Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups
Published: 2014-02-14T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to achieve require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal agency, level of government, or sector. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) takes a more crosscutting and integrated approach to improving government performance. GPRAMA requires that GAO periodically review implementation of the law. As a part of a series of reports responding to this requirement, GAO assessed how interagency groups addressed the central collaboration challenges identified in its prior work of 1) defining outcomes; 2) measuring performance and ensuring accountability; 3) establishing leadership approaches; and 4) using resources, such as funding, staff, and technology.
GAO selected four interagency groups that met its key practices for enhancing and sustaining collaboration to learn about the approaches they used and found to be successful. These groups addressed issues of homelessness, reentry of former inmates into society, rental housing policy, and the education of military dependent students. To identify successful approaches, GAO reviewed agency documents, and interviewed agency officials that participated in these groups. Additionally, GAO convened recipients of the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award, who had experience with interagency collaboration. GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. GAO shared a draft of this report with key agencies that participated in the interagency groups GAO reviewed. The agencies either had no comments or provided technical comments, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The interagency groups GAO selected and expert practitioners—including those who received the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award—have used a range of approaches to address some of the key considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms, related to defining outcomes; measuring performance and ensuring accountability; establishing leadership approaches; and using resources, such as funding, staff, and technology.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to  achieve, such as those related to protecting food and agriculture and  providing homeland security, require the coordinated efforts of more than  one federal agency, level of government, or sector. However, agencies  face a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to work  collaboratively. The need for improved collaboration has been highlighted  throughout our work over many years, in particular in two bodies of work.  First, our reports over the past three years identified more than 80 areas  where opportunities exist for executive branch agencies or Congress to  reduce fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. We found that resolving  many of these issues requires better collaboration among agencies.  Second, collaboration and improved working relationships across  agencies are fundamental to many of the issues that we have designated  as high risk due to their vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and  mismanagement, or because they are most in need of transformation.
The current federal budget situation poses additional challenges for  agencies. Federal agencies will need to work even more closely with  other agencies to leverage more limited resources to achieve their  missions in the current fiscally constrained environment. The Budget  Control Act of 2011, signed on August 2, 2011, established a 10-year cap  on discretionary spending as part of a process to achieve more than $2  trillion in deficit reduction. Spending for the major health and retirement programs is projected to increase as a share of the gross domestic  product in coming decades, putting greater pressure on the rest of the  federal budget. All of these conditions will require greater scrutiny of  federal efforts.
For almost two decades we have reported on agencies’ missed  opportunities for improved collaboration through the effective  implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993  (GPRA). In our 1997 assessment of the status of the implementation of  GPRA, we reported that agencies faced challenges addressing  crosscutting issues, which led to fragmentation and overlap. Again, we  reported in 2004—more than 10 years after the enactment of GPRA—that  there was an inadequate focus on addressing issues that cut across  federal agencies. Now, more than 20 years since GPRA’s passage, our  work continues to demonstrate that the needed collaboration is not  sufficiently widespread. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010  (GPRAMA) establishes a new framework aimed at taking a more  crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results and  improving government performance. Like the original GPRA, effective  implementation of GPRAMA could play an important role in clarifying  desired outcomes, in addressing program performance that spans  multiple organizations, and in facilitating future actions to reduce  unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.
This report is part of a series of reports under our mandate in GPRAMA to  periodically examine how agencies are implementing the law. The  objectives of this report are to examine how select interagency groups  (such as task forces, working groups, councils, and committees): 1)  defined their outcomes; 2) measured performance and ensured  accountability; 3) established leadership approaches; and 4) used  resources, such as funding, staff and technology. We focused on these  key issues because we determined, based on a sample of prior work on  interagency collaboration from 2005 to 2013, that they are the most  common challenges that interagency groups face when collaborating.  Accordingly, we wanted to identify specific implementation approaches  that interagency groups have used to address these issues. We focused  on interagency groups, which was the most commonly used mechanism  for federal interagency collaboration that we found in our prior reports.
In 2012, we reported on the multiple interagency mechanisms that the   These mechanisms included federal government uses to collaborate. interagency groups (such as task forces, working groups, councils and  committees); co-location (such as housing one or more federal agencies  that collaborate on various programs in one location); and collaboration  technologies (such as shared databases and web portals), among others.  We found in this work that although collaborative mechanisms differed in  complexity and scope, they all benefitted from certain key practices, many  of which we had identified in 2005. Accordingly, in our 2012 report, we  built on our past work and developed key issues for Congress and others  to consider when implementing these mechanisms. Some of these key  features and issues to consider are:
Outcomes and Accountability: Have short-term and long-term  outcomes been clearly defined? Is there a way to track and monitor  their progress?
