MANAGING FOR 

RESULTS

Key Considerations 

for Implementing 

Interagency 

Collaborative 

Mechanisms 

Report to Congressional Requesters

September 2012

GAO-12-1022

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-1022, a report to 

congressional requesters

September 2012

MANAGING FOR RESULTS

Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms

Why GAO Did This Study

Many of the meaningful results that the 

federal government seeks to achieve—

such as those related to protecting 

food and agriculture, providing 

homeland security, and ensuring a 

well-trained and educated workforce—

require the coordinated efforts of more 

than one federal agency and often 

more than one sector and level of 

government. Both Congress and the 

executive branch have recognized the 

need for improved collaboration across 

the federal government. The 

Government Performance and Results 

Act of 1993 (GPRA) Modernization Act 

of 2010 establishes a new framework 

aimed at taking a more crosscutting

and integrated approach to focusing on 

results and improving government 

performance. Effective implementation 

of the act could play an important role 

in facilitating future actions to reduce 

duplication, overlap, and 

fragmentation. 

GAO was asked to identify the 

mechanisms that the federal 

government uses to lead and 

implement interagency collaboration, 

as well as issues to consider when 

implementing these mechanisms. To 

examine these topics, GAO conducted 

a literature review on interagency 

collaborative mechanisms, interviewed 

13 academic and practitioner experts 

in the field of collaboration, and 

reviewed their work. GAO also 

conducted a detailed analysis of 45 

GAO reports, published between 2005 

and 2012. GAO selected reports that 

contained in-depth discussions of 

collaborative mechanisms and covered 

a broad range of issues. 

What GAO Found

Federal agencies have used a variety of mechanisms to implement 

interagency collaborative efforts, such as the President appointing a 

coordinator, agencies co-locating within one facility, or establishing 

interagency task forces. These mechanisms can be used to address a 

range of purposes including policy development; program 

implementation; oversight and monitoring; information sharing and 

communication; and building organizational capacity, such as staffing and 

training. Frequently, agencies use more than one mechanism to address 

an issue. For example, climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue, 

which involves many collaborative mechanisms in the Executive Office of 

the President and interagency groups throughout government. 

Although collaborative mechanisms differ in complexity and scope, they 

all benefit from certain key features, which raise issues to consider when 

implementing these mechanisms. For example:

• Outcomes and Accountability: Have short-term and long-term 

outcomes been clearly defined? Is there a way to track and 

monitor their progress?

• Bridging Organizational Cultures: What are the missions and 

organizational cultures of the participating agencies? Have 

agencies agreed on common terminology and definitions?

• Leadership: How will leadership be sustained over the long-term? 

If leadership is shared, have roles and responsibilities been clearly 

identified and agreed upon?

• Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities: Have participating 

agencies clarified roles and responsibilities?

• Participants: Have all relevant participants been included? Do 

they have the ability to commit resources for their agency?

• Resources: How will the collaborative mechanism be funded and 

staffed? Have online collaboration tools been developed?

• Written Guidance and Agreements: If appropriate, have 

participating agencies documented their agreement regarding how 

they will be collaborating? Have they developed ways to 

continually update and monitor these agreements? 

View GAO-12-1022. For more information, 

contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202)512-6806 

or mihmj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Letter 1 

Background 3

Agencies Use Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms to Meet a 

Range Of Purposes 4

There are Many Issues to Consider When Collaborating 11

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 28

Appendix II Key Collaboration Practices 33

Appendix III Key Issues to Consider for Implementing Interagency Collaborative 

Mechanisms 34

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 36

Table

Table 1: Topic Areas Covered in Report Sample 30

Figures

Figure 1: Mechanisms for Interagency Collaboration and 

Definitions 5

Figure 2: Selected Collaborative Mechanisms for Federal Climate 

Change Activities, as of May 2011 10

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DOI Department of the Interior

FEB Federal Executive Board

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

HHS Department of Health and Human Services 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NIST National Institute for Standards and Technology

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

SBA Small Business Administration

USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

VISN Veterans Health Administration’s Veterans Integrated 

 Service Network

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-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

September 27, 2012

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

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to 

achieve—such as those related to protecting food and agriculture, 

providing homeland security, and ensuring a well-trained and educated 

workforce—require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal 

agency and often more than one sector and level of government. We 

have reported about the importance of collaboration between federal 

agencies for many years. For example, we have noted that interagency 

mechanisms or strategies to coordinate programs that address 

crosscutting issues may reduce potentially duplicative, overlapping, and 

fragmented efforts.1

Both Congress and the executive branch have also recognized the need 

for improved collaboration across the federal government. Accordingly, in 

January 2011 the almost two-decades-old Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) was updated with the GPRA Modernization 

Act of 2010 (GPRAMA).2

 

1

GAO, Managing for Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation Provides 

Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges, 

Among other things, GPRAMA establishes a 

new framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated 

approach to focusing on results and improving government performance.

Effective implementation of the act could play an important role in 

clarifying desired outcomes, addressing program performance that spans 

GAO-11-617T (Washington, 

D.C.: May 10, 2011). 

2

Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). GPRAMA amends the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993).

 
Page 2 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

multiple organizations, and facilitating future actions to reduce duplication, 

overlap, and fragmentation.3 GPRAMA requires the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) to coordinate with agencies to establish 

outcome-oriented federal government priority goals—otherwise referred 

to as crosscutting goals—covering a limited number of policy areas as 

well as goals to improve management across the federal government.4 It 

also requires that OMB—with the agencies—develop a federal 

government performance plan that defines the level of performance to be 

achieved toward the crosscutting goals.5 These new requirements 

provide additional opportunities for collaboration across federal 

agencies.6

At your request, in this report we are identifying the range of mechanisms 

that the federal government uses to lead and implement interagency 

collaboration, as well as issues to consider when implementing these 

mechanisms. To examine these topics, we conducted a literature review 

on interagency collaborative mechanisms, interviewed 13 academic and 

practitioner experts in the field of collaboration, and reviewed their work. 

We also conducted a detailed analysis of 45 of our prior reports that we 

selected, from more than 300 reports that we published between 2005 

and 2012 that examined aspects of collaboration within the federal 

government. We selected reports that contained in-depth discussions of 

collaborative mechanisms. In addition, we ensured that the reports in our 

selection covered a broad range of issues across the federal government, 

such as homeland security, agriculture, and health, as well as a range of 

collaborative mechanisms. For a more detailed discussion on our scope 

and methodology, see Appendix I.

 

3

GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government 

Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: 

Mar. 1, 2011). 

4

31 U.S.C. § 1120(a)(1).

5

31 U.S.C. § 1115(a).

6

GAO, Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority 

Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-12-620R. (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 

2012).
Page 3 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

We conducted our work from July 2011 to September 2012 in accordance 

with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant 

to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the 

engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our 

stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe 

that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, 

provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this report.

In 2005, we reported on key practices to enhance and sustain 

interagency collaboration.7

• define and articulate a common outcome;

In our report, we broadly defined collaboration 

as any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than 

could be produced when the agencies act alone. We also described how 

agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by engaging 

in the eight practices identified below:

• establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies;

• identify and address needs by leveraging resources;

• agree on roles and responsibilities;

• establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate 

across agency boundaries;

• develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results;

• reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through 

agency plans and reports; and

• reinforce individual accountability through performance management 

systems. 

