prepare you to host a participant?” and “Were you 

provided with written guidance or other materials 

intended to prepare you to host a participant?” 22

Figure 7: Responses of POLAD Participants and Host Supervisors 

to the Question “Did you have an opportunity to complete 

an evaluation or provide feedback on the interagency 

rotational assignment program in some formal way?” 23

Figure 8: Responses of CGSC Participants and Host Supervisors to 

the Question “Did you have an opportunity to complete an 

evaluation or provide feedback on the interagency 

rotational assignment program in some formal way?” 37
Page iii GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Abbreviations

CGSC U.S. Army Command and General Staff College

DOD Department of Defense

FS Foreign Service (pay schedule)

G/FO General/Flag Officer

GS General Schedule

HRC U.S. Army Human Resources Command 

JPME Joint Professional Military Education

MOA Memorandum of Agreement

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NSPD National Security Professional Development

O Officer level

POLAD Foreign Policy Advisor

QDDR Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review

SES Senior Executive Service

SFS Senior Foreign Service

State Department of State

TRADOC U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command

USMS United States Marshals Service

View GAO-12-386 key component

Interagency Collaboration: Survey Results of State and Army Personnel 

Rotation Program Participants and Their Host-Agency Supervisors 

(GAO-12-387SP), an e-supplement to GAO-12-386

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-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

United States Government Accountability Office 

Washington, DC 20548

March 9, 2012

Congressional Requesters

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

nuclear proliferation, global pandemics, and terrorist attacks—require a 

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

agency lines. Congress is considering using interagency rotation 

programs—which we previously identified as one type of professional 

development activity that can help improve interagency collaboration—to 

promote collaboration across the federal national security workforce.1 The 

Interagency Personnel Rotation Act of 2011, pending before the Senate 

and House, would encourage interagency rotations by requiring 

interagency experience for national security and homeland security 

personnel prior to promotion to certain senior positions.2

There is broad agreement that although interagency rotations can help to 

build bridges between the myriad agencies involved in national security, 

there are many challenges to the success of interagency rotation 

programs.3

To better understand how to effectively design and implement 

interagency rotation programs and overcome these challenges, you 

For example, an individual may be deterred from participating 

because of the perception that interagency rotations can slow or derail 

career advancement. From the agency perspective, there may be 

reluctance to send participants on rotation because of the potential 

negative effect on its workforce capacity, or to host participants who may 

take too much time to bring up to speed.

 

1

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

Improve Interagency Collaboration, GAO-11-108 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2011).

2

See S. 1268 and H.R. 2314. The purpose of these acts is to increase the efficiency and 

effectiveness of the government by fostering greater interagency experience among 

executive branch personnel on national security and homeland security matters involving 

more than one agency. 

3

See GAO-11-108; Project on National Security Reform, The Power of People: Building 

an Integrated National Security Professional System for the 21st Century (Washington, 

D.C.: November 2010); and Congressional Research Service, National Security 

Professionals and Interagency Reform: Proposals, Recent Experience, and Issues for 

Congress, RL34565, (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 26, 2011). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

asked us to (1) identify desirable collaboration-related program results—

in terms of individual competencies and organizational results; (2) identify 

policies and practices that help interagency rotation programs achieve 

collaboration-related results; and (3) determine the extent to which three 

rotation programs were viewed as effective and incorporated those 

policies and practices.

To address these objectives, we took several approaches. To identify 

desirable collaboration-related program results and policies and practices 

to achieve those results, we drew on three sources of information:

• We conducted a review of literature, including academic articles, trade 

publications, and other sources.

• We interviewed and then administered a follow-up questionnaire to 

federal human capital and training and development practitioners at 9 

agencies with national security responsibilities (agency practitioners). 

The practitioners included agency officials from the three programs 

we reviewed.

• We interviewed human capital and training and development experts 

external to the 9 national security agencies (external experts). We 

identified these external experts by seeking referrals from human 

capital and professional development practitioners at GAO and from

professional associations, such as the National Academy of Human 

Resources and the National Academy for Public Administration, and 

other experts. 

From these three sources of information, we extracted (1) positive results 

that can generally be achieved by rotation programs and (2) effective 

policies and practices for achieving these results. To identify the most 

important results, policies, and practices, we analyzed them according to 

how frequently they were cited and whether they appeared in one, two, or 

all three sources of information. We also included just those results, 

policies, and practices that were relevant to the federal government.

Based on our prior work, we identified three interagency rotation

programs operating in the federal national security arena. Two are at the 
 

Page 3 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Department of State (State) and one is at the U.S. Army Command and 

General Staff College (CGSC) within the Department of Defense (DOD).4

To determine the extent to which the State and DOD interagency rotation 

programs incorporated the policies and practices we identified, and to 

assess the effectiveness of these programs in achieving desirable 

collaboration-related results, we reviewed program documents, 

interviewed responsible agency officials, and administered a survey to all 

fiscal year 2009 participants and their supervisors both prior to their 

rotations, if relevant,5 and at the host agency.6 We received a sufficient 

response from participants and host agency supervisors to report their 

views.7

We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to March 2012 

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. 

We did not receive a sufficient response from prior agency 

supervisors to reflect the views of those supervisors and therefore do not 

report those results.

 

4

In GAO-11-108, we identified seven interagency rotational assignment programs 

intended to improve national security collaboration while providing professional 

development opportunities for its participants. We excluded those from our review that 

were newly established and/or those that targeted participants without prior professional 

experience, such as military school cadets, since it would be difficult to gauge whether 

these programs had contributed to organizational results or to participants’ professional 

development.

5

Because the DOD program at the Army CGSC sends participants directly from an 

academic program to an interagency rotational assignment, these participants did not 

have line supervisors immediately prior to their participation. 

6

We asked agency officials to identify all rotational assignment participants in fiscal year 

2009 and all of the host agency individuals that supervised participants in 2009. Because 

some assignments last for up to three years, some participants may have continued their 

rotational assignment through 2010 or beyond. 

7

We received responses from 77 of 124 (62 percent) participants, 41 of 85 (48 percent) 

host supervisors, and 21 of 58 (36 percent) prior supervisors. See appendix I for additional 

information on the survey.
 

Page 4 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Interagency rotation programs, or interagency rotations, are work 

assignments at a different agency from the one in which the participant is 

normally employed, with an explicit professional development purpose. 

As we previously reported, several federal agencies have used 

interagency rotations to help accomplish their national security missions 

while also explicitly seeking to develop participants’ abilities to collaborate 

on national security.8

The State Foreign Policy Advisor (POLAD) program is a 1- to 3-year 

rotation that places State Foreign Service Officers at the Pentagon or at 

military commands to work alongside DOD civilians and military officers. 

These include Foreign Policy Advisors, State-Defense Exchange Officers, 

and State positions with Joint Interagency Coordination Groups.9 The 

POLAD program seeks to provide participants with opportunities to 

develop their knowledge of military culture, roles, and responsibilities, 

while providing a foreign policy perspective to military planning and 

operations. These assignments also are to provide opportunities to 

establish networks between diplomats and military staff who must work 

together on global issues. These rotations target mid- to senior-level 

State Foreign Service Officers. Formally established in the early 1960s, 

the POLAD program was created to further coordination between State 

and DOD and to ensure that both diplomatic and military strategies were 

employed to address national security challenges. State officials told us 

that, over time, they found that the POLAD program also had become a 

means for developing Foreign Service Officers’ experience and 

effectiveness in operating in a military environment. The size of the 

program is also expanding: during the past 4 years, the number of 

diplomats serving in these positions has more than doubled, to near 90.

 

8

GAO-11-108. 

9

Joint Interagency Coordination Groups, housed within DOD combatant commands, are 

intended to serve as a coordinating body among the civilian agencies in Washington, 

D.C., the country ambassadors, the combatant commands’ staffs, and other multinational 

and multilateral bodies within the region.

Background

State Foreign Policy 

Advisor Program
 

Page 5 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

These assignments are 1- to 3-year rotations that place State Foreign 

Service and civil service personnel at federal agencies or federal learning 

institutions. Participants are to have opportunities to learn about the roles 

and responsibilities of the host agencies and to establish professional 

networks with personnel from different agencies working on similar 

issues. These rotations target mid- to senior-level State Foreign Service 

Officers and civil service employees, depending on the position. While 

these assignments are not part of a formal program, State has been 

sending personnel on assignments to some of the same organizations, 

such as the National Defense University or the National Security Staff, for 

more than a decade. In State’s most recent announcement for 

interagency rotation positions available in 2012-2013, they identified 

rotations to 8 federal organizations, which represented approximately 45 

positions.10

The Interagency Fellowship Program is a 10- to 12-month rotation that 

places Army officers in intermediate-level positions at other federal 

agencies and allows them to learn the culture of the host agency, hone 

collaborative skills such as communication and teamwork, and establish 

networks with their civilian counterparts. The program targets field-grade 

Army officers, primarily majors. First piloted in 2008, the program was 

designed to achieve multiple objectives. These interagency assignments 

are to provide Fellows with valuable developmental experiences while 

they increase workforce capacity at their host civilian agencies, such as 

State and U.S. Agency for International Development. In turn, the civilian 

agencies can free up resources to send civilian personnel to teach or 

attend courses at Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC). 

The Interagency Fellowship program had 23 participants in 2009 and 26 

in 2010. In the current program year, there are 28.

 

10The announcement did not specify the precise number of positions at each organization, 

since some were conditional on funding availability. 

State Interagency 

Rotations at Other 

Government Agencies and 

Federal Learning Institutes

Army Command and 

General Staff College 

Intermediate Level 

Education Interagency 

Fellowship Program
 

Page 6 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

As we have previously reported, collaborative approaches to national 

security require a well-trained workforce with the skills and experience to 

integrate the government’s diverse capabilities and resources.11

As one expert explained, designing a rotation so that it is a “win-win” for 

the individual participants and organizations involved is critical to its 

success. Of the 34 federal human capital and training officials that 

responded to our post-interview questionnaire, 33 agreed that it was 

important for interagency rotations to provide developmental opportunities 

for individual participants while helping the host agency meet its mission 

responsibilities. The same number also agreed that the home agency 

should benefit (e.g., be able to achieve mission objectives more 

effectively) from the knowledge, skills, and professional networks that 

participants develop during rotations (see figure 1).

According to our analysis of the literature and the perspectives of external 

experts and agency practitioners, effective interagency rotations help 

achieve collaboration-related results by improving the participant’s 

knowledge of other agencies, building the participant’s leadership and 

collaboration skills and experience, and offering the participant 

opportunities to form interagency networks. The participant’s home 

agency can increase its capacity to collaborate by leveraging the 

participant’s experience. In addition, the home agency can ensure that it 

has an adequate supply of current and future leaders with the broad 

perspectives, collaboration skills, and other competencies necessary to 

succeed in an interagency environment. The participant’s host agency 

can benefit from the temporary increase in workforce capacity, as well as 

from applying the participant’s particular skills, experiences, or other 

characteristics to a specific mission or project. In addition, the host 

agency can build its network with the home agency, using its relationship 

with the participant for future collaboration once he or she has returned to 

the home agency.

 

11GAO, 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).

Effective Interagency 

Rotation Programs 

Achieve

Collaboration-Related 

Results for 

Individuals and 

Organizations
 

Page 7 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Figure 1: Effective Interagency Rotations Achieve Collaboration-Related Results for 

Individuals and Organizations

Although interagency rotation programs can bring about these positive 

results for all involved parties, our analysis indicates that there are 

challenges to the success of these programs. For example, there are 

potential costs to participants’ career progression, due to time away from 

the home agency or other factors. Rotation programs, if not managed 

effectively, can also temporarily diminish the home organizations’ 

workforce capacities. As one human capital official noted, in the face of 

diminishing resources, managers may become even more reluctant to let 

their high performers go on interagency rotations.

Moreover, our prior work has shown that to improve interagency 

collaboration, agencies need to address factors beyond those associated 

with workforce collaboration abilities. For example, organizational 

differences—including differences in organizational structures, planning 
 

Page 8 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

processes, and funding sources—between and among multiple agencies 

can also hinder collaboration.12 Many of the experts we interviewed 

agreed that to bring about improved interagency collaboration, rotation 

programs must be part of a larger strategy that addresses such 

organizational factors.