Bridging Organizational Cultures: What are the missions and  organizational cultures of the participating agencies? Have agencies  agreed on common terminology and definitions?
Leadership: How will leadership be sustained over the long term? If  leadership is shared, have roles and responsibilities been clearly  identified and agreed upon?
Clarity of Roles and Responsibilities: Have participating agencies  clarified roles and responsibilities?
Participants: Have all relevant participants been included? Do they  have the ability to commit resources for their agency?
Resources: How will the collaborative mechanism be funded and  staffed? Have online collaboration tools been developed?
Written Guidance and Agreements: If appropriate, have  participating agencies documented their agreement regarding how  they will be collaborating? Have they developed ways to continually  update and monitor these agreements?
Given agencies’ longstanding challenges working across organizational  lines, in 2005, we identified the following practices that can help enhance  and sustain collaboration among federal agencies. (See figure 1).  Appendixes I and II provide the highlights pages for these reports and  Appendix III contains a list of the collaborative mechanisms we identified.
To identify these implementation approaches, we focused on four  interagency groups, which we had documented in our prior work as  successfully addressing one or more of the key considerations for  implementing collaborative mechanisms. Based on a review of our prior  work, we identified potential interagency groups that exhibited some of  the practices to enhance and sustain collaboration. We then narrowed  the list of interagency groups to four groups that represented a balanced  and diverse set of characteristics, including the number of participating  agencies, duration, creation vehicle (for example, through laws, etc.), and  groups with both voluntary and mandated participation. Our final selection  of interagency groups includes the following:
Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Education  (Education) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group;
Federal Interagency Reentry Council (Reentry Council);
Rental Policy Working Group; and the
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH).
More details on each of these groups can be found in the background  section of this report. For each of these interagency groups, we reviewed  documentation and interviewed officials from select agencies that  participate in each of these groups, and the Office of Management and  Budget. We also observed a Reentry Council event and a USICH meeting  in order to identify potential implementation approaches. In addition, to  identify collaborative leadership competencies, we reviewed relevant  academic literature and relevant reports.
In addition to the illustrative examples described above, we hosted two  expert practitioner panels, in coordination with the Senior Executives  Association, to identify and discuss useful approaches for implementing interagency groups. We selected panelists who were recipients of the  Presidential Distinguished Rank Award in 2011 or 2012, and had  experience leading or participating in interagency groups.these panelists to share their perspectives on interagency groups; we did  not ask them to speak on behalf of the federal agencies or organizations  that these participants represent or represented. A list of the expert  practitioners we interviewed is in Appendix IV, which also provides more  detailed information about our objectives, scope and methodology.
Based on our interviews with interagency group participants and expert  practitioners, we identified approaches that more than one group used to  address each of the selected key issues of outcomes, accountability,  leadership, and resources. We note that our findings rest on the  examples we reviewed and the practitioners we interviewed and thus may  not be applicable to all interagency groups. For example, in this report,  we focus on interagency groups that are not established to respond to an  emergency event, which academic and public policy experts have noted  requires a different type of collaboration than during emergencies.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to February  2014 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.
subsections: section_title: Background
subsections: section_title: Interagency Groups
paragraphs: The four interagency groups we reviewed possessed varied  characteristics related to their purposes and outcomes, leadership  structures, agency participation, and funding sources and staffing, as  discussed in more detail below.
subsections: section_title: DOD and Education MOU Working Group
paragraphs: We reported in 2011 that there were approximately 1.1 million school-age  dependents of military parents in the United States. Because of their  family situations, military dependent students may face a range of unique  challenges, such as frequent moves throughout their school career and  the emotional difficulties of having deployed parents.
DOD and Education officials have a history of collaborating on education  issues for children of military families. They formalized and broadened  these efforts with an MOU, which they signed in June 2008. The purpose  of the MOU was to establish a framework for collaboration between DOD  and Education to address the quality of education and the unique  challenges faced by children of military families. The MOU defined, in  general terms, the basis on which these departments would work together  to strengthen and expand school-based efforts to ease student transitions  and help military dependent students develop academic and coping skills  during periods of parental deployments. In addition, the MOU required the  creation of a working group to ensure that the agencies meet the  objectives of the MOU.