We noted that running throughout these practices are a number of factors 

such as leadership, trust, and organizational culture that are necessary 

 

7

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

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

Background 
Page 4 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

elements for a collaborative working relationship. The highlights page 

from that report is included in Appendix II.

As required by GPRAMA, OMB included a set of 14 interim crosscutting 

priority goals in the 2013 federal budget. These goals covered a variety of 

issues such as veteran career readiness, energy efficiency, export 

promotion, and real property management. OMB also designated relevant 

agencies and programs that will be responsible for each interim goal. In 

order to address these goals, OMB is relying on a range of collaborative 

mechanisms. For example, in order to address the crosscutting goal of 

improving career readiness of veterans, OMB noted that it will rely, in 

part, on a Department of Defense-Veterans Affairs Task Force that 

includes representation from the Departments of Defense, Labor, 

Education, and Veterans Affairs, OMB, and the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM).8

Federal agencies have used a variety of mechanisms to implement 

interagency collaborative efforts, such as the President appointing a 

coordinator, agencies co-locating within one facility, or establishing 

interagency task forces. Figure 1 catalogues selected mechanisms that 

the federal government uses to facilitate interagency collaboration, which 

were identified through interviews with experts and a sample of our prior 

reports. Experts have defined an interagency mechanism for collaboration 

as any arrangement or application that can facilitate collaboration 

between agencies. This list may not be comprehensive; it reflects the 

mechanisms that were included in our sample.

 

8

GAO-12-620R. 

Agencies Use 

Interagency 

Collaborative 

Mechanisms to Meet a 

Range Of Purposes
Page 5 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Figure 1: Mechanisms for Interagency Collaboration and Definitions

1. Presidential Assistants and Advisors: A Presidential appointee who is solely focused on an issue of great magnitude, or 

policy collaboration in the Executive Office of the President.

2. Collaboration Structures within the Executive Office of the President: Permanent or temporary groups that are sometimes 

referred to as task forces, councils, commissions, committees, or working groups.

3. National Strategies and Initiatives: A document or initiative that is national in scope and provides a broad framework for 

addressing issues that cut across federal agencies and often across other levels of government and sectors.

4. Interagency Groups:

a. Interagency Group Led by Agency and Department Heads: These groups are sometimes referred to as task forces, 

working groups, councils, and committees.

b. Interagency Group Led by Component and Program-Level Staff: These groups are sometimes referred to as task 

forces, working groups, councils, and committees.

5. Designation of Leadership:

a. Lead Agencies: Designation of one agency or department to be accountable for an initiative, particularly if it requires the 

efforts of several different agencies exercising different statutory authorities.

b. Shared Leadership: Designation of, or agreement by, more than one agency or department to be accountable for an 

initiative.

6. Geographic-Based Offices/Co-location: One office maintaining responsibility for collaborating with federal agencies or 

departments that are located in the same geographic region. Also, in some cases, the location of more than one program office 

from different federal agencies into a facility with the intention of personnel from the agencies collaborating with one another.

7. Positions and Details:

a. Interagency Collaborator Positions: The designation of an individual within one federal agency or department to 

collaborate within or between agencies or departments.

b. Liaison Positions: An employee of one organization assigned to work primarily or exclusively with another agency.

c. Personnel Details: A specialist or professional designated to perform certain tasks for another agency while remaining 

employed by his or her home agency.

8. Specially Created Interagency Offices: An office with its own authority and resources with responsibility to cover a policy area 

that crosses a number of separate agencies or departments.

9. Interagency Agreements and Memorandum of Understanding: A written agreement between more than one federal agency 

or department.

10. Joint Program Efforts:

a. Joint Budgeting and Funding: A set of resources that are administered by more than one federal agency.

b. Joint Exercising and Training: Exercising or training that involves participants from more than one federal agency.

c. Joint Development of Policies, Procedures, and Programs: More than one federal agency developing a policy, 

procedure or program.

11. Conferences and Communities of Practice: A meeting that brings together representatives of different agencies or 

departments for the discussion of common problems, the exchange of information, or the development of agreements on issues 

of mutual interest.

12. Collaboration Technologies: Tools that facilitate collaboration, such as shared databases and web portals.

Source: GAO. 
Page 6 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Based on our analysis of expert interviews and literature, as well as a 

sample of our prior reports, the mechanisms for interagency collaboration 

can serve the following general purposes. According to our analysis, and 

as demonstrated by the examples below, most collaborative mechanisms 

serve multiple purposes.

• Policy Development: For example, Congress established the Office 

of Science and Technology Policy in 1976 to serve as a source of 

scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President 

with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the federal 

government, among other things.9

• Program Implementation: As we reported in 2010, in the case of the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Joint Field Offices, colocating personnel meets the purpose of program implementation 

during an emergency. Specifically, personnel from a range of 

agencies temporarily co-locate to provide services to disaster victims 

in one location.

The Office of Science and 

Technology Policy’s mission includes leading interagency efforts to 

develop and coordinate sound science and technology policies across 

the federal government.

10

We reported in 2006 that Congress passed the Federal Lands 

Recreation Enhancement Act,11 in part, to standardize the types of 

recreation fees collected at federal lands and waters and to increase 

flexibility for fee revenue expenditures. To assist with implementing 

this act, Department of the Interior (DOI) and U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) established four working groups, including a Fee 

Collection/Expenditure working group to address organizational 

concerns, implementation issues, and coordination among the 

agencies as they relate to fee collections and expenditures.12

 

9

Presidential Science and Technology Advisory Organization Act of 1976, Pub. L. No. 94-

282, title II, 90 Stat. 459. 463-68 (May 11, 1976). 42 U.S.C. § 6614(a).

For 

example, the working group assisted with developing an interagency 

10GAO, Disaster Recovery: FEMA’s Long-term Assistance Was Helpful to State and Local 

Governments but Had Some Limitations, GAO-10-404 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 30, 2010). 

11Pub. L. No. 108-447, Division J, title VIII, 118 Stat. 2809, 3377-3393 (Dec. 8, 2004).

12GAO, Recreation Fees: Agencies Can Better Implement the Federal Lands Recreation 

Enhancement Act and Account for Fee Revenues, GAO-06-1016 (Washington, D.C.: 

Sept. 22, 2006).

Mechanisms Can be Used 

to Serve Multiple Purposes
Page 7 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

handbook with common definitions and implementation policy 

guidance.