The policies and practices described below are the result of our analysis 

of the literature and the perspectives of external experts and agency 

practitioners we interviewed. According to that analysis, these policies 

and practices can help interagency rotational programs achieve 

collaboration-related results.

We have previously reported that agencies should undertake strategic 

workforce planning to identify the workforce they need to accomplish their 

current and future mission. Such planning should involve identifying the 

necessary competencies, size, and deployment of the workforce as well 

as any current or future gaps. Training and development activities, such 

as interagency rotations, should be designed to fill these gaps so that the 

agency can more effectively achieve its strategic goals.13 Thus, for 

interagency rotation programs to be effective in bringing about 

collaboration-related results, they should be designed to help achieve the 

agency’s collaboration-dependent goals and, ideally, cross-organizational 

goals. In linking the program to overarching or shared strategic goals, 

agencies should make the case that the benefits of interagency rotations 

outweigh the costs to the organization as a whole, which can help to 

address management concerns regarding the program.

 

12GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005). 

13 GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, 

GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).

Effective Interagency 

Rotation Programs 

Support Shared Goals 

and Incorporate 

Incentives, 

Preparation, and 

Feedback

Design the Program to 

Achieve Overarching or 

Shared Strategic Goals
 

Page 9 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

To ensure a rotation program’s success, steps should be taken to 

address any real or perceived disincentives to participate and to attract 

the agencies’ strongest candidates. For example, potential applicants 

may fear that they will be “out of sight, out of mind” while on rotation, and 

that their performance reviews will not adequately reflect their 

experiences at the host agency. We found that the following incentives 

may encourage participation:

• Harness internal motivations: Prospective rotation program 

participants may be motivated by personal interest, beliefs, or other 

intrinsic factors. As a human capital expert we spoke with noted, one 

way to encourage individuals to take assignments outside of their 

home organization is to tap into their desire “to do the right thing.” If 

an organization can articulate how and why a rotation is for the 

greater good, it can serve as a powerful incentive. Many of our 

participant survey respondents described internal motivating factors—

such as opportunities to work in new environments or to help host 

agencies to achieve national security goals—as “very important” to 

them in deciding to participate in their programs.14

• Use performance management systems: Agencies should ensure 

that they have the means to recognize and reward accomplishments 

and good performance outside the home agency. Agencies can 

provide management with guidance on how to consider performance 

on rotation when conducting performance appraisals. They can also 

consider adding a collaboration-related competency or performance 

standard—or modifying an existing competency or standard to include 

collaboration—against which individual performance can be rated.

• Factor rotations into promotion decisions: Personnel may be 

encouraged to participate in rotation programs if agencies factor 

interagency experience into their promotion decisions. In the military 

services, the requirement to have joint duty experience prior to 

promotion to general and flag officer ranks is often cited as a key 

incentive put in place to encourage participation in assignments 

across service or agency boundaries. However, as several experts on 

civil service management cautioned, there are potential challenges to 

 

14We did not survey individuals who were eligible for these rotational assignment 

programs but chose not to participate. Factors that might have motivated them to 

participate may be different from the factors described here. 

Provide Individuals with 

Incentives to Participate
 

Page 10 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

establishing interagency rotations as a promotion requirement. For 

example, sufficient rotation opportunities must be available and 

safeguards should be put in place to ensure the selection process for 

rotation participants is fair.

• Provide public recognition: In addition to providing incentives 

through performance management systems, agencies can publicly 

acknowledge or reward participants in other ways. For example, 

agencies could confer awards to individuals who exhibit exemplary 

teamwork skills or accomplishments during an interagency rotation. 

On a less formal level, agency leaders could invite returning 

participants to present information on their host agency’s culture, 

organization, or operating methods to agency management and 

peers. While this less formal approach is not necessarily related to the 

individual participant’s performance, it does allow agency leadership 

to signal the value of participating in interagency rotations, which can 

encourage others to participate in the future.

Management, both at the senior leadership and immediate supervisor 

level, can significantly influence an interagency rotation program’s 

success. We found that programs and their home organizations can 

create participation incentives through some of the following practices:

• Agency leadership articulates benefits of and demonstrates 

long-term commitment to interagency rotations: Agency leaders 

can work to ensure that managers understand the value of the 

program to the agency or to the government as a whole. This is 

important for getting buy-in from senior managers, who are most likely 

to bear the direct costs of the program, such as the temporary loss of 

an employee or the time a rotating employee needs to acclimate to 

the agency. As one expert stated, the leadership sets the tone for 

rotations which can encourage managers to allow for these 

assignments. In addition, widespread leadership support of the 

program may help to ensure that its sponsorship will endure through 

leadership changes.

• Agencies identify and agree upon interagency governance 

mechanisms: We have reported that integrating the efforts of

national security agencies and related programs has proven 

Provide Management—at 

Host and Home 

Agencies—with Incentives 

to Participate
 

Page 11 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

challenging.15 To minimize coordination issues that can make a 

rotation difficult or time-consuming to manage, agencies should have 

an interagency governance mechanism that clearly defines 

organizational and individual roles and responsibilities. For example, 

agencies can use memorandums of agreement to address 

considerations such as how participants will be selected, which 

agency pays salary and any relocation costs, and how performance 

accountability will be managed. Governance agreements can also be 

used to describe how challenges will be addressed and involved 

parties are to be held accountable. For example, one expert described 

an agreement for a rotational exchange program, where two 

organizations would swap managers, thereby ensuring that neither 

organization would have a hole in a key management position. 

Another expert noted that agreements can also address accountability 

mechanisms to ensure that both organizations are sending highperformers, with provisions to terminate the exchange early if 

expectations were not met. Our analysis indicated that whether a 

rotation is structured as an exchange or not, providing host-agency 

management with a formal role in appraising a participant’s 

performance is key to addressing potential concerns with performance 

accountability.

• Agency performance management systems reward managers for 

supporting interagency rotations: To help engender cultures in 

which interagency rotations are valued, agencies can create 

incentives for managers to develop their personnel and share their 

human resources. Agency officials indicated that managers may be 

concerned that their highest-performing staff may be recruited away 

from them or that they will lose limited resources to a long detail. The 

performance management system is one tool agencies can use to 

create the expectations that managers must be willing to share their 

talent and those who share talent will be rewarded. For example, 

some private sector companies include an explicit goal in their senior 

executive performance agreements regarding sharing and rotating 

staff resources. By rewarding managers for supporting interagency 

rotations and contributing to enterprisewide goals, agencies can 

nurture a culture where rotations are valued.

 

15GAO, 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).
 

Page 12 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

• Agencies provide host-agency management with highperforming participants: Host-agency managers will continue to be 

willing to host participants if the participants are consistently high 

performers. There are several practices that can help control 

participant quality. Many sources we reviewed indicated that 

identifying candidates through an open application process and 

evaluating or ranking them against specific criteria—competitive 

selection—is an effective practice. For example, experts suggested 

that, at minimum, only candidates with satisfactory performance 

appraisals should be considered. A related practice is to widely 

publicize program opportunities to reach the greatest number of 

qualified applicants.

To maximize the benefits of the program to the participant, the host 

agency, and the home agency, rotation programs should place rotating 

employees in positions that best use their unique skill sets and help them 

to develop professionally while addressing host agency needs.

• Ensure host-agency needs are taken into account in defining 

assignments: Experts indicated that placing participants in positions 

for which they were not qualified or could not contribute to host 

organization goals could negatively affect host-agency support for the 

program, which is crucial to its success. Host-agencies’ needs can be 

taken into account by having them contribute to the rotation’s position 

description or qualifications or having them participate in the selection 

of candidates, among other ways.

• Ensure participants’ developmental needs are taken into account 

in assigning positions: To ensure that participants will acquire the 

skills and experiences needed for the next level of management in 

their organizations, programs should have a process for reviewing 

candidates’ developmental needs and matching them with positions 

that would suit them. For example, agencies could require that 

candidates submit their individual development plans or detail in their 

application how the rotation will help them to address their 

developmental needs.

To maximize the benefit of the interagency rotation, agencies should 

prepare participants and their host supervisors. In addition, the goals of 

the assignment should be clearly defined and communicated to all 

parties.

Optimize the Match 

between the Participant 

and the Assignment

Prepare Participants and 

Their Host Supervisors for 

the Rotation
 

Page 13 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

• Provide orientation training or materials: Orientation training or 

materials can help to minimize the learning curve inherent in joining a 

new organization and allow the participant to contribute meaningfully 

to the host organization sooner. Preparing the host-agency supervisor 

is also important. As one expert noted, without some guidance and 

support, it can be difficult for supervisors to successfully manage the 

assignment. Orientation materials could include information on the 

goals of the program, roles and responsibilities of the participant and 

supervisor, key aspects of the host agency’s structure, mission, and 

responsibilities, as well as the administrative aspects of rotating, such 

as how to be reimbursed for travel expenses. In addition, orientation 

materials could address how host supervisors can maximize the 

rotation experience.

• Define and communicate goals for the assignment: It is important 

for participants and host-agency supervisors to have the same 

understanding of the purpose of the assignment and the participant’s 

responsibilities. Having a clear understanding of the goals for the 

interagency rotation will help the participant to better understand his 

or her role at the agency and how he or she will be evaluated. To help 

encourage a discussion of the goals of the rotation among relevant 

parties, agencies could develop a checklist of the topics to be 

discussed between participants and their host agency supervisors.

Effective interagency rotation programs plan for a participant’s next 

assignment to ensure that the valuable professional development the 

participant gained through these time- and resource-intensive rotations is 

not squandered. Moreover, when a participant’s post-rotation 

responsibilities fail to build on his or her developmental experience, the 

participant may be dissatisfied, and as a result, more likely to leave the 

organization.

• Home agencies can leverage participant gains in a variety of 

ways: Agencies can assign participants to positions that directly 

benefit from their interagency experience and developmental gains. If

such assignments or responsibilities are not available, agencies could 

have participants write and share white papers on their experiences or 

present briefings to interested agency officials and colleagues. 

External experts that we spoke with indicated that if the knowledge, 

skills, and networks gained through an interagency rotation are not 

used in the short-term, they can be lost or become irrelevant. One 

expert noted that professional networks are particularly vulnerable to 

obsolescence, as contacts move to new positions and responsibilities 

Plan for Participant’s Next 

Assignment to Maximize 

Benefits to Participant and 

Home Agency
 

Page 14 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

shift. According to several experts, being strategic in selecting the 

initial rotation assignment can help to sustain networks after the 

assignment is over; rotating participants across agencies but within 

communities of practice, such as disaster response or post-conflict 

reconstruction, is one way to address this.

• Encourage periodic contact between participant and home 

agency to discuss post-program responsibilities: Periodic contact 

between the participant and home agency helps the participant 

transition back to the permanent position or on to the next 

assignment, and helps the home agency leverage the participant’s 

new skills. By maintaining contact, agencies are able to better identify 

the participant’s skills, knowledge, and networks and can plan in 

advance how to make the best use of them. In addition, occasional 

contact between the participant and home agency can also improve 

the home agency’s ability to retain participants after rotation, which 

some agency officials we interviewed cited as a concern of home 

agency managers. Contact between the participant and the home 

agency can also help to allay participants’ concerns that their homeagency management will forget them while on rotation.

Our prior work has shown that evaluation is a key component of any 

training and development program that should occur throughout the 

development and implementation process.16

 

16GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Training and Development Efforts in the Federal 

Government, 

Collecting feedback on the 

program from both the participant and host agency supervisor 

perspectives can help to build on lessons learned and improve the 

program. In addition, such evaluations can also help to demonstrate the 

impact and success of the program. One commonly accepted program 

evaluation model consists of five levels of assessment that measure (1) 

participant reaction to the training program; (2) changes in employee 

skills, knowledge, or abilities; (3) changes in on-the-job behaviors; (4) the 

impact of the training on program or organizational results; and (5) a 

return on investment that compares training costs to derived benefits. 