The DOD and Education MOU Working Group (MOU Working Group), is  co-chaired by representatives from DOD’s Defense Education Activity’s  Educational Partnership Branch and Education’s Office of Innovation and  Improvement, Military Liaison Team. The working group is also composed  of representatives from several DOD and Education offices. The MOU  Working Group has no separate budget. Working group representatives  participate in working group activities as part of fulfilling their respective  responsibilities at their home agencies. According to DOD and Education  officials, they have made progress on a number of initiatives. For  example, the Chief of the Educational Partnerships and Non-DOD School  Program for DOD told us in May 2013 that 47 states had signed an  interstate compact that allowed flexibility during the transfer of military  dependent students across jurisdictions. It also allowed credits and  course work to more easily transfer to the students’ new schools.
section_title: Federal Interagency Reentry Council
paragraphs: In December 2012, we reported that about 700,000 inmates are released  from federal and state custody each year, and another 9 million are  booked into and released from local jails, according to the Bureau of  Justice Statistics. Moreover, we reported that these inmates face  considerable challenges as they transition into, or reenter, society after  incarceration. More than two-thirds of state prisoners are rearrested for a  new offense within three years of their release and about half are  reincarcerated. In January 2011, the U.S. Attorney General convened  the Reentry Council, a group of 20 federal entities whose mission is to  make communities safer, assist those who return from prison and jail in  becoming productive citizens, and save taxpayer dollars by lowering the  direct and collateral costs of incarceration. The premise of the Reentry  Council is that many federal agencies have a major stake in assisting  former inmates or inmates preparing for release from federal, state, and  local correctional facilities. The U.S. Attorney General chairs the Reentry  Council’s annual meeting. Also supporting the council is a staff-level  working group that meets monthly. The Reentry Council has no  separate budget, and its representatives participate in the group’s  activities as part of fulfilling their responsibilities at their respective  agencies.
As we found in December 2012, among other accomplishments, the  Reentry Council has been focused on reducing the barriers that exist for  the reentry population. For example, the Reentry Council has taken  several actions to address collateral consequences of criminal  convictions—these are the laws and policies that restrict former inmates  from things such as employment, welfare benefits, access to public  housing, and eligibility for student loans for higher education. Such  collateral penalties place substantial barriers to an individual’s social and  economic advancement and can challenge successful reentry.
section_title: Rental Policy Working Group
paragraphs: As we reported in June 2012, during the 2007-2009 recession, the  elevated unemployment rate and declining home prices worsened the  financial circumstances for many families, along with their ability to make  their mortgage payments. As we and the Department of Housing and  Urban Development (HUD) reported, this period coincided with a rapid  increase in the percentage of loans in foreclosure and increased demand  for rental housing. In 2010, the Domestic Policy Council (DPC)  established the Rental Policy Working Group, along with HUD, the U.S.  Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of the Treasury  (Treasury), to respond to the need for better coordination of federal rental  policy. We reported in August 2012 that HUD, Treasury, USDA, the  Department of Labor and the Federal Home Loan Banks administered 45  programs or activities that supported rental housing in fiscal year 2010.
DPC leads the Rental Policy Working Group meetings. This group is  supported by various subgroup meetings, which are lead by the  respective leads for those groups, USDA, HUD, or Treasury. The Rental  Policy Working Group has no separate budget, and group representatives  participate in the group’s activities as part of fulfilling their responsibilities  at their respective agencies.
As we discuss in more detail later, HUD official told us that, since January  2013, HUD has continued working with USDA and Treasury to implement  a set of alignment recommendations that would improve coordinated  government-wide oversight of subsidized rental housing properties, and  reduce the administrative burden on affordable housing owners and  managers. For one of those recommendations, the Rental Policy Working  Group launched a pilot program in six states to test the feasibility of  conducting a single, recurring physical inspection for jointly subsidized  rental housing properties that would satisfy all agencies’ inspection  requirements. According to the Rental Policy Working Group, this pilot  program has avoided 120 duplicative inspections across the six states  that participated in a second round of this pilot program in 2013.
section_title: U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness
paragraphs: positions rotate among its members at the first meeting of each year.  Additionally, an executive director, who is appointed by USICH member  agencies and reports directly to the USICH’s chairperson, manages  USICH’s daily activities. USICH is required by law to meet at least four  times per year, although it has met more frequently. Unlike the other  interagency groups we reviewed, USICH receives an appropriation from  Congress and employs full-time staff. According to HUD, the total  number of people identified as experiencing homelessness on a single  night has decreased by 9.2 percent between 2007 and 2013. A number of  sub-populations have also demonstrated reductions in homelessness.  Specifically, HUD reported that, from 2010 through 2013, the number of  people experiencing chronic homelessness was reduced by more than 15  percent, and the number of homeless veterans was reduced by about 24  percent during that same period.
section_title: Select GPRA Modernization Act Requirements
paragraphs: GPRAMA is a significant enhancement of GPRA, which was the  centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in place during  the 1990s to help resolve long-standing management problems in the  federal government, and provide greater accountability for results. GPRA  sought to focus federal agencies on performance by requiring agencies to  develop long-term and annual goals—contained in strategic and annual  performance plans—and measure and report on progress towards those  goals annually.
