Interagency Collaboration: State and Army Personnel Rotation Programs Can Build on Positive Results with Additional Preparation and Evaluation
Published: 2012-03-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: 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.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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.
To better understand how to effectively design and implement  interagency rotation programs and overcome these challenges, you  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  Department of State (State) and one is at the U.S. Army Command and  General Staff College (CGSC) within the Department of Defense (DOD).
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, response from participants and host agency supervisors to report their  views. 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.   and at the host agency. We received a sufficient  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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: State Foreign Policy Advisor Program
paragraphs: 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.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.
section_title: State Interagency Rotations at Other Government Agencies and Federal Learning Institutes
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Army Command and General Staff College Intermediate Level Education Interagency Fellowship Program
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Effective Interagency Rotation Programs Achieve Collaboration-Related Results for Individuals and Organizations
paragraphs: 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.  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.
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).
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  processes, and funding sources—between and among multiple agencies  can also hinder collaboration. 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.
section_title: Effective Interagency Rotation Programs Support Shared Goals and Incorporate Incentives, Preparation, and Feedback
paragraphs: 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.
subsections: section_title: Design the Program to Achieve Overarching or Shared Strategic Goals
paragraphs: 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.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.
section_title: Provide Individuals with Incentives to Participate
paragraphs: 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.
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  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.
section_title: Provide Management—at Host and Home Agencies—with Incentives to Participate
paragraphs: 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  challenging.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 high- performers, 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.
To minimize coordination issues that can make a
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.
Agencies provide host-agency management with high- performing 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.
section_title: Optimize the Match between the Participant and the Assignment
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Prepare Participants and Their Host Supervisors for the Rotation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Plan for Participant’s Next Assignment to Maximize Benefits to Participant and Home Agency
paragraphs: 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  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 home- agency management will forget them while on rotation.
section_title: Create a Program Feedback and Evaluation Process That Includes Participants and All Participating Organizations
paragraphs: 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. 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,  agencies should gather feedback from individual stakeholders as well as  consider organizational results. See figure 2 for some examples of  rotational program elements that can be evaluated.
section_title: State and DOD Rotation Programs Viewed As Effective in Achieving Results; and Incorporated or Partially Incorporated Most Desirable Policies and Practices
paragraphs: 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).
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.
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).
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.”
subsections: section_title: State Provided Incentives for Participation in the POLAD Program through Human Resources Management Policies and Public Acknowledgment
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: State Provided Incentives for POLAD Supervisors to Participate through Its Program Application and Selection Process
paragraphs: We found that State provides incentives to DOD to host POLADs by  seeking to provide high-performing participants. 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.
section_title: POLAD Program Accounted for DOD Needs and Took Steps to Consider Candidates’ Developmental Needs in Matching Candidates to Assignments
paragraphs: 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.
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).
section_title: POLAD Program Provided Orientation for Participants and Has Begun to Offer Preparatory Materials to Host Supervisors
paragraphs: 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). 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.
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.
Agency officials explained that the majority of host supervisors are high- ranking 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 host- agency roles and responsibilities, and other topics that we identified as  useful preparatory information.
section_title: POLAD Program Has Taken Steps to Collect Feedback But Did Not Routinely Evaluate Its Program Effectiveness
paragraphs: 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).
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.
section_title: State’s Other Interagency Rotations Were Not Specifically Designed to Achieve Interagency or Department-Level Strategic Goals
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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.
section_title: State Provided Few Incentives for Civil Service Personnel to Participate In Other Interagency Rotations
paragraphs: 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… 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.
section_title: State Has Not Provided Incentives for Its Supervisors to Support Civil Service Rotations but Has Provided Some Incentives for Host Agencies
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: State Accounted for Host Agency Needs and Participant Development Goals in Making Interagency Rotation Assignments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: State Has Not Established Practices to Prepare Participants or Host- Agency Supervisors of Other Interagency Rotations
paragraphs: 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.
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 long- established 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.
section_title: State Relied on Civil Service Participants to Plan for Effective Use of Knowledge, Skills, and Networks Gained on Interagency Rotations
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: State Did Not Routinely Collect Feedback to Evaluate the Effectiveness of Other Interagency Rotations
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: CGSC Interagency Fellowship Program Was Designed to Achieve Army’s Collaboration- Related Leadership Development Goals
paragraphs: 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. 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.
section_title: CGSC Provided Prospective Interagency Fellows with Incentives to Participate
paragraphs: 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  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.
section_title: CGSC Sought to Encourage Host Agencies to Participate by Providing High-Performing Participants and Clarifying Agencies’ Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: 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. 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  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.
section_title: CGSC Program Employed Mechanisms to Help Match Needs of Participants and Host Agencies
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: The Army CGSC Interagency Fellowship Program Prepared Participants for Some Aspects of the Program but Did Not Prepare Host Supervisors
paragraphs: 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 host- agency 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 recently- established 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  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 open- ended 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.
section_title: The CGSC Interagency Fellowship Program Plans for Participant’s Next Assignment
paragraphs: 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. While some Army programs require specific follow- on 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.
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  discussed their transition to a new assignment or their return to their  home agency while they were still on rotation.
section_title: The CGSC Interagency Fellowship Program Did Not Routinely Collect Feedback to Evaluate Program Effectiveness
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: 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  practices are in place to help achieve these programs’ wide-reaching  mission, developmental, and collaboration-related goals.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: 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.
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.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: 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, were viewed as effective and  incorporated those policies and practices.
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.
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.
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.
subsections: section_title: Literature review
paragraphs: We conducted an extensive literature review to identify collaboration- related 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  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 Act 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.
section_title: External Experts: Content Analysis of Interview Summaries
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Agency Practitioners: Interviews and Follow-Up Questionnaire
paragraphs: 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. 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 interviewedMicrosoft Word document that respondents could return electronically  , in the form of a  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.
section_title: Criteria Development
paragraphs: 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. 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.
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. 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  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.
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  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 mid- September 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.
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  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.
section_title: Appendix II: Results from GAO’s Questionnaire on Desirable Outcomes and Effective Policies and Practices Associated with Interagency Rotation Programs
paragraphs: 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.with the results for each question.
The questionnaire we administered is reproduced below  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.
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 open- ended question at the end of each part of the questionnaire. Please use  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.
Home agency: the agency at which the participant  is normally employed, sometimes referred to as the  sending agency.
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.
Host agency: the agency at which the participant is  temporarily assigned, sometimes referred to as the  gaining agency.
subsections: section_title: Part I: Policies and Practices Identified by Agency Officials as Promoting the Effectiveness of Interagency Rotation Programs in Facilitating Interagency Collaboration
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Part II: Policies and Practices Identified by Agency Officials as Challenging the Effectiveness of Interagency Rotation Programs in Facilitating Interagency Collaboration
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Department of State
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: 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.
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.