However, not all levels of evaluation are appropriate for all types of 

programs. In particular, the complexity and cost of conducting the more 

rigorous evaluations must be weighed in terms of the program’s 

significance and cost. At minimum, to achieve a balanced approach, 

GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).

Create a Program 

Feedback and Evaluation 

Process That Includes 

Participants and All 

Participating Organizations
 

Page 15 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

agencies should gather feedback from individual stakeholders as well as 

consider organizational results.17

Figure 2: Examples of Interagency Rotation Program Elements That Can Be 

Evaluated

See figure 2 for some examples of 

rotational program elements that can be evaluated.

 

17GAO-04-546G. 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

The majority of participants and supervisors who responded to our survey 

rated their programs as very effective in achieving collaboration-related 

results (see figure 3).18

Figure 3: Responses of Participants and Host Supervisors to the Survey Question 

“How effective, if at all, is the interagency rotational assignment program in 

contributing to improved collaboration among agencies with national security 

responsibilities?” 

Both participants and supervisors were asked open-ended questions 

about the outcomes of the programs. Of the participants and supervisors 

who responded to these questions, the majority (20 of 25 host 

supervisors and 46 of 55 participants) provided examples of positive 

outcomes, or generally wrote positive comments about the programs. 

Several of these comments (4 host supervisors and 7 participants) 

reflected the perspective that interagency collaboration is necessary. One 

participant and one host supervisor described negative outcomes, which 

in both cases, appeared to reflect a poor match between the participant 

and the host organization.

 

18Host supervisors and participants for each program responded to several questions on 

collaboration-related outcomes that could be achieved through the programs. Responses 

to all questions were mostly positive, with at least 85 percent responding either “very 

effective” or “somewhat effective.” Results for all questions of the two surveys are 

available in GAO-12-387SP, the e-supplement to this report.

State and DOD 

Rotation Programs 

Viewed As Effective 

in Achieving Results; 

and Incorporated or 

Partially Incorporated 

Most Desirable 

Policies and Practices
 

Page 17 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Based on our analysis of program documents, interviews with program 

officials, and responses to our survey of program participants and 

supervisors, we found that State’s POLAD and other rotation programs 

and Army’s CGSC Interagency Fellowship program incorporated or 

partially incorporated most of the policies and practices that can help 

achieve collaboration-related results. The exceptions were post-rotation 

planning and program evaluation processes at State (See figure 4).

Figure 4: Extent to Which State and Army Rotation Programs Incorporated Policies 

and Practices that Can Achieve Collaboration Results

a

State’s POLAD program is managed according to Foreign Service career development and staffing 

processes, which are based, in part, on individual initiative and preferences for subsequent 

assignments. Because these processes were beyond the scope of this report, we did not evaluate the 

effectiveness of how State planned for its Foreign Service participants’ next assignments. 

b

Our finding associated with this practice is limited to the few civil service personnel that participated 

in other State rotations. 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

To be effective, interagency rotation programs should be designed as part 

of an organization’s strategic goals or cross-organizational goals. We 

found that State’s POLAD program was initially created to achieve 

specific goals shared by State and DOD and has continued to evolve in 

scope and purpose. The 2010-2015 Quadrennial Diplomacy and 

Development Review (QDDR), a high-level assessment and planning 

blueprint for State and the U.S. Agency for International Development, 

notes the role and importance of interagency rotations in improving 

coordination. At the agency level, a key planning document for State’s 

Bureau of Political-Military Affairs—its fiscal year 2013 Strategic and

Resource Plan—specifically links the POLAD program to the Bureau’s 

strategic goals. In addition, the memorandum of understanding (MOU) 

between DOD and State for these interagency rotations states that “the 

long-standing practice of detailing personnel between these two agencies 

has greatly facilitated coordination” in helping to achieve the agencies’ 

“shared responsibility for national security and the need to coordinate 

carefully on numerous issues affecting both foreign policy and defense.” 

We found that State had put in place several of the policies and practices 

that can provide incentives for individuals to participate in the POLAD 

program. In fiscal year 2008, State revised its Foreign Service Officer 

competencies—used in performance appraisals for promotion and tenure 

purposes—to include interagency experience.19

 

19Foreign Service terminology for competencies are “precepts,” which according to State 

documentation, define “the specific skills to be considered and the level of 

accomplishment expected at different grades.” 

Specifically, the 

competencies now identify knowledge of other agencies and interagency 

cooperation among the skill sets to be assessed. In addition, the first 

QDDR, released publicly in 2010, acknowledged the important role that 

POLAD participants play in helping to coordinate regional responses in 

State’s POLAD Program 

Was Created to Achieve 

Collaboration-Related 

National Security Goals

State Provided Incentives 

for Participation in the 

POLAD Program through 

Human Resources 

Management Policies and 

Public Acknowledgment
 

Page 19 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

the field and allowing for successful partnering with DOD at the 

combatant commands. Agency officials said that these changes have 

resulted in increased interest in POLAD assignments, demonstrated by 

the increase in the number of applicants to the program in recent years. 

Moreover, the POLAD program publishes stories featuring POLAD 

participants and their experiences in an internal newsletter.

We found that State provides incentives to DOD to host POLADs by 

seeking to provide high-performing participants.20 The vacancy 

announcements for POLAD positions are widely publicized through an 

annual cable to a State Department-wide audience and then posted 

through the regular Foreign Service assignment process, to ensure a 

broad applicant pool. Most POLAD participants responding to our survey 

indicated that they were aware of efforts to market or publicize the 

program (30 of 37). POLAD candidates are subject to a competitive 

selection process. Moreover, State involves DOD in the candidate vetting 

and selection process, which is subject to DOD consultation and 

concurrence. All of the 15 POLAD host supervisors that responded to our 

survey were either very satisfied (12) or somewhat satisfied (3) with the 

quality of the participant. Most of the 15 were very satisfied (9) or 

somewhat satisfied (3) with his/her role in the selection of the participant.

We found that State has several policies and practices in place intended 

to meet DOD’s needs. There is a provision in the MOU between DOD and 

State allowing for review of the POLAD positions every two years, to 

ensure their continued relevance. As another means of ensuring that the 

POLAD participant is a good match for DOD’s needs, according to State 

POLAD program management, they work directly with the military 

commands to get as much detail as possible to develop the position 

description.

 

20According to State officials, because POLAD program participants are Foreign Service 

officers, who are expected to move onward from assignment to assignment, their 

participation in interagency rotations does not disadvantage their supervisors by leaving 

temporary workforce gaps. We therefore we did not review whether State provides 

incentives for supervisors of prospective POLADs to support them in going on interagency 

rotations. 

State Provided Incentives 

for POLAD Supervisors to 

Participate through Its 

Program Application and 

Selection Process

POLAD Program 

Accounted for DOD Needs 

and Took Steps to 

Consider Candidates’ 

Developmental Needs in 

Matching Candidates to 

Assignments
 

Page 20 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

State has taken some steps to consider the POLAD candidates’ 

developmental needs when assessing applications. State officials 

described the one-page biographic statement, which is part of the POLAD 

application process, as a source of information on the applicants’ 

developmental needs and goals. They also noted that candidates can 

submit resumes and similar material as part of their application, which 

can help POLAD program management to understand how their 

assignment history might fit with the position. Most POLAD participants 

and all host agency supervisors that completed our survey indicated that 

they were somewhat or very satisfied with the match between the 

participants’ abilities and the assignment (33 of 37 POLAD participants; 

15 of 15 host agency supervisors).

To prepare POLAD participants for the assignment, State provides a 2- to 

3-day participant orientation that provides background information on 

DOD structure and culture as well tips for success in the POLAD 

assignment, among other topics. Participants are provided with an 

orientation handbook, which includes advice for adapting to the military 

environment; an overview of DOD’s organizational culture, as well as its 

military structure and operations; advice from previous POLADs; and a 

listing of each year’s POLAD assignees. A program official said they 

encourage new POLAD participants to connect with experienced POLAD 

participants to seek out preparatory advice.

The majority of POLAD participants responding to our survey indicated 

that they received orientation training and materials and thought that it 

was sufficient (see figure 5).21

 

21 See 

In addition, in 2010 and 2011 the POLAD 

program conducted an assessment of its orientation session so as to 

identify any needed modifications and improve outreach and publicity. A 

POLAD program official said that that these orientation evaluations are 

now required and noted that the program intends to expand the scope of 

the evaluation in 2012 to contact the previous year’s participants for their 

feedback.

GAO-12-387SP, the e-supplement to this report, for complete list of questions 

pertaining to orientation training and materials that respondents answered. 

POLAD Program Provided 

Orientation for 

Participants and Has 

Begun to Offer Preparatory 

Materials to Host 

Supervisors
 

Page 21 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Figure 5: Responses of POLAD Participants to the Questions “Did you take part in 

an orientation or training intended to prepare you for your interagency rotational 

assignment?” and “Were you provided with written guidance or other materials 

intended to prepare you for your interagency rotational assignment?” 

According to a State official, the POLAD program will provide orientation 

materials specifically targeted to host agency supervisors upon request. 

In addition, the orientation session for participants is open to host-agency 

supervisors on a space-available basis. This official also noted that 

program management regularly reviews job announcements for generals 

and flag officers at commands where POLADs are assigned, in order to 

identify any leadership turnover. When this occurs, program management 

contacts the incoming commander with background information about the 

POLAD program and offers additional information or materials, although 

the State official said that, to date, no one has accepted the offer. This is 

consistent with our survey results, in which few of the host supervisors 

responding to our survey indicated that they were provided with written 

guidance or other materials to prepare them to supervise a POLAD 

participant, as shown in figure 6.
 

Page 22 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Figure 6: Responses of POLAD Host Supervisors to the Questions “Did you take 

part in an orientation or training intended to prepare you to host a participant?” and 

“Were you provided with written guidance or other materials intended to prepare 

you to host a participant?” 

Agency officials explained that the majority of host supervisors are highranking DOD officials who have been working with POLAD participants 

for years and do not need any preparation to supervise a POLAD. 

However, not all of the host agency supervisors have had prior 

experience with the POLAD program. One host supervisor commented in 

a survey response that supervisors with less experience with the program 

may benefit from training or information on how best to employ the 

participant. Another wrote that even though there may be program 

information provided in the D.C. area, this information does not always 

“trickle down” to field locations. Two participants wrote that it would have 

been useful if their host agency had been offered training or instruction 

regarding their role as POLAD participants. During the course of our 

review, POLAD program management developed a briefing on the 

POLAD program for host agency supervisors at the DOD commands. The 

briefing included information on program goals, participant and hostagency roles and responsibilities, and other topics that we identified as 

useful preparatory information.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Collecting feedback on the program from both the participant and host 

agency supervisor perspectives can help to build on lessons learned and 

improve the program. As of 2010, the POLAD program began to collect 

feedback on its orientation sessions. The program also solicits feedback 

annually from incumbent POLAD participants in order to improve the 

position descriptions. More recently, POLAD program management 

developed informal written guidance to improve the performance 

appraisal process for POLAD participants while on rotation at DOD 

commands, using input from internal experts. Program management 

maintains frequent communication with both participants and their host 

agencies, which according to a State official, helps them to make 

changes to POLAD positions as the need arises. However, program 

officials acknowledged that an overall evaluation of program 

effectiveness, taking into account both the participant and host supervisor 

perspectives, has not been conducted. The majority of POLAD 

participants and host supervisors that responded to our survey indicated 

that they had not been asked to complete an evaluation of the program 

(see figure 7).

Figure 7: Responses of POLAD Participants and Host Supervisors to the Question 

“Did you have an opportunity to complete an evaluation or provide feedback on the 

interagency rotational assignment program in some formal way?” 

A POLAD program official said that the increasing demand for the 

program—significantly more applicants as well as a greater number of 

DOD requests to host POLADs—provide key indicators of the program’s 

success. However, routine program evaluation information that takes into 

account various aspects of the program may help POLAD program 

management to build on specific strengths and to identify areas for 

improvement.