In our past reviews of its implementation, we found that GPRA provided a  solid foundation to achieve greater results in the federal government.  However, several key governance challenges remained, including  addressing crosscutting issues. To help address this and other  challenges, GPRAMA revises existing provisions and adds new  requirements. Some of the new provisions and requirements that  emphasize collaboration include:  Cross-agency priority goals: The Office of Management and Budget  (OMB) is required to coordinate with agencies to establish federal  government priority goals that include outcome-oriented goals covering a  limited number of policy areas, as well as goals for management  improvements needed across the government. The act also requires that  OMB—with agencies—develop annual federal government performance  plans to, among other things, define the level of performance to be  achieved toward the cross-agency priority goals. GPRAMA also requires  that OMB identify the agencies, organizations, program activities,  regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities contributing to  each crosscutting priority goal.
Agency priority goals: Certain agencies are required to develop a  limited number of agency priority goals every two years. Both the  agencies required to develop these goals and the number of goals to be  developed are determined by OMB. These goals are to reflect the highest  priorities of each selected agency, as identified by the head of the  agency, and be informed by the cross-agency priority goals, as well as  input from relevant congressional committees. GPRAMA requires  agencies to identify organizations, program activities, regulations,  policies, and other activities—both internal and external to the agency— that contribute to each of their agency priority goals and include this  information in their performance plans and provide it to OMB for  publication on Performance.gov. directs agencies to include tax expenditures in their identification of  organizations and programs that contribute to their agency priority  goals.
OMB is required to develop a single, government-wide performance website to  communicate government-wide and agency performance information. The website— implemented by OMB as Performance.gov—is required to make available information on  agency priority goals and cross-agency priority goals, updated on a quarterly basis;  agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and performance updates; and an  inventory of all federal programs. For more information, see GAO, Managing for Results:  Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued Development of Performance.gov, GAO- 13-517 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2013). must also designate a goal leader, who is responsible for achieving the  goal.
Federal program inventory: GPRAMA requires OMB to compile and  make publicly available a list of all federal programs, and to include the  purposes of each program, how it contributes to the agency’s mission and  goals, and recent funding information.
Data-driven performance reviews: GPRAMA requires data-driven  performance reviews at the federal level with a provision that federal  agencies conduct quarterly performance reviews on progress toward their  agency priority goals. Specifically, agencies are required to assess how  relevant programs and activities contribute to achieving agency priority  goals; categorize goals by their risk of not being achieved; and for those  at risk, identify strategies to improve performance. GPRAMA also  specified that the reviews must occur on at least a quarterly basis and  involve key leadership and other relevant parties both within and outside  the agency.
Strategic reviews: OMB’s 2013 guidance directs agencies to conduct  annual strategic reviews of progress toward strategic objectives to inform  their decision making, beginning in 2014. Agency leaders are  responsible for assessing progress on each strategic objective  established in the agency strategic plan, including mission, as well as  management or crosscutting objectives. Among other things, the reviews  are intended to strengthen collaboration on crosscutting issues by  identifying and addressing crosscutting challenges or fragmentation.
section_title: Approaches Used to Develop Outcomes from Select Interagency Groups
paragraphs: Key Considerations for Implementing  Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms  Outcomes
Have short-term and long-term  outcomes been clearly defined?
Started group with most directly  affected participants and gradually  broadened to others.
Conducted early outreach to  participants and stakeholders to  identify shared interests.
Held early in-person meetings to  build relationships and trust.  Identified early wins for the group to  accomplish.  represented the collective interests of  participants.
Developed a plan to communicate  outcomes and track progress.
Revisited outcomes and refreshed  interagency group.
Establishing shared outcomes and goals that resonate with, and are  agreed upon by all participants, is essential to achieving outcomes in  interagency groups, but can also be challenging. Participants each bring  different views, organizational cultures, missions, and ways of  operating. They may even disagree on the nature of the problem or  issue being addressed. We identified a number of challenges in our prior  work that interagency groups face when attempting to develop shared  goals, including building a coalition of key federal participants, agreeing  on the nature of a crosscutting issue, establishing mutually agreed-upon  outcomes or objectives, and incorporating outcomes into strategic plans  or implementation plans, among others. Furthermore, agency officials  involved in several of the interagency groups we reviewed cautioned that  if agencies don’t have a vested interest in the outcomes, and if outcomes  are not aligned with agency objectives, participant agencies would not  invest their limited time and resources. They told us that the process of  developing shared or group outcomes takes time, requires building  relationships, and creating trust. The following approaches were used by  agency officials to avoid or address these challenges.