• Oversight and Monitoring: For example, as we reported in 2008, the 

Maritime Security Working Group, working on behalf of the Maritime 

Security Policy Coordination Committee, was responsible for 

monitoring and assessing implementation of actions related to the 

National Strategy for Maritime Security.13

• Information Sharing and Communication: As we reported in 2008 

and 2010, in the case of the National Intellectual Property Rights 

Coordination Center, co-locating personnel was intended to promote 

information sharing. Specifically, personnel from agencies responsible 

for combating counterfeiting, piracy, and related intellectual property 

rights crimes are co-located for the purpose of sharing information 

across organizational boundaries.14

As we reported in 2010, the Department of Justice has established 

several interagency groups to coordinate and share information on 

gangs and gang enforcement efforts across department and agency 

boundaries, including the Gang Unit; the National Gang Targeting, 

Enforcement, and Coordination Center; the National Gang Intelligence 

Center; and others.15

• Building Organizational Capacity: Capacity may include areas such 

as staffing, training, and information technology. For example, in 2011 

we identified 225 professional development activities for national 

security personnel which were intended to improve certain agencies’ 

abilities to collaborate across organizational lines. These ranged from 

10-month joint professional military education programs and year-long 

 

13GAO, Maritime Security: National Strategy and Supporting Plans Were Generally WellDeveloped and Are Being Implemented, GAO-08-672 (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2008).

14GAO, Intellectual Property: Federal Enforcement Has Generally Increased, but 

Assessing Performance Could Strengthen Law Enforcement Efforts, GAO-08-157 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar.11, 2008); and Intellectual Property: Agencies Progress in 

Implementing Legislation, but Enhancements Could Improve Future Plans, GAO-11-39 

(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 13, 2010).

15GAO, Combating Gangs: Better Coordination and Performance Measurement Would 

Help Clarify Roles of Federal Agencies and Strengthen Assessment of Efforts, 

GAO-09-708 (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2009).
Page 8 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

rotations to 30-minute online courses. The developmental activities

we identified included training courses and programs, training 

exercises, interagency rotational programs, joint professional military 

education, and leadership development programs.16

The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College’s Interagency 

Fellowship Program is an example of one of these professional 

development activities. The College places Army officers at other 

federal agencies to learn the culture of the host agency, hone 

collaborative skills such as communication and teamwork, and 

establish networks with civilian counterparts. At the same time, 

participants increase workforce capacity at their host civilian agencies, 

such as the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International 

Development. In turn, the civilian agencies can free up resources to 

send personnel to teach or attend courses at the College.17

 

16GAO, National Security: An Overview of Professional Development Activities Intended to 

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

17GAO, Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel Rotation Programs Can 

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

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 9, 2012).
Page 9 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Additionally, in many cases, agencies use more than one mechanism to 

address an issue. For example, climate change is a complex, crosscutting 

issue, which involves many collaborative mechanisms. As we reported in 

2011, these mechanisms include entities within the Executive Office of 

the President and interagency groups throughout government, including 

task forces and working groups.18 As shown in figure 2 below, the 

collaborative mechanisms in place to address climate change vary with 

regard to membership and purpose. The collaboration structures within 

the Executive Office of the President provide high-level policy direction for 

federal climate change programs and activities.19 Other mechanisms are 

in place—including specially created interagency offices and interagency 

groups—to provide coordination of science and technology policy across 

the federal government.20 For example, the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, which began as a presidential initiative in 1989, was 

codified by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.21

 

18GAO, Climate Change: Improvements Needed to Clarify National Priorities and Better 

Align Them with Federal Funding Decisions, 

This program 

coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global 

environment and their implications for society, and is led by an 

interagency governing body, the Committee on Environment, Natural 

Resources, and Sustainability Subcommittee on Global Change 

Research. The subcommittee, facilitated by a national coordination office, 

provides overall strategic direction and is responsible for developing and 

implementing an integrated interagency program.

GAO-11-317 (Washington, D.C.: May 20, 

2011).

19In March 2011, the Office of Energy and Climate Change Policy joined the Domestic 

Policy Council.

20GAO-11-317. 

21Pub. L. No. 101-606 (1990). For more information about the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program, see http://www.globalchange.gov/. (Accessed September, 2012).

Mechanisms Are 

Frequently Used In 

Combination to Address 

Complex Issues
Page 10 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Figure 2: Selected Collaborative Mechanisms for Federal Climate Change Activities, as of May 2011
Page 11 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Although the mechanisms we list in figure 2 differ in complexity and 

scope, they all benefit from certain key features, which raise issues to 

consider when implementing these mechanisms. According to expert 

views and our prior work, these key features fall into the categories of 

outcomes and accountability; bridging organizational cultures; leadership; 

clarity of roles and responsibilities; participants; resources; and written 

guidance and agreements. Many of these key features are related to our 

previously-identified collaboration practices.22

Issues to Consider:

• Have short-term and long-term outcomes been clearly defined?

• Is there a way to track and monitor progress toward the short-term 

and long-term outcomes?

• Do participating agencies have collaboration-related competencies or 

performance standards against which individual performance can be 

evaluated?

• Do participating agencies have the means to recognize and reward 

accomplishments related to collaboration?

Organizational Outcomes and Accountability: As we reported in 2008, 

we interviewed experts in collaborative resource management.23

 

22

Based 

on these interviews, we found that most of the experts emphasized the 

importance of groups having clear goals. They explained that in a 

collaborative process, the participants may not have the same overall 

interests—in fact they may have conflicting interests. However, by 

establishing a goal based on what the group shares in common, rather 

than on where there is disagreement among missions or philosophies, a 

collaborative group can shape its own vision and define its own purpose. 

When articulated and understood by the members of a group, this shared 

purpose provides people with a reason to participate in the process. For 

example, in 2012, we reported that Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 

GAO-06-15. 

23GAO, Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal 

Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource 

Conditions, GAO-08-262 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2008).

There are Many Issues 

to Consider When 

Collaborating 

Outcomes and 

Accountability 
Page 12 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in 

collaboration with other federal agencies, shared a joint commitment to 

preventing and ending veteran homelessness by 2015. Representatives 

at two veteran and homeless advocacy organizations told us that sharing 

a common strategic goal between VA and HUD had been beneficial.24

Federal agencies can use their strategic and annual performance plans 

as tools to drive collaboration with other agencies and other partners and 

establish complementary goals and strategies for achieving results. We 

have found that agencies that create a means to monitor, evaluate, and 

report the results of collaborative efforts can better identify areas for 

improvement.25 Agencies’ priority goals—and agency involvement in 

federal government priority goals—provide additional opportunities to 

articulate the goals of collaborative efforts.26

Individual Accountability: Agencies link personal accountability to 

collaboration by adding a collaboration-related competency or 

performance standard against which individual performance can be 

evaluated. As we previously reported, the Department of State revised 

the competencies used to evaluate the Foreign Service Officers to focus 

on collaboration.

Agencies and OMB are 

required under GPRAMA to monitor the federal government and agency 

priority goals on at least a quarterly basis, which provides additional 

opportunities for collaboration with contributing partners.

27 Specifically, the competencies now identify knowledge 

of other agencies and interagency cooperation among the skill sets to be 

assessed.28

 

24GAO, Veteran Homelessness: VA and HUD Are Working to Improve Data on Supportive 

Housing Program, 

Agency officials said that this change, in part, resulted in 

increased interest in foreign policy advisor assignments, demonstrated by 

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

GAO-12-726 (Washington, D.C: June 26, 2012).

25GAO-06-15. 

26GAO-12-620R. 

27GAO-12-386. 