POLAD Program Has 

Taken Steps to Collect 

Feedback But Did Not 

Routinely Evaluate Its 

Program Effectiveness
 

Page 24 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Similar to the POLAD program discussed above, State officials said that 

the QDDR, a high-level foreign policy document, provides the rationale for 

these assignments, with its emphasis on the importance of interagency 

experience and rotations in improving engagement and coordination with 

other agencies. In addition, the QDDR signals State’s intent to expand its 

use of interagency rotations as a means of achieving specific national 

security goals as well as building its human capital. However, whereas 

the POLAD program is linked to specific Political-Military Bureau goals, 

State human resources officials acknowledge that there are currently no 

agency-level plans that indicate how these assignments are used to 

further the Department’s strategic goals.

State human resources officials explained that these other interagency 

assignments have evolved individually over time to meet agency needs 

and are therefore not managed together as a program of rotations. One 

official noted that the National Security Professional Development 

(NSPD) initiative, which involved multiple agencies, could have served as 

a framework for these rotations.22

State officials said that they view these interagency rotation assignments 

as an important means for the Department to build and sustain 

relationships with other agencies in the national security arena. They also 

noted that the number of such assignments is likely to increase in 

response to the growing recognition that interagency collaboration is 

needed to accomplish many of State’s missions. However, by not 

explicitly planning for how these assignments could be used to achieve 

shared national security goals, State may be missing opportunities to fully 

leverage positive results of these assignments, for both the participating 

individuals and agencies.

This official acknowledged that since 

NSPD is currently focused on emergency management, which is outside 

of State’s central mission, State is seeking another approach to managing 

these interagency assignments to achieve strategic goals.

 

22Executive Order 13434, May 17, 2007, entitled National Security Professional 

Development, required the heads of all agencies with national security responsibilities to 

identify or enhance current professional development activities for their national security 

personnel. 72 Fed. Reg. 28,583 (May 17, 2007). Several agencies, including State, 

developed implementation plans for training and other developmental activities. More 

recently, in 2011, the Obama administration has shifted NSPD to specific mission areas, 

with emergency management as the initial focus. 

State’s Other Interagency 

Rotations Were Not 

Specifically Designed to 

Achieve Interagency or

Department-Level 

Strategic Goals
 

Page 25 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Unlike the POLAD program discussed above, which seeks to recruit 

participants exclusively from the Foreign Service, participants of State’s 

other interagency rotations include civil service personnel as well as 

Foreign Service Officers. According to a State human resources official, 

while historically, most of these assignments have been filled by Foreign 

Service Officers, civil service participation in these assignments can be 

valuable to both the individual and the Department. However, civil service 

personnel are not provided with incentives to participate in these types of 

assignments and may even face challenges to participation, as noted in 

the QDDR. According to this document, “talented Civil Servants have also 

been victims of their own success: opportunities for mobility at 

State...[have] been limited by the indispensable role they often play in 

their existing positions, making supervisors reluctant to release them for 

extended training or rotational assignments.” 

While revisions to the Foreign Service competencies may provide 

incentives for Foreign Service Officers to participate in these 

assignments, there have been no similar revisions to the civil service 

competencies. With the exception of a “partnering” competency for the 

senior executive service, there are no competencies related directly to 

collaboration or interagency experience although one official said that 

State is considering revising these in the future.

In addition, State does not publicly recognize participants of these 

rotations as a means of encouraging others to participate. Although State 

has an extensive award system in place, officials acknowledged that it 

does not address how excellent performance in an interagency rotation 

should be taken into account when considering employees for awards. 

Further, because these interagency rotations are managed individually, 

these officials said that there are no practices in place to recognize 

participants through presentations or briefings, or similar opportunities. 

Accordingly, only 3 of the 24 participants responding to our survey agreed 

that “Participants are publicly recognized and rewarded (for example, 

through announcements, awards, etc.) at my home agency.” 

Without adequate participation incentives—or with the perception of 

inadequate incentives—State’s civil service personnel may be 

discouraged from applying to interagency rotations. For example, if 

potential participants are concerned that an interagency rotation could 

slow their career progression, State may only attract candidates nearing 

retirement, which would make it difficult for State to capture the benefits 

of the participants’ gains in interagency knowledge, skills, or networks.

State Provided Few 

Incentives for Civil Service 

Personnel to Participate In 

Other Interagency 

Rotations
 

Page 26 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

As noted in the section on POLADs above, some of the common 

disincentives for home-agency supervisors to support their staff in going 

on an interagency rotation are not relevant for Foreign Service Officers. 

However, these incentives are relevant for State supervisors of civil 

service personnel, who may be left with difficult-to-cover gaps while staff 

are on rotation at another agency. We found that State does not provide 

incentives, or take other steps to mitigate disincentives for supervisors of 

civil service personnel to let staff go on rotations. According to a State 

human resources official, supervisors are responsible for ensuring that 

their subordinates have appropriate developmental opportunities. 

However, State doesn’t use its performance management system to set 

expectations that supervisors are to share their human resources through 

interagency rotations, which, according to our analysis, is one way to 

provide incentives. A State official indicated that the department is 

considering an assessment of its civil service competencies, which could 

allow them to incorporate interagency experience and collaboration skills. 

They may also begin to use individual training and development plans for 

more of their civil service personnel. These changes could provide 

incentives for supervisors to send staff on rotations, if their individual 

development plans indicated the need for interagency experience. This 

official acknowledged, however, that moving forward with the new 

competency assessment is dependent upon availability of resources. In 

the absence of such performance management policies and practices, 

supervisors may not support their staff going on interagency rotations, 

even when they could benefit participants and agencies. As a result, 

State could miss opportunities to achieve collaboration-related results at 

both the individual and organizational level.

We also found that State provides other agencies with incentives to host 

its rotational staff by taking steps to ensure high-performing candidates 

are provided. Host agencies play a role in the selection of participants for 

interagency rotations ranging from requesting specific candidates to 

choosing candidates that applied for the rotation and were selected by a 

panel of Foreign Service Officers.

State Has Not Provided 

Incentives for Its 

Supervisors to Support 

Civil Service Rotations but 

Has Provided Some 

Incentives for Host 

Agencies
 

Page 27 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

For interagency rotations that fall outside of the POLAD program, State 

has policies and practices in place to ensure that host agencies’ needs 

are met in matching applicants to assignments. According to State human 

resources officials, participant recruitment and selection procedures vary 

depending on the host agency and type of assignment. For example, for 

senior-level rotations to National Defense University, the military services’ 

war colleges, and other federal agencies, interested personnel bid on the 

positions and are preliminarily selected by the leadership of State’s 

Bureau of Human Resources. Candidates are then referred to the host 

agencies for their concurrence. For mid-level rotations to federal agencies 

and other organizations, review panels are convened to consider 

applications and develop a rank-order list. Finalists are then referred for 

host-agency concurrence. In some cases, such as rotations to the 

National Security Staff, the host agency requests specific candidates.

To ensure that the rotation will address a participant’s developmental 

needs, applications for these interagency rotations include a statement of 

their qualifications, how the developmental experience fits their career 

objectives, and how it would benefit the department.

Unlike the POLAD program, with its formal orientation training and 

materials, State human resources officials said there is no such 

preparation for participants of its other interagency rotations, which are 

managed individually. Accordingly, most participants responding to our 

survey (21 of 24) indicated that they did not take part in an orientation or 

training. Further, in responding to a survey question on what information 

might have been useful in preparation for the rotation, 11 participants did 

have suggestions, with most of these asking for more advance 

information on the host-agency or responsibilities.

State Accounted for Host 

Agency Needs and 

Participant Development 

Goals in Making 

Interagency Rotation 

Assignments

State Has Not Established 

Practices to Prepare 

Participants or HostAgency Supervisors of 

Other Interagency 

Rotations
 

Page 28 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

In addition, State human resources officials said that they do not provide 

formal guidance or preparatory materials to the host agency. These 

officials explained that many of these interagency rotations are longestablished and that it is common for host-agency supervisors to have 

significant prior experience in managing the rotations and therefore do not 

need to be prepared. This may be why none of the 14 host-agency 

supervisors responding to our survey commented that there was a need 

for preparatory information.

We reviewed examples of MOUs that govern these rotations but none of 

them provided instruction for discussing developmental goals or setting 

performance expectations for the participants, which is an important part 

of preparing both participants and their supervisors. However, our survey 

results indicated that this may be taking place in many cases without 

guidance or instruction: most participants (16 of 24) and host-agency 

supervisors (13 of 14) reported communications on expectations or goals. 

Nevertheless, pre-rotation preparation could help participants learn to 

navigate in the new organization more efficiently and enable participants 

and supervisors to establish a common understanding of what each 

hopes to gain from the rotation earlier in the process.

According to State human resources officials, for the small number of civil 

service personnel that currently participate in interagency rotations, the 

Department does not have a process to ensure that the knowledge, skills, 

and networks that they gained on interagency rotations are used upon 

their return.23

 

23These interagency rotations are open to both Foreign Service and civil service 

personnel, although at present, there are relatively few civil service participants. 

As noted earlier, because State’s Foreign Service career development and 

staffing model is beyond the scope of this report, we did not evaluate the 

effectiveness of how State planned for its Foreign Service participants’ next 

assignments.

Civil service participants are responsible for discussing with 

their supervisors how their post-rotation responsibilities will build on their 

rotation experience. However, these officials said that they do ensure that 

there are open lines of communication between State and the participants 

while they are away, to help participants to keep abreast of new 

State Relied on Civil 

Service Participants to 

Plan for Effective Use of 

Knowledge, Skills, and 

Networks Gained on 

Interagency Rotations
 

Page 29 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

developments and career opportunities. While on rotation, participants 

receive Department notices via email on a daily basis, as well as access 

to State’s internal personnel and other information systems. This 

continued access is important, officials explained, because State 

personnel rely on their professional networks within the Department as a 

way of advancing their careers in the direction that benefits them.

State human resources officials said that because in the past, the number 

of civil service personnel participating in these interagency rotations had 

been small, it did not make sense to establish post-rotation planning 

practices for so few participants. However, the QDDR specifically 

describes goals to increase civil service participation in interagency 

rotations and other key assignments. If the small number of civil service 

participants grows, the lack of post-rotation planning practices could 

cause State to miss opportunities to leverage participants’ developmental 

gains.

State human resources officials indicated that they collect informal 

feedback on its other interagency rotations for the purpose of determining 

whether to maintain or cut future positions. These officials acknowledged 

that they do not routinely collect or evaluate information from participants 

or host-agency supervisors on rotation outcomes or other elements that 

could be used to improve how future rotations are managed. Survey 

responses are consistent with this, with the majority of participants (21 of 

24) and half of host supervisors (7 of 14) responding to our survey 

reporting that they had not been asked to complete an evaluation of the 

rotation. Officials said that, historically, they have not managed these 

rotations as they would manage a program and therefore had not 

considered evaluating it as such. However, without regular feedback on 

the rotations from participants and their host agency supervisors, the 

agency may be missing opportunities to identify and address potential 

challenges to the effectiveness of these rotations.

State Did Not Routinely 

Collect Feedback to 

Evaluate the Effectiveness 

of Other Interagency 

Rotations
 

Page 30 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Our review of the CGSC Interagency Fellowship program design and 

relevant planning documents indicated that the program was developed 

as part of the Army’s larger goals for developing its leadership. According 

to a CGSC program official, the idea for the Interagency Fellowship 

program was originated as part of the Leader Development and 

Education program within the Army Training and Doctrine Command, who 

approved and enabled CGSC to execute it.24 Specifically, the program 

was designed to provide an experience to “broaden the understanding of 

the complex Joint, Interagency, Intergovernmental, and Multinational 

environment in which the Army operates with its national security 

partners,” which aligns with the Army’s leadership development goals as 

described in its strategic plan. In addition, samples of the memorandums 

of agreement (MOA) between the Army and other agencies participating 

in the program indicate that the program has been positioned to achieve 

results for all those involved. For example, the MOA with the U.S. 

Marshals Service (USMS) acknowledges that participants’ experiences 

“will benefit the Army by enhancing understanding and familiarity with the 

interagency process and USMS practices and policies” and outlines the 

structure of the program in the context of meeting this goal.