subsections: section_title: Started Group with Most Directly Affected Participants and Gradually Broadened to Others
paragraphs: We found that three of the four interagency groups we reviewed were  started with a smaller group of key participants. Several expert  practitioners we spoke with emphasized the importance of ensuring initial  participation from agencies that have significant responsibility or interest  in a crosscutting issue area. Officials reported that these early  interactions helped to establish initial momentum and a vision for  subsequent collaborative efforts. Over time, this smaller group of  participants added agencies that had a more targeted commitment in the  group’s activities and outcomes. For example, prior to the formation of the  Reentry Council, a core group of agencies with considerable involvement  in reentry issues and programs met to discuss their common interests  and the possibility of further coordinating their efforts. According to one  official we spoke with, these agencies included the Departments of Labor,  Justice, Veterans Affairs, Education, Housing and Urban Development,  and Health and Human Services. Following a number of early  interactions, and meetings between officials from these agencies, interest  grew for a more formal and coordinated approach to advance effective  reentry policies. Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney General convened the  Reentry Council in January 2011. Over time, interest has more than  doubled to include 20 federal agencies.
section_title: Conducted Early Outreach to Participants and Stakeholders to Identify Shared Interests
paragraphs: Agency officials in all four interagency groups we reviewed and a number  of expert practitioners emphasized the importance of reaching out to  potential participants and identifying shared interests. While the  interagency groups we reviewed benefitted from starting with a smaller  group of participants, our past work found that if collaborative efforts do  not consider the input of all relevant stakeholders, important opportunities  for achieving outcomes may be missed. Officials reported that shared  interests are the driving force for collaborative efforts, and collecting early  input from participants was necessary to determine whether interagency  collaboration would be mutually beneficial. In some cases, agency  officials agreed on the nature of an issue. However in other cases,  officials held conflicting perspectives. To overcome conflicting  perspectives, participants of interagency groups conducted outreach to  stakeholders to build reasonable agreement.
In one instance, USICH conducted extensive outreach to participants and  stakeholders prior to developing shared interagency outcomes and a  national strategic plan in 2010. Specifically, USICH’s outreach activities  included feedback collected from workgroups composed of federal  officials, expert practitioner panels, input from more than 750 leaders at  regional stakeholder forums, focus groups, congressional staff, consumer  advisory boards, and written comments from thousands of community  experts and individuals. According to documents that outlined the  process for gathering stakeholder input and interviews with officials that  participate in USICH, this input helped to inform the plan’s priorities and  strategies. In addition, participants reported that it was essential to  develop a practical and evidence-based plan with on-the-ground solutions  that have widespread support. Furthermore, agency officials from HUD,  Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), HHS and Department of Labor  (Labor), each reported that they are committed to the national strategic  plan on homelessness and believe it reflects their own agency’s  objectives and interests.
section_title: Held Early, In-Person Meetings to Build Relationships and Trust
paragraphs: Three of the interagency groups we examined and both expert  practitioner panels stressed the importance of holding in-person meetings  during the early stages of an interagency group. They each noted that  personal interactions contributed to relationship-building, which formed  the foundation for all subsequent activities and helped to break down  silos. These meetings also enabled officials to learn about individual  perspectives and aided in the transfer of knowledge between participating  agencies. In addition, officials reported that in-person interactions helped  build trust and strengthen professional networks. In our past work, we  found that trust is an essential element to collaborative relationships.
We also previously found that positive working relationships between  participants from different agencies bridge organizational cultures. These  relationships build trust and foster communication, which facilitates  collaboration.
Other officials we spoke with emphasized the importance of building trust  on an individual basis with officials from participating agencies with  related policy and program responsibilities. The purpose and activities for  these in-person meetings varied and included planning, negotiating  agreements, and information sharing, among others. For example,  participants of the Rental Policy Working Group said that when they  began working together, they spent several months building relationships  and understanding each agency’s rental housing programs, policies, and  efforts.
One expert practitioner told us that in-person meetings were essential for  the Southeast Environmental Partnership for Planning and Sustainability  to negotiate an agreement on environmentally acceptable procedures for  controlled burns. Controlled burns, sometimes called prescribed burns,  refer to the process of setting fires under controlled conditions. Initially,  partnership participants had a very different view of controlled burns as  an environmental activity. Officials from the Environmental Protection  Agency focused on controlled burns as a contributor to air pollution,  whereas officials from other federal and state agencies that conduct  controlled burns, such as the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and  Defense, viewed it as an important activity to sustain and manage land.  Over time, officials from these agencies began to gain a better  understanding of each other’s perspectives by meeting face-to-face. This  interaction built trust and allowed them to reach common ground.  Ultimately, the officials who conducted controlled burns for preservation of  landscape ecologies adopted methods to minimize the environmental  effects of these burns. Meanwhile, officials responsible for regulating air  pollution gained a better appreciation for the value of fire in ecological  restoration and preservation.
section_title: Identified Early Wins for the Group to Accomplish
paragraphs: A number of agency officials and expert practitioners recommended that  newly formed interagency groups identify and pursue “early wins” as an  approach to build momentum and develop positive working relationships  between group participants. According to officials, “early wins” should be  practical and achievable projects that can be completed in the short-term.  We were told that early wins allowed officials to establish relationships  with their counterparts in other agencies and enabled teams to practice  working together. This approach is consistent with our prior work that  identified key practices from select efficiency initiatives, which highlighted  the importance of identifying easily accomplished initiatives that can  generate immediate returns to gain momentum for efficiency  improvements.