28Foreign Service terminology for competencies are “precepts,” which according to 

Department of State’s documentation, define “the specific skills to be considered and the 

level of accomplishment expected at different grades.” 
Page 13 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

We reported in October 2000, that the Veterans Health Administration’s 

Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), headquartered in Cincinnati, 

implemented performance agreements that focused on patient services 

for the entire VISN and were designed to encourage the VISN’s medical 

centers to work collaboratively.29 In 2000, the VISN Director had a 

performance agreement with “care line” directors for patient services, 

such as primary care, medical and surgical care, and mental health care. 

In particular, the mental health care line director’s performance 

agreement included improvement goals related to mental health for the 

entire VISN. To make progress towards these goals, this care line director 

had to work across each of the VISN’s four medical centers with the 

corresponding care line managers at each medical center. As part of this 

collaboration, the care line director needed to establish consensus among 

VISN officials and external stakeholders on the strategic direction for the 

services provided by the mental health care line across the VISN; 

develop, implement, and revise integrated clinical programs to reflect that 

strategic direction for the VISN; and allocate resources among the 

centers for mental health programs to implement these programs.

Issues to Consider:

• What are the missions and organizational cultures of the participating 

agencies?

• What are the commonalities between the participating agencies’ 

missions and cultures and what are some potential challenges?

• Have participating agencies developed ways for operating across 

agency boundaries?

• Have participating agencies agreed on common terminology and 

definitions? 

Different agencies participating in any collaborative mechanism bring 

diverse organizational cultures to it. Accordingly, it is important to address 

these differences to enable a cohesive working relationship and to create 

the mutual trust required to enhance and sustain the collaborative effort. 

To address these differences, we have found that it is important to 

 

29GAO, Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits From Selected Agencies’ Use of 

Performance Agreements, GAO-01-115 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 30, 2000).

Bridging Organizational 

Cultures 
Page 14 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

establish ways to operate across agency boundaries. This can involve 

measures such as developing common terminology, compatible policies 

and procedures, and fostering open lines of communication. We reported 

in 2012 that the Interagency Council on Homelessness had taken initial 

steps to develop a common vocabulary for discussing homelessness and 

related terms, as recommended in our June 2010 report. The Council 

held a meeting with participants from stakeholder organizations in 

January 2011 and issued a report to Congress in June 2011 that 

summarized feedback received during the meeting. The report notes that 

a common vocabulary would allow federal agencies to better measure the 

scope and dimensions of homelessness and may ease program 

implementation and coordination. Additionally, the Council held three 

meetings in 2011 to discuss implementation of a common vocabulary with 

key federal agencies.30

Positive working relationships between participants from different 

agencies bridge organizational cultures. These relationships build trust 

and foster communication, which facilitates collaboration. Experts have 

stated that relationship-building is vital in responding to an emergency. 

For example, we reported in 2011, that through interagency planning 

efforts federal officials built relationships that helped facilitate the federal 

response to the H1N1 influenza pandemic.31

 

30GAO, Homelessness: Fragmentation and Overlap in Programs Highlight the Need to 

Identify, Assess, and Reduce Inefficiencies, 

Officials from the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Assistant Secretary for 

Preparedness and Response and the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and the 

Department of Education said that these interagency meetings, working 

together on existing pandemic and non-pandemic programs, and 

exercises conducted prior to the H1N1 pandemic built relationships that 

were valuable for the H1N1 pandemic response. Specifically, HHS 

officials said that federal coordination during the H1N1 pandemic was 

much easier because of these formal networks and informal relationships 

built during pandemic planning activities and exercises.

GAO-12-491 (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 

2012).

31GAO, Influenza Pandemic: Lessons from the H1N1 Pandemic Should Be Incorporated 

into Future Planning, GAO-11-632 (Washington, D.C.: June 27, 2011).
Page 15 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Frequent communication among collaborating agencies is another way to 

facilitate working across agency boundaries to prevent 

misunderstanding.32 We reported in 2005 that open communication was 

an important factor in the successful transfer of the Plum Island Animal 

Disease Research Center (Plum Island) from USDA to DHS.33

Specifically, several scientists at Plum Island had stated that the Plum 

Island Director’s successful efforts in facilitating open communication 

among staff had fostered a collaborative environment. Moreover, several 

scientists noted that the director—who was based on the island at that 

time—valued the comments and ideas expressed by the scientists. One 

lead scientist concluded that the director’s ability to establish positive 

relationships with staff had brought greater focus to the research and 

diagnostic programs. USDA officials also noted to us that the leadership 

of the director and the entire Senior Leadership Group, working as a 

team, contributed to effective cooperation at Plum Island.34

Issues to Consider:

• Has a lead agency or individual been identified?

• If leadership will be shared between one or more agencies, have roles 

and responsibilities been clearly identified and agreed upon?

• How will leadership be sustained over the long-term?

Leadership Models: As previously discussed, leadership models range 

from identifying one agency or person to lead, to assigning shared 

leadership over a collaborative mechanism. Experts explained that 

designating one leader is often beneficial because it centralizes 

 

32GAO-06-15. 

33The livestock industry, which contributes over $100 billion annually to the national 

economy, is vulnerable to foreign animal diseases that, if introduced in the United States, 

could cause severe economic losses. To protect against such losses, critical research and 

diagnostic activities are conducted at Plum Island in New York. USDA was responsible for 

Plum Island until June 2003, when provisions of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 

transferred the facility to DHS. Under an interagency agreement, USDA continues to work 

on foreign animal diseases at the island.

34GAO, Plum Island Animal Disease Center: DHS and USDA Are Successfully 

Coordinating Current Work, but Long-Term Plans Are Being Assessed, GAO-06-132 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 19, 2005).

Leadership
Page 16 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

accountability and can speed decision making. For example, as we 

reported in 2007, under the National Pandemic Strategy and 

Implementation Plan, HHS and DHS share leadership responsibilities for 

pandemic response. In a pandemic, HHS is responsible for areas such as 

the public health response, while DHS is responsible for areas such as 

border security and critical infrastructure protection.35 In 2007, we 

reported that it was unclear from the strategy and plan how this shared 

leadership model would be implemented. In that regard, we 

recommended that HHS and DHS clarify these roles through tests and 

exercises. As we reported in 2011, these tests and exercises had not 

occurred at the start of the H1N1 pandemic and we found that HHS and 

DHS were not able to effectively coordinate their release of information to 

state and local governments. Once it became clear that the H1N1 

pandemic required primarily a public health response, HHS had 

responsibility for most of the key activities.36

Top-level Commitment: Influence of leadership can be strengthened by 

a direct relationship with the President, Congress, and/or other high-level 

officials. According to a number of former practitioners we interviewed, 

their association with the President, members of Congress, or other highlevel officials enabled them to influence individuals and organizations 

within the federal government to collaborate with one another. As we 

reported in 2008, Department of Energy officials said to us that the fact 

that the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative was a presidential initiative with 

congressional backing helped Hydrogen Fuel Initiative managers garner 

support from industry and within the federal government. Our subsequent 

work found that the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative worked well as an 

interagency effort for a number of years and research and development 

progressed rapidly. However, as one agency official noted, when 

congressional funding and presidential support waned, so did the 

However, one expert said 

that centralized leadership is not always the best model, particularly when 

the collaboration needs to have buy-in from more than one agency. By 

sharing leadership, agencies can convey their support for the 

collaborative effort.