We found that the CGSC Interagency Fellowship program employed a 

number of performance management and other practices that provided 

incentives to participate during the 2009 program year we reviewed, and 

has continued to strengthen incentives since then. Moreover, we found 

that the number of applicants to the program has increased.

• Participants’ performance while on rotation was included in their 

formal performance appraisals. In 2009, according to CGSC officials, 

host agency supervisors were encouraged to complete an Officer 

Evaluation Report for their Fellows. According to our survey results, 

100 percent (16 of 16) of the 2009 Fellows who responded to our 

survey question on this topic indicated that their performance while on 

rotation was included in their formal appraisal. Most of these 

respondents (14 of 16) reported that their performance while on 

rotation was given sufficient merit in their formal performance 

appraisal. More recently, in 2011, to ensure participant performance 

 

24The U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, known as TRADOC, is responsible for 

developing, educating, and training Army soldiers, civilians, and leaders, among other 

responsibilities. 

CGSC Interagency 

Fellowship Program Was 

Designed to Achieve 

Army’s CollaborationRelated Leadership 

Development Goals

CGSC Provided 

Prospective Interagency 

Fellows with Incentives to 

Participate
 

Page 31 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

during the rotation is appraised and documented, program officials 

have made completion of an Officer Evaluation Report mandatory for 

the host agency supervisors.

• Early on in the program, officials acknowledged the Fellows by 

publishing their names on program marketing materials. In 2010, 

program officials introduced a requirement for Fellows to write a paper 

on their interagency experience and said that they would seek to 

publish some of these. While the purpose of the papers was to ensure 

that education and development takes place in conjunction with the 

completion of the mission at the host agency, publishing these will 

also serve as a means of publicly recognizing the Fellows for their 

work while on interagency assignment.

• In 2011, the Fellowship was approved as a means for participants to 

earn certain Joint Professional Military Education credits toward joint 

officer qualification and competitive status for promotion.25

CGSC program officials seek to work through any potential governance 

issues that could be cumbersome for host agencies or that could 

discourage their participation using MOAs to detail roles and 

responsibilities.26

 

25CGSC Fellowship meets joint officer Joint Professional Military Education Phase 1 

credit, which supports fulfillment of the educational requirements for joint officer 

management. Successful completion of the course also provides participants Military 

Education Level 4 credit, which offers officers a competitive status for promotion.

For example, the MOAs address which agency will be 

responsible for salaries and any additional costs; how participants will be 

selected; performance accountability provisions; security clearance 

requirements; among other considerations. In addition, program officials 

sought to attract and retain host-agency participation by adopting several 

practices to ensure the highest-performing applicants were selected. The 

Fellowship positions are posted through a standard military personnel 

message. Applicants are selected through a review board, which is 

instructed to identify the highest performers. According to documentation 

Army Human Resources Command (HRC) provided to us, in fiscal year 

2011, 140 officers applied to the program to compete for 28 available 

26Because most participants of the CGSC Interagency Fellowship program go on rotations 

after attending military academic education, rather than directly from a performing unit, we 

did not assess whether incentives are provided to Army supervisors to support their staff 

going on a rotation.

CGSC Sought to 

Encourage Host Agencies 

to Participate by Providing 

High-Performing 

Participants and Clarifying 

Agencies’ Roles and 

Responsibilities
 

Page 32 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

positions, which, according to program officials, allowed them to select 

“the best and the brightest.” Moreover, 11 of 12 of the CGSC host 

supervisors responding to our survey were either very satisfied or 

somewhat satisfied with the quality of the participants.

The CGSC Interagency Fellowship program has mechanisms in place to 

help create a good match between the participant and assignment by 

using information about both individual developmental needs and the 

host-agencies’ organizational needs. The CGSC application process 

encourages participants to describe their individual development goals 

and professional interests. In addition, according to the MOA, the host 

agency is to detail the specific skills and capabilities it requires from 

participants. Of the participants and supervisors who responded to our 

survey, the majority were either very or somewhat satisfied with the 

match. Specifically, 13 of 16 participants and 11 of 12 supervisors were 

either very or somewhat satisfied with the match between the participant’s 

abilities and the assignment.

CGSC Program Employed 

Mechanisms to Help Match 

Needs of Participants and 

Host Agencies
 

Page 33 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

The CGSC Interagency Fellowship program began to provide orientation 

training for participants at the beginning of the 2011 program year. Topics 

included information on the program’s background and objectives, how 

the rotation fits in with CGSC’s academic requirements, CGSC’s 

expectations of each participant, the selection process, among others. 

However, the orientation materials did not include information intended to 

prepare the participants to work at a specific host agency, such as 

information on host-agency authorities and capabilities. Program officials 

said that they had designed the program to require the host-agency to 

provide their own orientation training to familiarize participants with their 

organizational environment. For example, the MOA with the USMS 

requires them to provide “initial orientation to USMS operational 

processes and procedures.” These officials explained that they did not 

want to supplant the host-agency’s expertise in providing relevant 

information on their own organization. Further, these officials noted that 

because program participants may be selected before the details of the 

assignments are finalized, they do not always know which units will be 

hosting the participants or who their supervisors will be at the time that 

they are providing their orientation session.

Because our survey was administered to 2009 participants and hostagency supervisors, the responses do not reflect the most current 

program practices. Nonetheless, we include them since they may be 

useful in guiding the topics and the breadth of information covered in 

current orientation or other training materials. Of the responding fiscal 

year 2009 participants that did receive training (2 of 16) or written 

materials (5 of 16)—which may have come from the host agency—

several indicated they did not receive sufficient information that would 

have been useful to them on the following topics: the process for 

selecting participants for a rotation (3 of 6); the process for appraising 

their performance during the rotation (3 of 6); the process for transitioning 

to their next assignment (4 of 6); and how to optimize their experience 

during the assignment (5 of 6). In addition, open-ended responses 

indicated that participants responding to our survey would have liked 

information on (1) what the Interagency Fellowship program expected the 

participants to accomplish and (2) information on the host agency unit’s 

mission and goals. The Interagency Fellowship program’s recentlyestablished orientation seems intended to address the former information. 

However, the MOA requirement that host-agencies provide orientation 

may not be enough to ensure that participants on rotations at various 

agencies are consistently receiving the host-agency-specific preparation 

they need. In responding to open-ended survey questions, three 

participants indicated they would have liked more information on the host 

The Army CGSC 

Interagency Fellowship 

Program Prepared 

Participants for Some 

Aspects of the Program 

but Did Not Prepare Host 

Supervisors
 

Page 34 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

agency’s mission and goals, while four indicated that their host agency 

offered such information. Without such preparation, participants may not 

be able to contribute to the host agency—or to their own professional 

development—as effectively as possible.

According to CGSC Interagency Fellowship program officials, they use 

the MOAs governing these rotations to communicate information that the 

host-agency supervisors need to manage the rotation. Our review of 

examples of MOAs indicated that these include information on the overall 

purpose of the rotations, performance appraisal mechanisms, and other 

information that is useful in preparing host-agency supervisors. In 

addition, program officials said that they instruct participants to meet with 

their supervisors at the start of the rotation to explain the program 

requirements. However, we reviewed examples of MOAs and the content 

was focused primarily on agency-level roles and responsibilities and did 

not discuss how the Interagency Fellowship was to serve as a 

developmental experience for the participant, which may have been 

helpful in preparing host-agency supervisors. According to our survey 

results, only 4 of 12 host-agency supervisors responding to our survey 

indicated that they received written materials intended to help prepare 

them to host a participant. One host supervisor suggested in an openended response that additional information on the goals and expectations 

of the program would have been useful. In addition, according to written 

participant feedback that program officials obtained in 2010, 9 of 19 

participants recommended that the program should provide clearer 

guidance to the host agencies concerning the program’s objectives and 

expectations for what the participants should gain from the program. 

Without comprehensive guidance—to clarify the host-agency supervisor’s 

role in managing the rotation to help the participant to achieve 

developmental goals as well as mission goals—supervisors may not be 

prepared to manage rotations to achieve the greatest possible benefits.
 

Page 35 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Army Regulations which govern numerous Army fellowship and 

scholarship programs, include policies and procedures for participants’ 

follow-on assignments to ensure that the Army obtains maximum benefit 

from its investment.27 While some Army programs require specific followon assignments in which the benefits of the education will be used 

immediately upon completion, CGSC officials said that the Interagency 

Fellowship program is seen as a long-term investment in officer careers. 

If the immediate post-rotation assignment does not fully leverage 

participants’ interagency experience, future assignments are likely to 

include joint interagency positions, which would allow the Army to benefit 

from the knowledge, skills, and networks acquired. Furthermore, they 

explained that they do not require specific follow-on assignments because 

these could interfere with officers completing “Key Developmental” 

assignments needed for promotion, which could discourage participation 

in the program.28

Another way the CGSC Fellowship seeks to leverage the knowledge that 

participants gain during their interagency rotation is through a newly 

established writing requirement. The program has added a learning 

component in which participants are required to write a paper suitable for 

publication on their experience during the fellowship. The purpose of the 

papers is to ensure that education and development takes place in 

conjunction with the completion of the mission at the host agency. If 

published, participants can share their experience and knowledge of the 

interagency environment.

While participants meet with program managers regularly, the program 

managers are not responsible for coordinating post-program 

assignments. Rather, they are coordinated by career managers in HRC. 

Participants are provided contact information for HRC and post-program 

assignments are discussed during the participant’s orientation. Most 

CGSC participants responding to our survey (15 of 16) reported having 

 

27Army Regulation 621-7, Army Fellowships and Scholarships (Aug. 8, 1997). The CGSC 

Interagency Fellowship was established in 2010, after the most recent version of Army 

Regulations 621-7, so it is not currently incorporated in the regulations. Army officials 

stated that they have submitted draft guidance on the program for inclusion in a revised 

regulation and are currently operating under the draft guidance provided to GAO. 

28A Key Developmental assignment is considered fundamental to the development of an 

officer and in providing experience across the Army’s strategic mission.

The CGSC Interagency 

Fellowship Program Plans 

for Participant’s Next 

Assignment
 

Page 36 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

discussed their transition to a new assignment or their return to their 

home agency while they were still on rotation.

As noted above, collecting feedback on the program from both the 

participant and host agency supervisor perspectives helps to build on 

lessons learned and improves the program. CGSC program officials seek 

mid-year program feedback from participants each year. Although the 

request for feedback is informal and collected along with other information 

not directly related to evaluating the program, program officials reported 

that they used the information to modify program processes and 

educational certifications. Specifically, program officials seek feedback 

from participants on what areas could be improved in the program. A 

program official said that 20 of 22 participants told him they would repeat 

the Fellowship if offered the opportunity again. As reported earlier, our 

survey corroborated the participants’ largely positive perspectives on the 

program.

As shown in figure 8, half of the participants responding to our survey 

indicated that they did not have the opportunity to complete an evaluation 

or provide formal feedback on the interagency rotation program. 

However, in 2010 the program began to assess participant learning 

outcomes by requiring participants to write a paper. This new requirement 

may offer some insight into the participants’ perspectives of their 

developmental outcomes. This is a first step in understanding the 

programs’ impact on participant learning outcomes. However, officials do 

not evaluate the outcomes either for host agencies or for the Army. 

Program officials acknowledged that they do not routinely collect 

feedback from host agency supervisors, although they do make an effort 

to meet with as many as they can throughout the program year. Half of 

the CGSC supervisors responding to our survey (6 of 12) reported having 

an opportunity to complete an evaluation or provide feedback on the 

interagency rotation program in some formal way.

The CGSC Interagency 

Fellowship Program Did 

Not Routinely Collect 

Feedback to Evaluate 

Program Effectiveness
 

Page 37 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Figure 8: Responses of CGSC Participants and Host Supervisors to the Question 

“Did you have an opportunity to complete an evaluation or provide feedback on the 

interagency rotational assignment program in some formal way?” 