Early wins had a secondary benefit of demonstrating the benefits of  collaboration. Officials from the groups reported that achieving early wins,  allowed participants to build upon recent experiences, working  relationships, improved knowledge of related programs, and team  structures that had been established to coordinate group activities.
Participants of the Reentry Council’s staff-level working group initially  employed an approach to identify “low hanging fruit” and intentionally  sought early successes to build support and momentum. According to  these officials, these early wins kept participants engaged and involved.  For example, after forming the Reentry Council, participants agreed to  participate in a “myth busting” campaign to address common  misconceptions and dispel myths associated with the reentry population.  According to Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, the “myth busting”  campaign was implemented within existing authorities and received  widespread support among participant agencies. As part of the campaign,  the Council and its subcommittees developed short one or two-page  whitepapers that clarified government policies, rules, and regulations  related to formerly incarcerated individuals, and distributed them to  stakeholders at the federal, state, and local levels. In one instance, the  myth buster noted that there is a misconception that housing assistance  from public housing authorities (PHA) is not generally allowable for  formerly incarcerated individuals who qualify under federal guidelines  (see figure 2). According to DOJ officials, a number of local housing  authorities—such as New York City and New Orleans, Louisiana—have  since reconsidered admissions policies for formerly incarcerated  individuals.
In another example of a quick win, Reentry Council member agencies  developed new policies that enhanced their ability to meet the needs of  the reentry population. Specifically, DOJ officials told us that VA had  previously not been permitted to conduct outreach to incarcerated  veterans until six months prior to their release. According to Reentry  Council documents, VA revised its administrative policy that limited prison  outreach. According to these documents, the revised policy allows for  assessment and release planning with incarcerated veterans earlier than  six months before release, thus enhancing the odds of successful reentry  to society.
section_title: Developed Goals That Represented the Collective Interests of Participants
paragraphs: Agency officials in two of the groups we reviewed described a process for  developing goals that represented the collective interests of participants,  and articulating goals a high enough level that participants could reach  agreement, but with enough specificity that participants felt they had a  stake in the group’s goals. For example, an official from the Reentry  Council’s staff-level working group told us that they developed six goals  that were intentionally crafted at a high level to attract widespread support  from participating agencies. Although broad, the goals were also focused  on important issue areas and challenges that participating agencies  expressed interest in addressing. The group goals included: promoting statutory, policy, and practice changes to reduce crime and  identifying research- and evidence-based practices;  identifying opportunities and barriers to improve outcomes;  improve the well-being of formerly incarcerated people;  supporting initiatives in the areas of education, employment, health,  housing, faith-based reentry services, drug treatment, and family and  community well-being;   leveraging resources across agencies; and, coordinating messaging  and communication about prisoner reentry.
Agency officials we spoke with said that these goals had not changed  since being adopted in 2011, and are likely to remain relevant into the  future.
To represent the collective interests of its participants, USICH has a  policy to reach agreement among its members to ensure that all views  are heard. As noted above, USICH is composed of the heads (or their  designee) of 19 federal agencies. All 19 agencies have equal votes in any  decisions brought before the group. USICH worked through its Council  Policy Group to develop strategic interagency opportunities, built  consensus, and laid the groundwork for the decisions brought before the  leadership. We observed this process take place in June 2012 when  USICH was considering revisions to objectives in its strategic plan.
section_title: Developed a Plan to Communicate Outcomes and Track Progress
paragraphs: All of the interagency groups we examined had developed formal plans or  strategies that included outcomes, objectives, and descriptions of the  group. We have previously reported on the importance of reinforcing  agency accountability for collaborative efforts through agency plans and  reports. Our prior work found that agencies that articulate their  agreements in formal documents can strengthen their commitment to  working collaboratively.