 

35GAO, Influenza Pandemic: Further Efforts Are Needed to Ensure Clearer Federal 

Leadership Roles and an Effective National Strategy, GAO-07-781 (Washington, D.C.: 

Aug. 14, 2007).

36GAO-11-632. 
Page 17 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

program.37

Continuity in Leadership: Given the importance of leadership to any 

collaborative effort, transitions and inconsistent leadership can weaken 

the effectiveness of any collaborative mechanism. As we illustrate below, 

lack of continuity is a frequent issue with presidential advisors or 

mechanisms that are tied to the Executive Office of the President, 

particularly when administrations change. As we reported in 2011, the 

future of the presidentially-appointed Food Safety Working Group was 

uncertain. We explained that this uncertainty was based on the 

experience of the former President’s Council on Food Safety, the 

predecessor to the Food Safety Working Group, which was disbanded 

less than 3 years after it was created.

In developing the interim federal government priority goals 

required under GPRAMA, a majority of the goal leaders designated by 

OMB are in the Executive Office of the President, which provides a direct 

connection to the President.

38 According to the Congressional 

Research Service, presidential advisors—who are frequently responsible 

for collaboration around a singular issue—are rarely replaced after they 

vacate a position, which can leave a void in leadership around an issue. 

Our prior reports have identified other cases where leadership changed—

or was briefly absent—and accordingly, the mechanism either 

disappeared or became less useful.

Issues to Consider:

• Have participating agencies clarified the roles and responsibilities of 

the participants?

• Have participating agencies articulated and agreed to a process for 

making and enforcing decisions? 

 

37GAO, Hydrogen Fuel Initiative: DOE Has Made Important Progress and Involved 

Stakeholders but Needs to Update What It Expects to Achieve by Its 2015 Target, 

GAO-08-305 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 11, 2008).

38GAO, Federal Food Safety Oversight: Food Safety Working Group Is a Positive First 

Step but Governmentwide Planning Is Needed to Address Fragmentation, GAO-11-289 

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 2011).

Clarity of Roles and 

Responsibilities 
Page 18 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Clarity can come from agencies working together to define and agree on 

their respective roles and responsibilities, as well as steps for decision 

making. We reported in 2009, that as part of the Partnership for 

Sustainable Communities, HUD and the Department of Transportation 

started to define and agree on their respective roles and responsibilities.

As part of this effort, the agencies began to clarify who will do what, 

identified how to organize their joint and individual efforts, and articulated 

steps for decision making. For example, the Department of Transportation 

and HUD planned to give responsibility to HUD to administer the Regional 

Integrated Planning Grants program. They also agreed that HUD would 

assume this responsibility in consultation with the Department of 

Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal 

agencies.39

Clarity about roles and responsibilities can be codified through laws, 

policies, memorandum of understanding, or other requirements. For 

example, as we reported in 2012, in enacting the Intelligence Reform and 

Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004, Congress included a provision 

requiring the Director of National Intelligence to prescribe mechanisms to 

facilitate the rotation of intelligence community personnel to other 

intelligence community elements during their careers.40

 

39 GAO, Affordable Housing in Transit-Oriented Development: Key Practices Could 

Enhance Recent Collaboration Efforts between DOT-FTA and HUD, 

Amongst other 

duties, the law requires the Director to encourage and facilitate 

assignments and details of personnel to national intelligence centers, and 

to set standards for educating, training, and career development of 

GAO-09-871 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2009).

40 For purposes of this report, references to the intelligence community elements include 

the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, the Defense Security 

Service, and other intelligence community components, which are subject to the Joint 

Duty Program requirement. Although the Defense Security Service is technically not part 

of the intelligence community, it is also included in our scope because Defense Security 

Service civilian personnel fall under the Under Secretary for Defense for Intelligence and 

are subject to the Joint Duty Program requirement. 
Page 19 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

personnel within the intelligence community.41 Experts emphasized that it 

is helpful to use existing authorities whenever possible.

Issues to Consider:

• Have all relevant participants been included?

• Do the participants have:

• Full knowledge of the relevant resources in their agency?

• The ability to commit these resources?

• The ability to regularly attend activities of the collaborative 

mechanism?

• The appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities to contribute?

It is important to ensure that the relevant participants have been included 

in the collaborative effort. This can include other federal agencies, state 

and local entities, and organizations from the private and nonprofit 

sectors. Experts said that it is helpful when the participants in a 

collaborative mechanism have full knowledge of the relevant resources in 

their agency; the ability to commit these resources and make decisions 

on behalf of the agency; the ability to regularly attend all activities of the 

collaborative mechanism; and the knowledge, skills, and abilities to 

contribute to the outcomes of the collaborative effort.

For example, we reported in 2010 that even when the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s Long-Term Community Recovery Branch did have 

the right agencies at the table, their efforts were limited when they did not 

have the right staff to resolve policy and program challenges. One of the 

reasons for this challenge was that interagency coordination meetings did 

not always include agency officials with a sufficient level of authority to 

resolve the challenges that the group identified.42

 

41Pub. L. No. 108-458, § 1011, 118 Stat. 3638, 3644-55 (Dec. 17, 2004) (amending § 

102A of the National Security Act of 1947, as codified at 50 U.S.C. § 403-1). GAO, 

Intelligence Community Personnel: Strategic Approach and Training Requirements 

Needed to Guide Joint Duty Program, 

In another example, as 

we reported in 2008, to ensure appropriate authority inside each agency 

for making hydrogen-related budget and policy decisions during 

GAO-12-679 (Washington, D.C.: June 20, 2012).

42GAO-10-404. 

Participants
Page 20 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

meetings, the Hydrogen and Fuel Cell Technical Advisory Committee 

recommended in October 2006 that the participants of the Interagency 

Working Group be elevated to require participation of an assistant 

secretary or higher. In response, the Department of Energy created the 

Interagency Task Force—a new entity composed of deputy assistant 

secretaries, program directors, and other senior officials.43

Issues to Consider:

• How will the collaborative mechanism be funded? If interagency 

funding is needed, is it permitted?

• If interagency funding is needed and permitted, is there a means to 

track funds in a standardized manner?

• How will the collaborative mechanism be staffed?

• Are there incentives available to encourage staff or agencies to 

participate?

• If relevant, do agencies have compatible technological systems?

• Have participating agencies developed online tools or other resources 

that facilitate joint interactions?

Collaborating agencies should identify the human, information 

technology, physical, and financial resources needed to initiate or sustain 

their collaborative effort.44 Many experts have emphasized that 

collaboration can take time and resources in order to accomplish such 

activities as building trust among the participants, setting up the ground 

rules for the process, attending meetings, conducting project work, and 

monitoring and evaluating the results of work performed. Consequently, it 

is important for groups to ensure that they identify and leverage sufficient 

funding to accomplish the objectives.45 As noted below, in some 

instances specific congressional authority may be necessary in order to 

provide for the interagency funding of collaborative mechanisms. 