Interagency rotation programs can build individual and institutional 

capacity to collaborate, which has become increasingly important in the 

complex national security arena of the 21st century. Both State and DOD 

have signaled they intend to increase their use of interagency rotations as 

a tool to achieve common national security goals. State’s POLAD 

program and other interagency rotations as well as the Army CGSC 

Interagency Fellowship demonstrate how rotations benefit everyone 

involved—participants and supervisors we surveyed mostly agreed that 

collaboration-related results were achieved. Our analysis suggests that 

addressing various program design and management challenges—such 

as inadequate preparation or failure to obtain feedback from all parties 

involved—can further strengthen the effectiveness of such programs. 

While the programs we looked at have incorporated many of the policies 

and practices that contribute to effective rotations, each could improve 

collaboration-related results by adopting additional policies and practices. 

For example, each of the programs could benefit from a more formal 

approach to evaluating program effectiveness. State’s other interagency 

rotations, which have not been managed as a single program, could also 

benefit from improved preparation as well as post-rotation planning and 

stronger incentives for civil servants to participate, if State moves forward 

with plans to increase its use of civil service personnel in these areas. 

Building on good policies and practices that have been established, as 

State and Army CGSC seek to expand these programs and assignments, 

it will become more important to ensure that effective policies and 

Conclusions
 

Page 38 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

practices are in place to help achieve these programs’ wide-reaching 

mission, developmental, and collaboration-related goals.

To improve the effectiveness of the POLAD program as a tool to facilitate 

interagency collaboration on national security, we recommend that the 

Secretary of State direct the Bureau of Human Resources and the Office 

of the Coordinator of the Foreign Policy Advisor (POLAD) Program to 

take the following action:

• Expand the scope of current efforts by routinely evaluating the 

effectiveness of the program to determine if desired results are being 

achieved for participating individuals and agencies, to identify and 

build on areas of strength, and to identify areas for improvement.

To improve the effectiveness of State’s interagency rotations to other 

government agencies and federal learning institutes as tools to facilitate 

interagency collaboration on national security, we recommend that the 

Secretary of State direct the Bureau of Human Resources to take the 

following three actions:

• Clarify agency plans for how these assignments will contribute to 

achieving shared national security goals. For example, State could 

use strategic workforce planning to determine the current and future 

positions needed to accomplish its collaboration-dependent goals and 

that would benefit from interagency rotations. Such plans should also 

address the extent to which civil service personnel will participate in 

interagency rotations.

• Work with host agency counterparts to develop orientation materials 

that would help both participants and host agency supervisors to 

maximize the benefits from the rotation. Such materials could include, 

for example, information on the goals of the interagency rotation, the 

roles and responsibilities of the host agency and the participant, 

administrative details, and tips and best practices for a successful 

rotation.

• Routinely evaluate the effectiveness of the program to determine if 

desired results are being achieved for participating individuals and 

agencies, to identify and build on areas of strength, and to identify 

areas for improvement.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 39 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Further, depending on whether State determines that it will increase civil 

service participation in other interagency rotations as a means to achieve 

goals set forth in the QDDR, we recommend that the Secretary of State 

direct the Bureau of Human Resources to take the following three actions:

• Improve incentives for civil service personnel to participate in 

interagency rotations by providing guidance to supervisors on how to 

consider interagency experience and collaboration abilities when 

assessing civil service personnel with national security responsibilities 

for performance ratings and awards. Guidance could also include 

suggestions for how to publicly recognize returning participants’ 

interagency experience through presentations, briefings, or other 

high-profile opportunities.

• Improve incentives for supervisors to support civil service personnel’s 

participation in interagency rotations, if such participation would help 

State meet national security and workforce development goals, by 

establishing performance expectations that supervisors share human 

resources, as appropriate.

• Develop guidance for State supervisors of civil servants who are 

assigned to an interagency rotation on how to ensure that the 

knowledge, skills, and networks gained during the rotation are used to 

the extent possible upon their return.

To improve the effectiveness of the Army’s CGSC Interagency Fellowship 

Program as a tool to facilitate interagency collaboration on national 

security, the Secretary of Defense should direct Fellowship program 

officials to take the following two actions:

• Building on existing MOA requirements, work with host agency 

counterparts to develop orientation materials that would help host 

supervisors to maximize the benefits from the rotation for both the 

participant and the host agency. Such materials could include, for 

example, information on the goals of the interagency rotation, the 

roles and responsibilities of the host agency and the participant, 

administrative details, and tips and best practices for a successful 

rotation.

• Routinely evaluate the effectiveness of the program to determine if 

desired results are being achieved for participating individuals and 

agencies, to identify and build on areas of strength, and to identify 

areas for improvement.
 

Page 40 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of State and Defense 

for their review and comment. Both State and DOD provided written 

comments which are reproduced in appendixes III and IV. They also 

provided technical comments that were incorporated throughout the 

report, as appropriate.

State generally agreed with our recommendations. In our draft report, we 

recommended that the Secretary of State direct the Bureau of Human 

Resources and the Office of the Coordinator of the POLAD program to 

work with DOD counterparts to develop orientation materials that would 

help POLAD host supervisors to maximize the benefits from the rotation 

for both the participant and the host agency. After we provided the draft 

report to State, the department provided us with a PowerPoint briefing for 

host agency supervisors at the DOD commands that POLAD program 

management had recently developed. The department also provided 

evidence that POLAD program management is seeking to identify and 

contact new host agency supervisors with background information about 

the POLAD program and offering additional information or materials. As a 

result of these actions, we revised our finding and removed the relevant 

recommendation from the final report.

In response to our recommendation that it work with host agencies to 

develop additional orientation materials, State noted that in many cases 

there is one employee going to each host agency and said that it would 

have to weigh the costs and effort of producing and maintaining 

orientation materials for many such small-scale rotations. However, there 

are some simple and cost-effective steps that State can take to develop 

orientation materials, such as creating PowerPoint briefing slides like 

those it created for POLAD program supervisors as described above.

DOD concurred with our recommendations and described several steps 

that it will take to implement the recommendations. These steps include 

working with partner agencies to build additional orientation materials, 

requiring participants in the Interagency Fellowship Program to send a 

synopsis of lessons learned and best practices in quarterly updates, and 

conducting follow-up surveys to capture longer-term results of program 

participation.

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 41 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

We are sending copies of this report to the Departments of State and 

Defense, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available 

at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V. 

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues
 

Page 42 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

List of Requesters

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the

District of Columbia

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Jason Chaffetz

Chairman

The Honorable John F. Tierney

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign 

Operations

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Jeff Flake

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 43 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

To better understand how to effectively design and implement 

interagency rotation programs, this report addresses the following 

research objectives: (1) identify desirable collaboration-related results of 

interagency rotation programs in terms of individual competencies and 

organizational results; (2) identify policies and practices that help 

interagency rotation programs achieve collaboration-related results; and 

(3) determine the extent to which interagency rotation programs we 

identified in our previous report,1

To address objectives 1 and 2, we developed criteria for desirable 

outcomes and effective policies and practices by drawing on three sets of 

sources as described below.

were viewed as effective and 

incorporated those policies and practices.

• Literature: A range of published books, articles, and working type 

papers from U.S. and international business and other academic 

journals and public policy research institutes.

• External experts: Human capital and training and development 

professionals from outside of the agencies we reviewed, with 

expertise on rotations or similar professional development programs.2

• Agency practitioners: Federal human capital and training and 

development professionals at 9 agencies with national security 

responsibilities that were selected based upon our previous report.

We collected this information through a series of interviews, a 

questionnaire, and a literature review. We analyzed the results of each of

these three methods and developed the criteria as described below.

We conducted an extensive literature review to identify collaborationrelated outcomes that can be achieved through effective rotation 

programs, as well as policies and practices that can facilitate or challenge 

the effectiveness of such programs in achieving key collaboration-related 

 

1

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

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

2

In selecting external experts, we reviewed their biographical information to determine 

whether they were likely to have personal or financial impairments that could potentially 

impair their opinions.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Literature review
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 44 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

outcomes. We employed several approaches to identify relevant 

literature, including (1) a formal search conducted by a GAO research 

librarian; (2) literature recommendations from external experts and 

agency practitioners we interviewed; and (3) materials collected during 

the team’s background research from internal stakeholders and 

elsewhere. Our formal search included several databases and limited 

results to articles, trade publications, dissertations, books and other 

working type papers published in the last 15 to 20 years. In addition to the 

database searches, we reviewed publications recommended by experts 

we interviewed as well as those we identified conducting our own 

background research. This search yielded hundreds of documents, which 

were further narrowed using professional judgment to include only those 

that focused on discussions of criteria for successful programs and 

described lessons learned or best practices. As part of our search criteria, 

we also sought publications that examined outcomes or practices 

associated with joint duty assignments following the implementation of the 

Goldwater-Nichols Act3 because their findings may be relevant to 

interagency rotations. In general, however, we did not use the type of 

organizations or policy arena as an exclusionary criterion. If it was clear 

how the policies, practices, or possible outcomes could be applied to job 

rotation programs in the federal national security arena, we included them 

in our selection for in-depth analysis. For example, we did not exclude 

publications that focused on the human services policy arena or the 

manufacturing sector simply because their context was not identical to 

that of the federal national security arena. With these criteria, we 

reviewed the abstracts of 189 publications and selected 56 publications to 

review in depth. For each article, we identified any positive or negative 

collaboration-related outcomes of rotations as well as policies and 

practices that facilitate or challenge effective job rotations.

 

3

The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986 was enacted, 

in part, to improve officers’ professional development through education in joint matters 

and assignment to joint organizations. The act further requires DOD to factor this joint 

education and experience into its officer promotion decisions. Pub. L. No. 99-433 (Oct. 1, 

1986).
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 45 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

To help ensure that the policies, practices, outcomes, and challenges for 

effective job rotation programs that we identified were objective and 

reflected a range of perspectives, we sought referrals from human capital 

and professional development practitioners at GAO and from professional 

associations, such as the National Academy of Human Resources and 

the National Academy for Public Administration, and other experts to 

identify external experts and interviewed 13 that represented a range of 

corporate, academic, and public sector perspectives. Two analysts 

independently reviewed the content of the interview summaries to 

categorize each comment as a type of positive or negative rotation 

outcome, or associated policy, practice, or challenge. Where the two 

analysts’ judgment differed, a third analyst reviewed the category 

assignment to render a decision. In some cases, differences in judgments 

were resolved through discussion among the three analysts.

To ensure that we obtained the perspectives of agency practitioners, we 

built on our recent work on a related topic, which included interviews with 

human capital or professional development practitioners at 9 federal 

agencies with national security responsibilities, including: the 

Departments of Commerce, Homeland Security, Defense (including the

National Defense University), Justice (including the Federal Bureau of 

Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and 

Explosives), State, Treasury, Agriculture, Energy; and the U.S. Agency 

for International Development.4 We conducted a content analysis of these 

interviews to preliminarily identify desirable outcomes, policies, practices, 

and challenges associated with interagency rotations. We used this 

information to develop a questionnaire to obtain agency practitioners’ 

perspectives on each item and to elicit any additional information that we 

had not already identified during past interviews. We refined the 

questionnaire by pretesting it via email with experts from the study 

population. On April 18, 2011, we emailed the questionnaire to 49 agency 

practitioners that we had previously interviewed5

 

4

See 

, in the form of a 

Microsoft Word document that respondents could return electronically 

GAO-11-108, appendix I, which describes our methodology for selecting the 

agencies and the agency officials we interviewed. 

5

If the previously interviewed practitioner was no longer available (i.e., had left the 

agency), we asked the agency to designate another practitioner with the same or similar 

responsibilities, and sent the questionnaire to the new designate instead. 

External Experts: 

Content Analysis of 

Interview Summaries

Agency Practitioners: 

Interviews and 

Follow-Up 

Questionnaire
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 46 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

after entering responses into open answer boxes. Ten days later, we sent 

a reminder letter to everyone who had not responded, and another 

reminder after 3 weeks. We received 34 questionnaires by May 17, 2011, 

for a final response rate of 69 percent. The questionnaire results are 

provided in appendix II.