The DOD and Education MOU Working Group developed a strategic plan  to track its progress toward objectives, actions, and measurable  outcomes that fulfilled the intention of their interagency agreement.  Specifically, the strategic plan was aligned to focus on areas identified in  the MOU, including expanding the quality of educational opportunities for  military-dependent students, overcoming challenges military-dependent  students face due to transitions or deployments, collaborative use of data,  and increasing awareness of relevant education-related issues. The  working group’s strategic plan describes the areas of mutual interest, and  outlines specific objectives within these areas of interest that promote  greater collaboration and improve the education of children of military  families. For example, one objective calls for increasing awareness of  education-related issues for military dependent children. The strategic  plan provides related action items, such as development of a joint  strategic communication plan, and subtasks with measurable outcomes,  target audiences, and individual agency leads to promote accountability.  DOD and Education officials told us that the strategic plan helped them  examine and prioritize their areas of collaboration to plan for future  efforts, and reflect on the extent to which they are meeting the original  intent of the MOU.
section_title: Revisited Outcomes and Refreshed Interagency Group
paragraphs: Several expert practitioners emphasized that interagency groups should  periodically revisit their outcomes, and ensure that their work is aligned  with current needs. In past work, we have discussed the importance of  sustainability of group leadership. However, several expert practitioners  noted that the group’s duration should be dictated by the nature of the  outcome. In fact, the expert practitioners added that, to stay productive,  many groups need to refresh their focus. If groups are not able to agree  to a clear outcome, one expert practitioner noted that the group may  decide to cease operating entirely. In some cases, interagency groups  achieve their outcomes and can cease to meet or change focus.
In other cases, expert practitioners told us that the focus of some groups  changed over time and needed to be refreshed or given a new focus for  the group to continue. In the instance of the MOU Working Group, in May  2010—which was two years after the working group was formed—the  President announced that an Interagency Policy Committee on Education  would develop a new study directive to strengthen military families. This  directive included outcomes to ensure excellence in military children’s  education and their development, which included:
Reducing negative impacts of frequent relocations and absences; and
Encouraging the healthy development of military children.
Improving the quality of the educational experience;  These outcomes were directly related to the work of the DOD and  Education MOU Working Group, which focused on improving educational  outcomes for children from military families, according to DOD and  Education officials. According to senior Education officials, the directive  led Education to place an even greater priority on its collaborative efforts  with DOD, and built upon the MOU Working Group’s strategic plan and  related initiatives. The study directive provided another framework under  which DOD and Education have worked together to improve the quality of  education for military dependent children. DOD officials told us that, over  the past two years, they have refocused on a number of new goals and  emerging issues of importance. In one instance, the department has  moved to focus on charter schools, with an emphasis on those in military  instillations, and with high concentrations of military dependent students.
section_title: Approaches for Ensuring Accountability from Select Interagency Groups
paragraphs: Key Considerations for Implementing  Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms  Accountability   Is there a way to track and monitor  progress?
Developed performance measures and
Do participating agencies have  tied them to shared outcomes.  Identified and shared relevant agency  performance data. collaboration-related competencies or  performance standards against which  individual performance can be  evaluated?
Developed methods to report on the  group’s progress that are open and  transparent.  Incorporated interagency group  activities into individual performance  expectations.
subsections: section_title: Developed Agency Performance Measures and Tied Them to Shared Outcomes
paragraphs: Agencies in all of the groups we reviewed developed performance  measures—or other approaches to track contributions—within their own  agencies that related to the outcomes of the interagency group. However,  officials explained that within interagency efforts, the commitment of  individual agencies varied. This difference in commitment is reflected in  the prominence of interagency group activities in the agency’s  performance measures. For example, some goals of the national strategic  plan on homelessness are reflected in the agency priority goals of HUD  and VA.
HUD and VA also have some shared performance measures. For  example, the agencies have a goal related to the percent of chronically  homeless veterans who are served by the HUD-Veterans Affairs  Supportive Housing program. This is a shared program between HUD  and VA that combines housing choice voucher rental assistance for  veterans experiencing homelessness provided by HUD with case  management and clinical services provided by VA. Through shared  performance management, coordinated technical assistance, and  communication to the field, the percentage of chronically homeless  veterans served by this program increased by 49 percent in fiscal year  2009 to more than 65 percent in fiscal year 2013, according to USICH.
In another instance, two agencies participating in the Reentry Council– DOJ and Labor–have developed internal agency outcomes and  performance measures to track progress toward their shared outcomes.  For example, DOJ has established an outcome to increase the number of  inmate participants in its Residential Drug Abuse Program by 6 percent  over four years from 18,500 to 19,920. In contrast, while HUD officials  participate in the Reentry Council, the Reentry Council’s outcomes are  not explicitly included in the agency’s strategic plans. Nevertheless, the  agency officials said to us that their participation in the Reentry Council  aligned with HUD’s Strategic Plan, Goal 3, which focuses on utilizing  housing as a platform for improving quality of life.
In our June 2013 report on the initial implementation of GPRAMA, we  found that performance information can be used across a range of  management functions to improve results, from setting program priorities  and allocating resources, to taking corrective action to solve program  problems. Moreover, we found that, if agencies do not use performance  measures and performance information to track progress toward  outcomes, they may be at risk of failing to achieve their outcomes. We  have found this practice also holds true for efforts between federal  agencies.