 

43GAO-08-305. 

44GAO-06-15. 

45GAO-08-262. 

Resources
Page 21 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

While not all collaborative mechanisms raise funding considerations, our 

work does point to a range of authorities that have been used for funding 

them. The National Defense Authorization Act required VA and the 

Department of Defense (DOD) to establish the Joint Incentive Fund46

program to identify and provide incentives for creative coordination and 

sharing initiatives at the facility, regional, and national levels.47 To 

facilitate the incentive program, Congress established a U.S. Treasury 

account to fund the Joint Incentive Fund activities and required DOD and 

VA each to contribute a minimum of $15 million each year to the account. 

This program is authorized through September 2015.48 Additionally, as 

we reported in 2011, in the case of the 2009 H1N1 influenza pandemic, 

Congress appropriated more than $6 billion in direct and contingent 

funding into an HHS emergency fund in order to prepare for and respond 

to an influenza pandemic.49 This appropriation contained authority for the 

Secretary of HHS to transfer funds to other HHS accounts and to other 

federal agencies, which the Secretary used to transfer funds to the 

Departments of Defense, Veterans Affairs, State, and Agriculture to assist 

with the response.50

In another example, as we reported in 2007, Federal Executive Boards 

(FEBs) are supported by a host agency, usually the agency with the 

greatest number of employees in the region. These host agencies provide 

varying levels of staffing, usually one or two full-time positions—an 

executive director and an executive assistant. Some agencies also 

temporarily detail employees to the FEB staff to assist their local boards 

and to provide developmental opportunities for their employees. 

Additionally, the FEBs are supported by member agencies through 

contribution of funds as well as in-kind support, such as office space, 

 

46Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, Pub. L. No. 107-

314, § 721, 116 Stat. 2458, 2589-95 (Dec. 2, 2002), required VA and DOD to establish a 

joint incentive program, which is administered by the Department of Veterans AffairsDepartment of Defense Joint Executive Committee, under procedures jointly prescribed by 

the two Secretaries. VA and DOD refer to this as the Joint Incentive Fund program. 

47GAO, VA and DOD Health Care: Opportunities to Maximize Resource Sharing Remain, 

GAO-06-315 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 20, 2006).

48See, 38 U.S.C. § 8111(d).

49Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-32, 123 Stat. 1859, 1884-86 

(June 24, 2009).

50GAO-11-632. 

Funding
Page 22 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

personal computers, telephone lines, and Internet access.51 We noted in 

our report that FEBs had previously been limited in the methods available 

to fund operations because of the governmentwide restriction against 

interagency financing of boards, commissions, councils, committees, and 

similar groups without statutory approval. Under this restriction, it was 

permissible for one participant agency with a primary interest in the 

success of the interagency venture to pay the entire cost of supporting 

the functions and administration of the group, but it was not permissible to 

support the group through cash and in-kind support from participating 

agencies.52 FEBs were exempted from this restriction in 1996, which then 

permitted the interagency financing through member agency contributions 

of funds and in-kind support.53

In addition, working capital funds have been used to finance the 

sharing/leveraging of business-like services between agencies. As we 

reported in 2010, the National Institute for Standards and Technology 

(NIST) serves as the focal point for conducting scientific research and 

developing measurements, standards, and related technologies in the 

federal government.54

 

51GAO, The Federal Workforce: Additional Steps Needed to Take Advantage of Federal 

Executive Boards’ Ability to Contribute to Emergency Operations, 

In 1950, Congress established NIST’s working 

capital fund, giving the agency broad statutory authority to use the fund to 

support any activities NIST is authorized to undertake as an agency. 

NIST’s working capital fund is a type of intragovernmental revolving fund. 

These funds—which include franchise, supply, and working capital 

funds—finance business-like operations. An intragovernmental revolving 

fund charges for the sale of products or services it provides and uses the 

proceeds to finance its operations. In another example, as we reported in 

2011, federal customer agencies use the Department of the Census’ 

nationwide polling structure, expertise, and address lists, which would 

GAO-07-515 

(Washington, D.C.: May 4, 2007).

5265 Comp. Gen. 689 (1986) and 67 Comp. Gen. 27 (1987).

53Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, Pub. L. No. 104-208, § 613, 110 Stat. 3009, 

3009-356 (1996).

54GAO, Intergovernmental Revolving Funds: NIST’s Interagency Agreements and 

Workload Require Management Attention, GAO-11-41 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2010).
Page 23 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

otherwise be uneconomical for them to replicate on their own.55 For 

example, Census supports HUD’s American Housing Survey by gathering 

information on the size and composition of the housing inventory in the 

United States.56

Regardless of the funding model used, participating agencies need to find 

compatible methods for tracking funds for accountability. For example, 

the Mérida Initiative is a partnership between the United States and 

Mexico to combat narcotics. As we noted in a December 2009 report, 

tracking funds for the Mérida Initiative was difficult because each of the 

three bureaus in the Department of State managing Mérida funds had a 

different method for tracking the money. Each bureau used different 

budgeting terms as well as separate spreadsheets for the Mérida funds it 

administered, and the State Department had no consolidated database 

for these funds.57

Relying on agencies to participate can present challenges for 

collaborative mechanisms. In cases where staff participation was 

insufficient, collaboration often failed to meet key objectives and achieve 

intended outcomes. According to experts, establishing “win-win” 

arrangements, and aligning incentives to reward participation, makes 

individuals and organizations more likely to participate in collaborative 

arrangements, particularly in cases where participation is voluntary. In a 

March 2012 report, we identified a number of individual incentives that 

can be used to bolster participation in collaborative efforts, such as:

 

 

55GAO, Intragovernmental Revolving Funds: Commerce Departmental and Census 

Working Capital Funds Should Better Reflect Key Operating Principles, GAO-12-56 

(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 18, 2011).

56Federal agencies are prohibited by law from transferring funds from one agency to 

another, unless otherwise authorized by law. The Economy Act of 1932 authorizes a 

federal agency to provide goods or services to another federal agency and generally 

provides authority for federal agencies to enter into intragovernmental transactions when 

no other, more specific, authority applies. However, the Economy Act restricts flexibility by 

requiring the client agency to deobligate fiscal year funds at the end of the period of 

availability to the extent that these funds have not been obligated by the performing 

agency.

57GAO, Status of Funds for the Mérida Initiative, GAO-10-253R (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 

3, 2009).

Staffing
Page 24 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

• Factoring participation into promotion decisions: Personnel may be 

encouraged to participate in collaborative programs if agencies factor 

interagency experience into their promotion decisions.58

• Providing public recognition: In addition to providing incentives 

through performance management systems, agencies can publicly 

acknowledge or reward participants in other ways. For example, 

agencies could confer awards to individuals who exhibit exemplary 

teamwork skills or accomplishments during an interagency rotation.59

We identified a number of technological applications that agencies are 

using to enhance and sustain joint activities. Specifically, agencies have 

developed information-sharing websites, integrated electronic reporting 

processes and procedures, and negotiated data-sharing arrangements. 