From the results of the three analyses above, we identified (1) 

collaboration-related outcomes that can be achieved by rotation 

programs; (2) policies and practices that contribute to or challenge the 

achievement of collaboration-related outcomes; and (3) potential 

questions or topics to include in our participant and supervisor survey. We 

reviewed the results of the three analyses for consistency across all 

sources, and for both unique and contradictory information. In 

determining whether each outcome, policy or practice is appropriate for 

use as a criterion, we considered how frequently it was cited, its 

prevalence across the different sources, and whether the policy or 

practice is actionable in the federal government sector. We included a 

cited outcome, policy or practice as a criterion if it met the following 

conditions: (1) it was represented in at least two of the three sets of 

sources, or if cited in a single source type it was represented by at least 

80 percent of agency practitioners, two external experts, or three sources 

of literature; and (2) it was feasible to adopt the practice in the federal 

government sector (e.g., we excluded granting stock options for 

performance rewards). Finally, in order to identify criteria that are broadly 

applicable, we took steps to aggregate similar themes. We categorized 

each item into both large groups and subgroups, and then discussed 

these groupings as a team until we arrived at a consensus that each item 

had been categorized and aggregated appropriately.

To address objective 3, we began a preliminary review of the seven 

interagency rotation programs we identified in our prior report.6

 

6

In 

We 

excluded four of these programs that were newly established and/or 

those that targeted participants without prior professional experience, 

such as military school cadets, since it would be difficult to gauge whether 

these programs had contributed to organizational results or to 

participants’ professional development.

GAO-11-108, we identified interagency rotational assignment programs that were 

intended to improve national security collaboration while providing professional 

development opportunities for its participants. 

Criteria Development
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 47 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

After selecting the Department of State’s (State) Foreign Policy Advisor 

(POLAD) Program, State’s other interagency rotations, and the 

Department of the Army’s Command and General Staff College’s (CGSC) 

Intermediate Level Education Interagency Fellowship Program for our 

review, we looked at relevant agency-level and program-level 

documentation. These included:

• High-level policy and planning documents, such as the Quadrennial 

Diplomacy and Development Review and the U.S. Army Strategic 

Planning Guidance.

• Program documentation such as the POLAD handbook and the 

directives establishing the CGSC Interagency Fellowship and its 

program requirements.

• Documentation specific to the interagency rotation, such as vacancy 

announcements and interagency agreements that governed the 

assignments.

We conducted interviews with the program managers and human capital 

officials for each of the three programs; and administered surveys to all 

fiscal year 2009 program participants, their host agency supervisors, and, 

if appropriate, their supervisors prior to the interagency rotation.7

 

7

CGSC program officials confirmed that program participants do not typically have a prerotation supervisor, but rather an academic advisor because they are taking courses prior 

to their rotation. Therefore, we did not include these supervisors in our population for the 

pre-rotation supervisor survey.

We 

selected the survey participants from a single fiscal year to provide a 

snapshot of the outcomes the programs have achieved and the policies 

and practices in place. To best capture the most recent information from 

participants and supervisors that had completed the programs, we 

selected fiscal year 2009 participants and supervisors because these 

rotations were more likely to have been completed at the time of the 

surveys than those of fiscal year 2010. Program officials provided contact 

information for all fiscal year 2009 participants and both their pre-rotation 

supervisors and host supervisors. We reviewed the information for 

completeness and duplicates and followed up as necessary to obtain the 

most complete and accurate information. Some participants and 

supervisors had retired since the rotation or their information was not 

available, so we excluded them from the population. Some supervisors 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 48 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

managed more than one participant, so rather than sending multiple 

surveys to those supervisors, we selected one of the participants for them 

to consider as they responded to the survey. Likewise, some participants 

had more than one rotation during the study period, so where possible, 

we chose the most recent rotation.

We obtained sufficient contact information for 55 of 72 participants from 

State’s POLAD program, for 49 of 59 participants from State’s other 

interagency rotations, and for 20 of 23 participants from CGSC’s 

Interagency Fellowship program. For these 124 participants, we received 

sufficient information for 58 of 105 pre-rotation supervisors and 85 of 124 

host supervisors.

Table 1 shows the response rate for each survey and the total survey 

population. Responses to the pre-rotation supervisor survey were not 

sufficient (21 of 58) to include in the report. Participants responding to the 

survey were assigned to various host agencies, including the 

Departments of Defense, State; and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development, among others. Host supervisors responding to our survey 

were from several agencies, including the Departments of Defense, State, 

the Executive Office of the President, and the U.S. Agency for 

International Development, among others. We conducted a non-response 

bias analysis based on home agency and program and found that there 

was some bias. Therefore, the results may only reflect the views of the 

survey respondents and not all participants or host supervisors.

Table 1: Response Rates to Surveys by Program

Program

Total

Responses

Initial 

Survey Samplea CGSC Interagency Fellowship State POLAD

Other State 

Rotations

Participants 16 of 20 (80%) 37 of 55 (67%) 24 of 49 (49%) 77 (62%) 124

Host Supervisors 12 of 17 (71%) 15 of 42 (36%) 14 of 26 (54%) 41 (48%) 85

Pre-rotation Supervisors N/A 11 of 35 (31%) 10 of 23 (43%) 21 (36%) 58

Source: GAO.

a

Does not include participants or supervisors for which we did not have contact information, were 

retired, or otherwise ineligible for inclusion. 

The questions for each survey were developed based on the criteria 

developed as described above to determine respondents’ perspectives on 

the extent to which each program achieves the desirable outcomes and 

has adopted effective policies and practices. Before distributing the 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 49 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

surveys online, we revised them to reflect comments from an independent 

reviewer within GAO. We revised the surveys again after we further 

pretested the surveys via phone and online with three participants, two 

host supervisors, and two prior supervisors from the study population. We 

conducted pretests to make sure that the questions were clear and 

unbiased and that the questionnaire did not place an undue burden on 

respondents. The web-based surveys were administered from midSeptember 2011 to mid-October 2011. Respondents were sent an e-mail 

invitation to complete the survey on a secure GAO web server using a 

unique username and password. Throughout the data collection period, 

nonrespondents received reminder e-mails and phone calls.

We followed-up with some respondents to clarify their responses 

regarding the program they participated in during fiscal year 2009. We 

had reason to believe that not all respondents understood the strict 

definition of the programs, so in some cases , we reassigned these 

participants to the appropriate program based on follow-up conversations, 

their responses to open-ended questions, and information from program 

officials defining the programs. In addition, we omitted responses to some 

questions where respondents answered questions they should have 

skipped based on previous responses. All data analysis programs were 

independently verified for accuracy. The surveys and their data used for 

this study are available at http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-387SP.

8

To evaluate the extent to which each program had the above-mentioned 

desirable policies and practices in place, we reviewed all three sources of 

information (documents, interviews, and survey results). As described in 

our report, these policies and practices can be implemented using a 

number of methods we identified. An analyst looked for evidence that the 

programs had each of the policies and practices in place, using some or 

all of the methods, as applicable, and assigned a rating as follows:

• Policies and practices mostly or fully in place, represented by a full 

circle: we found most or all methods of implementing the policy and 

practice were fully in place;

• Policies and practices partially in place, represented by a half circle: 

We did not find that most or all methods of implementing the policy 

 

8

GAO, Interagency Collaboration: National Security Rotation Programs Need Incentives, 

Preparation, and Feedback, an E-supplement to GAO-12-386, GAO-12-387SP

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2012). 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 50 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

and practice were fully in place, but did find that at least some 

methods were partially in place; or

• Policies or practices not in place, represented by an empty circle: we 

found no methods of implementing the policy and practice in place.

A team of analysts then reviewed the evidence used to make the initial 

ratings and discussed them to arrive at a consensus.

We conducted this performance audit from February 2011 to March 2012 

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.
Appendix II: Results from GAO’s 

Questionnaire on Desirable Outcomes and 

Effective Policies and Practices Associated 

with Interagency Rotation Programs

Page 51 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

The following questionnaire was administered to human capital or 

professional development practitioners at nine federal agencies with 

national security responsibilities, including: the Departments of 

Commerce, Homeland Security, Defense (including the National Defense 

University), Justice (including the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives), State, Treasury, 

Agriculture, and Energy; and the U.S. Agency for International 

Development.1

Background: Last year, as part of a review of national security-related 

professional development activities, GAO interviewed human capital, 

training, education, and other officials at numerous federal agencies and 

federal learning institutes. Agency officials provided, among other things, 

their perspectives on policies and practices that can either promote or 

challenge the effectiveness of interagency rotation programs in improving 

interagency collaboration. You are receiving this questionnaire because 

you or your agency participated in these interviews.

The questionnaire we administered is reproduced below 

with the results for each question.

Purpose of this questionnaire: As part of this ongoing body of work, 

GAO is refining its understanding of the policies and practices that are 

related to effective interagency rotation programs. GAO is asking you to 

review a list of policies and practices that were identified in the original 

interviews and rate their importance in promoting or challenging program 

effectiveness.

Instructions: Please review the following list of policies and practices. 

Part 1 contains policies and practices that were mentioned as promoting 

the effectiveness of rotation programs in facilitating interagency 

collaboration, while Part 2 contains policies and practices that were 

mentioned as challenging the effectiveness of such programs. Please 

indicate your opinion of each policy or practice by placing an “X” or other 

mark in one of the boxes on each row.

One of our goals is to compile a list of policies and practices that is as 

comprehensive as possible. For this reason, we are including an openended question at the end of each part of the questionnaire. Please use 

 

1

See GAO-11-108, appendix I, which describes our methodology for selecting the 

agencies and the agency officials we interviewed. 

Appendix II: Results from GAO’s Questionnaire on 

Desirable Outcomes and Effective Policies and 

Practices Associated with Interagency Rotation 

Programs 
Appendix II: Results from GAO’s 

Questionnaire on Desirable Outcomes and 

Effective Policies and Practices Associated 

with Interagency Rotation Programs

Page 52 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

these questions to describe any additional policies or practices that might 

promote or challenge the effectiveness of interagency rotation programs 

in facilitating interagency collaboration.

Contact information: GAO staff contact information appeared here.

Definitions/Key:

FS: Foreign Service

G/FO: General/Flag Officer

Home agency: the agency at which the participant 

is normally employed, sometimes referred to as the 

sending agency.

Host agency: the agency at which the participant is 

temporarily assigned, sometimes referred to as the 

gaining agency. 

O: officer level

Rotational assignments: for the purposes of this 

document, these refer to interagency assignments 

across departmental or independent agency lines, 

rather than assignments from one component 

agency to another component agency.

SES: Senior Executive Service

SFS: Senior Foreign Service

For each statement below, please select the option that best describes 

your views. Select “very” important to indicate that the item is critical to a 

program’s effectiveness in facilitating interagency collaboration or 

“somewhat” important if the item is desirable but not critical. Select “not” 

important if the item is irrelevant to a program’s success.