For example, the Department of Defense’s National Center for Medical 

Intelligence hosts an encrypted information-sharing portal called Wildfire 

that is intended for use by members of the Biosurveillance Indications and 

Warnings Analytic Community, which is a self-governing interagency 

body, composed of federal officials who are responsible for pursuing a 

biosurveillance mission.

 

60

www.stopbullying.gov

Second, we reported in 2012, that HHS, the 

Department of Education, the Department of Justice, and the White 

House, established a central federal website 

(http:// ), which was launched in March 2011 at the 

White House conference on bullying. The central website sought to 

consolidate the content of different federal sites into one location to 

provide free materials to the public.61

 

58The 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. 

The purpose of this act 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. See S. 

1268 and H.R. 2314.

Third, we reported in 2012, that 

HHS and VA have been working to make their homelessness programs’ 

59GAO-12-386. 

60GAO, Biosurveillance: Developing a Collaboration Strategy Is Essential to Fostering 

Interagency Data and Resource Sharing, GAO-10-171 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 2009).

61GAO, School Bullying: Extent of Legal Protections for Vulnerable Groups Needs to Be 

More Fully Assessed, GAO-12-349 (Washington, D.C.: May 29, 2012).

Technology
Page 25 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

data systems compatible with HUD’s as part of their work with the 

Interagency Council on Homelessness.62

Issues to Consider:

• If appropriate, have the participating agencies documented their 

agreement regarding how they will be collaborating? A written 

document can incorporate agreements reached in any or all of the 

following areas:

• Leadership; 

• Accountability; 

• Roles and responsibilities; and 

• Resources. 

• Have participating agencies developed ways to continually update or 

monitor written agreements?

Our prior work found that agencies that articulate their agreements in 

formal documents can strengthen their commitment to working 

collaboratively.63 As we have previously reported, having a clear and 

compelling rationale to work together—such as that described above—is 

a key factor in successful collaborations. Agencies can overcome 

significant differences when such a rationale and commitment exist.64

Not all collaborative arrangements need to be documented through 

written guidance and agreements, particularly those that are informal. 

However, we have found that at times it can be helpful to document key 

agreements related to the collaboration. One expert we interviewed 

stated that the action of two agencies articulating a common outcome and 

roles and responsibilities into a written document was a powerful tool in 

collaboration. Accordingly, we have recommended many times that 

collaborations would benefit from a formal written agreement, such as a 

memorandum of understanding (MOU). For example, in 2008, we 

 

62GAO-12-491. 

63GAO-06-15. 

64GAO, Next Generation Air Transportation: Collaborative Efforts with European Union 

Generally Mirror Effective Practices, but Near-Term Challenges Could Delay 

Implementation, GAO-12-48 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 3, 2011).

Written Guidance and 

Agreements 
Page 26 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

recommended that the Chairman of the Council on Environmental 

Quality, working with the Secretaries of Agriculture and the Interior, direct 

an interagency task force to identify goals, actions, responsible work 

groups and agencies, and time frames for carrying out the actions needed 

to implement the Cooperative Conservation Initiative, including 

collaborative resource management, and document these through a 

written plan, memorandum of understanding, or other appropriate 

means.65

We have also reported that written agreements are most effective when 

they are regularly updated and monitored. For example, we reported in 

2008, that the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Rural 

Development offices of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Rural 

Development) entered into an MOU in 2000 that provided an approach to 

collaborate on rural lending activities.

This recommendation was implemented in January of 2009 

when the Council on Environmental Quality, and other departments 

involved in cooperative conservation, signed an MOU to create a 

framework for collaborative resource management.

66 The MOU expired in 2003 and 

SBA and Rural Development did not appear to have implemented the 

MOU when it was active. We found that the ineffective implementation of 

the MOU had likely contributed to the sporadic and limited amount of 

collaboration that was taking place between the two agencies.

 

65GAO-08-262. 

66GAO, Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and USDA Could Be 

Improved, GAO-08-1123 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2008).
Page 27 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and other interested parties. In addition, this report is 

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

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

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

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

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

report are listed in enclosure IV.

Sincerely yours,

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues
Scope and Methodology

Page 28 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

To identify mechanisms that the federal government uses to lead and 

implement interagency collaboration as well as issues to consider when 

implementing these mechanisms we conducted a literature review of 

academic work, interviewed a number of experts in governmental 

collaboration, and analyzed a sample of our prior work. 

Specifically, we conducted a literature review of scholarly and peerreviewed articles, as well as magazine and journal articles. The review 

relied on Internet search databases to identify literature published or 

issued between January 2006, and August 2011. The search of the 

published research databases produced 75 articles. We reviewed these 

articles to further determine the extent to which they were relevant to our 

engagement, that is, whether they discussed approaches used by the 

federal government to lead and implement interagency collaboration or 

provided definitions of collaborative governance or interagency 

collaboration. We found that 24 (32 percent) of these documents were 

relevant to our objectives. Specifically, 11 articles discussed mechanisms 

used by the federal government to lead and implement interagency 

collaboration, 5 articles provided definitions of collaborative governance 

or interagency collaboration, and 8 articles discussed the benefits and 

challenges of a specific interagency collaborative approach. The 

remainder of the documents did not meet our criteria because they 

discussed public-private partnerships, collaboration between state and 

local government agencies, or collaboration between foreign government 

agencies.

To identify experts and practitioners in the field of collaboration, we 

reviewed the bibliographies of 11 articles from our sample of 24 articles 

we determined were relevant to our objectives. In addition, we identified a 

number of experts and practitioners who had recently published work on 

governmental collaboration, or who had implemented collaborative 

mechanisms in the federal government. We then judgmentally selected a 

total of 13 experts and practitioners for interviews. Specifically, we 

selected 8 academic experts in the area of collaboration based on 

citations in the research literature, and the recommendations of other 

experts. We selected 5 practitioners based on the range and depth of 

their experience in implementing federal collaboration undertakings, and 

the recommendations of other experts. Our list of experts covered a 

range of academic institutions, think tanks, and professional organizations 

such as the National Academy of Public Administration. Below we list the 

experts and practitioners we interviewed:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Scope and Methodology

Page 29 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Robert Agranoff – Professor Emeritus, Indiana University

Eugene Bardach – Professor Emeritus, University of California, Berkeley

G. Edward DeSeve – Former Special Advisor to the President for 

Recovery Implementation

Heather Getha-Taylor – Assistant Professor, University of Kansas

Dwight Ink – President Emeritus, Institute of Public Administration and 

Fellow of the National Academy of Public Administration

Frederick Kaiser – Congressional Research Service (retired)

John Koskinen – Former Deputy Director for Management of the Office 

of Management and Budget and Chair of the President’s Council on Year 

2000 Conversion

Janine O’Flynn – Associate Professor, Australian National University

Rosemary O’Leary – Professor, Syracuse University

Stephen Page – Associate Professor, University of Washington

Barbara Romzek – Professor, University of Kansas

Ronald Sanders – Former Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of the 

Director of National Intelligence

Thomas Stanton – Member of the Board of Directors, National Academy 

of Public Administration, and Fellow of the Center for the Study of 

American Government at Johns Hopkins University

We conducted in-depth interviews with each expert using a standard set 

of questions. We asked them to comment on a draft list of mechanisms 

and discussed key issues to consider in implementing collaborative 

mechanisms. We supplemented the information we received during the 

interview with information that had been published by the experts. We 

also met with staff from the Congressional Research Service, who have 

studied presidential advisors.

Additionally, we conducted an analysis of our prior reports that addressed 

collaborative mechanisms and key implementation issues. To do this we 

Experts and Practitioners 

Interviewed
Scope and Methodology

Page 30 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

first selected a judgmental sample of reports that were published between 

January 2005 and August 2011 that contained detailed information 

regarding collaborative mechanisms. During this search, we identified 

over 200 reports. In order to reduce the size of the sample, we selected 

reports that met two or more of the following criteria:

• discussed collaboration between more than one federal department,

• included a mechanism for collaboration, and

• provided an in-depth discussion of the collaborative mechanism.

To make our final selection, we identified reports that we generally agreed 

met the criteria and reached agreement over selection of reports when 

there was disagreement. To refine the sample and ensure that we 

covered collaboration across the federal government, we divided the 

reports by topic area, and selected reports to ensure that each area was 

covered. The reports fell into the topic areas listed in table 1:

Table 1: Topic Areas Covered in Report Sample

International Affairs Homeland Security

National Defense Government Operations

Science, Space, and Technology Justice and Law Enforcement

Health Veterans Affairs

Natural Resources Information Management

Agriculture and Food Financial Management

Environmental Protection Transportation

Energy Economic Development

Housing Business, Industry, and Consumers

Income Security Education

Social Services 

Source: GAO.

We assessed the depth of each report’s discussion on collaborative 

mechanisms, and constructed a sample to ensure representation of the 

range of categories above and mechanism types. In total, we selected 36 

reports that met our criteria.

To identify our final list of collaborative mechanisms, we reviewed the 36 

reports in our sample to identify all of the mechanisms, and variations of

the mechanisms, that were included. We then organized and grouped the 
Scope and Methodology

Page 31 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

mechanisms according to the main types that we found in our review. For 

example, we identified three distinct mechanisms that involved positions 

and personnel details, including interagency collaborator positions, 

liaisons, and personnel details between agencies. Our goal was to 

identify and understand the major mechanisms that have been reported in 

academic literature and our prior work that have examined interagency 

collaboration. As a result, we did not attempt to identify all possible 

collaborative mechanisms. After developing a draft list of mechanisms, 

we shared it with our collaboration experts and practitioners to gather 

their feedback and identify any additional mechanisms, as discussed 

above. Five experts agreed that our list of mechanisms was complete, 

and we made a number of technical changes to the list based on the 

feedback we received.

This engagement had two phases, which required some updating of the 

sample to include more recent reports. As a result, we used the GAO 

database to find an additional 100 reports, which were published between 

August 2011 and June 2012. This brought the total number of reports in 

our sample to 300. Through this process, we selected an additional 9 

reports of the 100, which brought the total number of reports we reviewed

to 45. We did not add any mechanisms or key features to the list as a 

result of this judgmental sample. We relied on this sample to supplement 

the analysis of key issues to consider in implementing the interagency 

collaborative mechanisms.

To identify the purposes for which collaborative mechanisms can be 

used, we reviewed our sample of academic literature, discussed the 

purposes of interagency collaboration in our interviews with experts, and 

analyzed our judgmental sample of prior work. We found that academic 

experts and practitioners have used a variety of methods to categorize 

the purposes of collaborative mechanisms. The purposes we identified in 

our analysis are supported by a number of experts and our prior work.

To identify the categories of the issues for consideration, we identified 

issues that had been raised in expert interviews and the reports that we 

reviewed. We selected and organized the issues into the key features that 

we present in this report based on factors such as the number of times 

issues were raised, the importance experts attached to issues, and the 

evidence of their importance that we found in prior GAO work.

Additionally, where possible, we looked for areas where there was 

overlap between the issues that we identified and the practices that we 

identified in GAO-06-15. While we have generally found that when 

agencies address as many of these issues as possible it leads to more 
Scope and Methodology

Page 32 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

effective implementation of the collaborative mechanisms, we also 

recognize that there is a wide range of situations and circumstances in 

which agencies work together. Consequently, in some cases, addressing 

a few selected issues may be sufficient for effective collaboration.

We conducted our work from July 2011 to September 2012 in accordance 

with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant 

to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the 

engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our 

stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe 

that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, 

provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in this report.
Scope and Methodology

Page 33 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Appendix II: Key Collaboration Practices 
Key Issues to Consider for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Page 34 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

• Have short-term and long-term outcomes been clearly defined?

• Is there a way to track and monitor progress toward the short-term 

and long-term outcomes?

• Do participating agencies have collaboration-related competencies or 

performance standards against which individual performance can be 

evaluated?

• Do participating agencies have the means to recognize and reward 

accomplishments related to collaboration?

• What are the missions and organizational cultures of the participating 

agencies?

• What are the commonalities between the participating agencies’ 

missions and cultures and what are some potential challenges?

• Have participating agencies developed ways for operating across 

agency boundaries?

• Have participating agencies agreed on common terminology and 

definitions? 

• Has a lead agency or individual been identified?

• If leadership will be shared between one or more agencies, have roles 

and responsibilities been clearly identified and agreed upon?

• How will leadership be sustained over the long-term?

• Have participating agencies clarified the roles and responsibilities of 

the participants?

• Have participating agencies articulated and agreed to a process for 

making and enforcing decisions? 

• Have all relevant participants been included?

• Do the participants have:

• Full knowledge of the relevant resources in their agency?

Appendix III: Key Issues to Consider for 

Implementing Interagency Collaborative 

Mechanisms

Outcomes and 

Accountability 

Bridging Organizational 

Cultures 

Leadership

Clarity of Roles and 

Responsibilities 

Participants
Key Issues to Consider for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Page 35 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

• The ability to commit these resources?

• The ability to regularly attend activities of the collaborative 

mechanism?

• The appropriate knowledge, skills, and abilities to contribute?

• How will the collaborative mechanism be funded? If interagency 

funding is needed, is it permitted?

• If interagency funding is needed and permitted, is there a means to 

track funds in a standardized manner?

• How will the collaborative mechanism be staffed?

• Are there incentives available to encourage staff or agencies to 

participate?

• If relevant, do agencies have compatible technological systems?

• Have participating agencies developed online tools or other resources 

that facilitate joint interactions?

• If appropriate, have the participating agencies documented their 

agreement regarding how they will be collaborating? A written 

document can incorporate agreements reached in any or all of the 

following areas:

• Leadership; 

• Accountability; 

• Roles and responsibilities; and

• Resources. 

• Have participating agencies developed ways to continually update or 

monitor written agreements?

Resources

Written Guidance and 

Agreements
Key Issues to Consider for Implementing 

Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

Page 36 GAO-12-1022 Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant Director, 

and Mallory Barg Bulman, Analyst-in-Charge, supervised the 

development of this report. Peter Beck, Martin De Alteriis, Don Kiggins, 

and Jasmin Paikattu made significant contributions to all aspects of this 

report. Karin Fangman provided legal counsel.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(450970)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.