Part I: Policies and 

Practices Identified 

by Agency Officials as 

Promoting the 

Effectiveness of 

Interagency Rotation 

Programs in 

Facilitating 

Interagency 

Collaboration
Appendix II: Results from GAO’s 

Questionnaire on Desirable Outcomes and 

Effective Policies and Practices Associated 

with Interagency Rotation Programs

Page 53 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Table 2: Percentage Responses to Part I of Questionnaire

Question

Not

important

Somewhat 

important

Very

important

Don’t know /

no opinion

Desired Program Outcomes

1. Rotational assignments should have clearly defined 

outcomes. 0% 24% 76% 0%

2. The host agency should benefit (e.g. be able to 

achieve mission objectives more effectively) from the 

knowledge, skills, etc. participants bring to the 

assignment. 3% 38% 59% 0%

3. By the end of the rotation, participants should have 

improved their skills and knowledge. 3% 3% 94% 0%

4. By the end of the rotation, participants should have 

developed a network of contacts, professional 

relationships at other agencies. 3% 24% 74% 0%

5. By the end of the rotation, participants should have 

gained in-depth knowledge of the host agency. 3% 32% 65% 0%

6. The home agency should benefit (e.g. be able to 

achieve mission objectives more effectively) from the 

knowledge, skills, networks, etc. that participants have 

acquired during rotational assignments. 3% 15% 82% 0%

Program Design

7. All relevant stakeholders (e.g. home and host 

agencies) should be involved in designing rotational 

assignment programs.a 0% 12% 88% 0%

8. Rotational assignments should provide developmental 

opportunities for individual participants AND help the 

host agency meet its mission responsibilities. 3% 26% 71% 0%

9. A rotational assignment program should be part of a 

larger talent management or workforce development 

plan. 6% 38% 56% 0%

10. A rotational assignment program should include an 

upfront agreement for what participants’ 

responsibilities will be during the assignment. 3% 24% 71% 3%

11. The home agency should have a plan in place for how 

to use participants’ newly acquired skills, knowledge, 

or networks upon their return. 9% 24% 68% 0%

Pre-Rotation Preparation

12. Training or guidance on how to represent the home 

agency, expectations, logistics, etc., should be 

provided to participants before the assignment begins. 3% 38% 59% 0%

13. Orientation training on the host agency’s organizational 

structure, mission, and responsibilities, etc. should be 

provided to participants. 6% 21% 74% 0%

14. Training or guidance should be provided for host 

agency supervisors on expectations, logistics, etc. 0% 32% 68% 0%
Appendix II: Results from GAO’s 

Questionnaire on Desirable Outcomes and 

Effective Policies and Practices Associated 

with Interagency Rotation Programs

Page 54 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Question

Not

important

Somewhat 

important

Very

important

Don’t know /

no opinion

15. Guidelines and/or mechanisms for periodic 

communication between participants and their home 

agencies should be provided. 0% 38% 62% 0%

16. A cohort or community of practice for rotating 

personnel and a means for them to communicate with 

one another should be established. 15% 50% 35% 0%

Participant Selection/Assignment Selection

17. Information on rotational assignment opportunities 

should be widely publicized to prospective participants. 6% 9% 82% 3%

18. Participants should be selected competitively. 18% 29% 44% 9%

19. Participants should be selected on the basis of 

excellence in past job performance. 18% 29% 50% 3%

20. Participants should be selected based on their 

potential as future leaders in the national security 

community. 12% 29% 56% 3%

21. Participants should be selected because their 

individual development plans (or similar information) 

indicate that a rotational assignment would develop 

needed skills. 12% 56% 29% 3%

22. Participants should be selected based on their ability to 

contribute to the host agency. 3% 71% 24% 3%

23. Rotational assignment programs should target 

participants at the executive level (i.e. SES, SFS, 

G/FO, or equivalents.) 32% 44% 24% 0%

24. Rotational assignment programs should target 

participants at the mid- to senior level (i.e. GS-12-15, 

FS 4 – 1, O4 – O6, or equivalent) 9% 35% 53% 3%

25. The rotational assignment should make use of 

participants’ knowledge or skills. 6% 41% 53% 0%

26. Participants should be placed in assignments that are 

relevant for future interagency collaborative efforts. 0% 21% 79% 0%

27. The rotational assignment should provide participants 

with a “stretch” opportunity to improve knowledge or 

skills. 6% 26% 68% 0%

Individual and Organizational Participation Incentives

28. To encourage agencies to participate, top 

administration leadership should demonstrate its 

commitment to the rotational assignment program. 6% 9% 85% 0%

29. To encourage its personnel to participate, top agency 

leadership should demonstrate its commitment to the 

rotational assignment program. 3% 0% 97% 0%

30. Upon successful completion of the assignment, 

participants that have performed well should be 

assigned to positions that are desirable and/or careerenhancing. 6% 38% 56% 0%
Appendix II: Results from GAO’s 

Questionnaire on Desirable Outcomes and

Effective Policies and Practices Associated 

with Interagency Rotation Programs

Page 55 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Question

Not

important

Somewhat 

important

Very

important

Don’t know /

no opinion

31. Participants’ newly-acquired experience, knowledge, 

etc. should be publicly recognized by 

agency/organization leadership (e.g. through briefback opportunities at leadership meetings, newsletter 

articles, awards, etc.). 15% 38% 47% 0%

32. Rotational assignments should be required for 

promotion to senior level positions. 9% 47% 35% 9%

33. The home agency should have a strategy for covering 

participants’ home-agency responsibilities during the 

assignment. 0% 21% 76% 3%

34. The home agency should have mechanisms for 

retaining participants after they return from assignment 

(e.g. continuing service agreements, etc.). 0% 29% 68% 3%

Performance Management

35. Performance appraisal systems should have a 

mechanism for capturing host-agency supervisor 

performance feedback. 3% 12% 85% 0%

36. Performance appraisal systems should have a 

mechanism for rewarding successful performance at 

other agencies. 6% 29% 65% 0%

37. Participants’ should be held accountable for improving 

their performance in competency areas related to their 

rotational assignment. 6% 41% 53% 0%

Program evaluation

38. Agencies should have mechanisms for evaluating the 

success of rotational assignment programs in 

achieving desired outcomes. 3% 9% 88% 0%

39. Agencies should obtain feedback on rotational 

assignment programs from various stakeholders, such 

as host agency supervisors, home agency line 

managers, participants, etc. 3% 6% 91% 0%

40. Please use the space below to describe any additional 

policies and practices that you consider important to 

the effectiveness of interagency rotational programs in 

facilitating interagency collaboration Responses intentionally not reported

Source: GAO.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each question is 34. 

a

There were 33 responses to this question. 
Appendix II: Results from GAO’s 

Questionnaire on Desirable Outcomes and 

Effective Policies and Practices Associated 

with Interagency Rotation Programs

Page 56 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

For each statement below, please select the option that best describes 

your views. Select “very” challenging to indicate that the item could cause 

a program to fail or “moderately” challenging if the item could limit a 

program’s effectiveness in facilitating interagency collaboration. Select 

“not” challenging if the item is irrelevant to a program’s success.

Table 3: Percentage Responses to Part II of Questionnaire

Question

Not

challenging

Moderately 

challenging

Very

challenging

Don’t know /

no opinion

Program Development Process

1. Participating agencies lack resources to take part in 

designing or implementing a rotational assignment 

program. 6% 26% 59% 9%

2. Inability to share funds can discourage human capital 

leadership from collaborating with other agencies on 

the design and implementation of rotational 

assignment programs. 9% 26% 41% 24%

Program Design/Assignment Duration

3. It is difficult for participants to make a meaningful 

contribution to a host agency during a short-term (less 

than six months) rotational assignment. 38% 41% 21% 0%

4. Home agencies view long-term rotations, which require 

their personnel to be away for more than six months, 

as a significant resource burden. 3% 26% 71% 0%

Individual and Organizational Disincentives for 

Participation

5. Lack of centralized information on rotational 

assignment opportunities in the national security arena 

is a barrier to participation. 15% 26% 47% 12%

6. Prospective participants are concerned that home 

agency managers will discount their performance and 

developmental experiences at the host agency. 9% 35% 44% 12%

Part II: Policies and 

Practices Identified 

by Agency Officials as 

Challenging the 

Effectiveness of 

Interagency Rotation 

Programs in 

Facilitating 

Interagency 

Collaboration
Appendix II: Results from GAO’s 

Questionnaire on Desirable Outcomes and 

Effective Policies and Practices Associated 

with Interagency Rotation Programs

Page 57 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Question

Not

challenging

Moderately 

challenging

Very

challenging

Don’t know /

no opinion

7. Prospective participants are concerned that their 

promotion prospects will be diminished as a result from 

being away from the home agency. 9% 29% 47% 15%

8. In the case of a rotation exchange, agencies or 

supervisors are concerned about lack of equity (i.e. 

one agency sends a high performer and another 

agency sends a low performer). 15% 56% 12% 18%

9. Home agencies or supervisors are concerned that host 

agencies will “poach” high-performing rotational 

assignment participants. 9% 65% 12% 15%

10. The home agency has no means of covering 

participants’ responsibilities during rotational 

assignments. 6% 26% 62% 6%

Funding and staffing allocation rules

11. Incremental TDY costs result from assigning personnel 

from a geographically inexpensive area to a higherexpense area (e.g. from a field office location at one 

agency to a D.C. headquarters location at another 

agency). 15% 41% 29% 15%

12. There are no established interagency policies on 

funding for rotational assignments (e.g. rules for TDY 

reimbursements or other agreements). 18% 38% 29% 15%

13. Funding rules make interagency personnel exchanges 

and other reimbursement or cost-sharing mechanisms 

difficult. 15% 38% 38% 9%

14. Limits to FTE levels make it difficult for the home 

agency to back-fill positions while personnel are on 

rotational assignment. 1 6% 24% 58% 12%

15. Please use the space below to describe any additional 

policies and practices that you consider a challenge to 

the effectiveness of interagency rotational programs in 

facilitating interagency collaboration Responses intentionally not reported

Source: GAO.

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each question is 34. 

a

There were 33 responses to this question. 
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 58 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of State
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 59 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 60 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration
Appendix III: Comments from the Department 

of State

Page 61 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 62 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Appendix IV: Comments from the 

Department of Defense
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 63 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Defense

Page 64 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 65 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

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

Elizabeth Curda and Laura Miller Craig managed this assignment. Russ 

Burnett, Jessica Nierenberg, Melanie Papasian, Erin Saunders Rath, 

Albert Sim, and Kate Hudson Walker made key contributions to all 

aspects of the report. Judith Kordahl, Jill Lacey, Marie Mak, John 

Pendleton, Sonya Phillips, Lindsay Read, and Megan M. Taylor also 

provided assistance. In addition, Karin Fangman and Lois Hanshaw 

provided legal support and Donna Miller developed the report’s graphics.

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
Page 66 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Humanitarian and Development Assistance: Project Evaluations and 

Better Information Sharing Needed to Manage the Military’s Efforts. 

GAO-12-359. Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2012.

Department of State: Additional Steps Are Needed to Improve Strategic 

Planning and Evaluation of Training for State Personnel. GAO-11-241. 

Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2011.

National Security: An Overview of Professional Development Activities 

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

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

Defense Management: Improved Planning, Training, and Interagency 

Collaboration Could Strengthen DOD’s Efforts in Africa. GAO-10-794

Washington, D.C.: July 28, 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.

National Security: Key Challenges and Solutions to Strengthen 

Interagency Collaboration. GAO-10-822T. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 

2010.

Defense Management: DOD Needs to Determine the Future of Its Horn of 

Africa Task Force. GAO-10-504. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 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.

Military Training: DOD Needs a Strategic Plan and Better Inventory and 

Requirements Data to Guide Development of Language Skills and 

Regional Proficiency. GAO-09-568. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2009.

Related GAO Products
Page 67 GAO-12-386 Interagency Collaboration

Influenza Pandemic: Continued Focus on the Nation’s Planning and 

Preparedness Efforts Remains Essential. GAO-09-760T. Washington, 

D.C.: June 3, 2009.

U.S. Public Diplomacy: Key Issues for Congressional Oversight. 

GAO-09-679SP. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2009.

Military Operations: Actions Needed to Improve Oversight and 

Interagency Coordination for the Commander’s Emergency Response 

Program in Afghanistan. GAO-09-61. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2009.

Foreign Aid Reform: Comprehensive Strategy, Interagency Coordination, 

and Operational Improvements Would Bolster Current Efforts. 

GAO-09-192. Washington, D.C.: April 17, 2009.

Iraq and Afghanistan: Security, Economic, and Governance Challenges 

to Rebuilding Efforts Should Be Addressed in U.S. Strategies. 

GAO-09-476T. Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2009.

Drug Control: Better Coordination with the Department of Homeland 

Security and an Updated Accountability Framework Can Further Enhance 

DEA’s Efforts to Meet Post-9/11 Responsibilities. GAO-09-63. 

Washington, D.C.: March 20, 2009.

Defense Management: Actions Needed to Address Stakeholder 

Concerns, Improve Interagency Collaboration, and Determine Full Costs 

Associated with the U.S. Africa Command. GAO-09-181. Washington, 

D.C.: February 20, 2009.

Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and 

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

D.C.: October 21, 2005.

Human Capital: A Guide for Training and Development Efforts in the 

Federal Government. GAO-04-546G. Washington, D.C.: March 2004.

Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning. 

GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.

(450883)
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 (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 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. 

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

Contact:

Website: 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.