To develop performance measures, one interagency group helped  participants by creating a number of guides and toolkits to assist federal  officials and stakeholders in measuring the performance of their efforts.  Specifically, HUD developed and shared resources on performance  measurement related to homelessness with participants from USICH.  These resources both provided training on developing performance  measures, and identified available HUD data sources, which agencies  could use when creating performance measures.
section_title: Identified and Shared Relevant Agency Performance Data
paragraphs: USICH and HUD officials told us that within interagency groups, it was  necessary to agree on common data sources that will be used to track  performance. For example, USICH and its participants have agreed to  use HUD’s point-in-time count, which provides a snapshot of the number  of people experiencing homelessness on a given night in America.  According to the point-in-time counts, the total number of people identified  as experiencing homelessness on a single night declined by 9.2 percent,  or from about 672,000 in 2007 to about 610,000 in 2013. Reaching  agreement on a common data source for tracking homelessness was a  challenging process because it required agencies to agree to common  definitions of homelessness, and the methodology for collecting the data,  which had been a long-standing problem. Identifying and collecting  timely data is necessary to track and review performance over time. In  our prior work on the use of data-driven performance reviews, we found  that agencies should look for opportunities to leverage data produced by  other agency components or outside entities. We also found that  agreeing on common definitions is one way to bridge organizational  cultures.
USICH also leveraged additional useful data sources from participating  agencies. In one instance, the development and implementation of HUD’s  Homeless Management Information Systems provided counts of the total  number of people who use emergency shelters or transitional housing  programs during the course of a year. According to documents from  USICH, these data allow USICH and its stakeholders to track lengths of  stay in shelters, service use patterns, and flow in and out of the system.  Based on these data, USICH learned that the annual estimate of  individuals using shelter decreased by about 5 percent between 2007 and  2013 from 213,000 to 203,000 people, whereas, the number of persons in  families using shelters has increased by about 7 percent from about  178,000 to about 192,000 people during that period.
section_title: Developed Methods to Report on the Group’s Progress That Were Open and Transparent
paragraphs: Officials from all four groups we reviewed and expert practitioners  stressed the importance of developing processes to regularly report the  progress of the group. Performance reporting happened in a variety of  ways, including posting information on websites, public reporting in  meetings, and developing written reports for Congress. Each of the  groups we reviewed had different levels of transparency and their  approaches for reporting mirrored this transparency. For example, USICH  regularly posts progress reports on its website and provides an annual  report to Congress. In the case of the Reentry Council, agencies provided  written updates on their progress on specific initiatives, which were  circulated among the group participants. Highlights from these written  updates were also circulated through press releases. Furthermore, the  Reentry Council posted information to a website, which described issues  the group is addressing, summarized accomplishments to date, laid out  priorities moving forward, and pointed to key resources and links. Both  the MOU Working Group and the Rental Policy Working Group circulated  updates through measures such as written reports to the White House  and updates at group meetings. At various times, the Rental Policy  Working Group shared progress through the Office of Urban Affairs’ Blog,  which is posted on the website for the Executive Office of the President.  We have previously reported about the importance of publicly reporting  performance information as a tool for accountability.
section_title: Incorporated Interagency Group Activities into Individual Performance Expectations
paragraphs: Senior agency officials from three of the groups we examined told us that  the activities and outcomes of the interagency group they participated in  are reflected in their individual performance contracts. In some cases,  individuals told us that the interagency group was explicitly named in the  performance contract. In other cases, individuals told us that the work of  the interagency group was aligned with the policy areas named in their  performance contract. For example, staff from participating agencies  explicitly included performance expectations for collaboration with the  Reentry Council within their performance expectations and rating  standards. As such, a satisfactory performance rating for these  individuals is contingent upon collaboration with the group. The agency’s  performance management system also tracked individual contributions  toward the Reentry Council, as well as participation in group meetings  and activities. An explicit alignment of daily activities with broader results  helps individuals see the connection between their daily activities and  organizational goals and encourages individuals to focus on achieving  goals, as we found in a 2003 report.
section_title: Leadership Approaches from Select Interagency Groups
paragraphs: Key Considerations for Implementing  Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms  Leadership
Has a lead agency or individual been
Designated group leaders exhibited  identified?  If leadership will be shared between  one or more agencies, have roles and  responsibilities been clearly identified  and agreed upon? collaboration competencies.  Ensured participation from high-level  leaders in regular, in-person group  meetings and activities.
Rotated key tasks and responsibilities  when leadership of the group was  shared.  Established clear and inclusive  procedures for leading the group  during initial meetings.  for group activities among participants.
subsections: section_title: Designated Group Leaders Exhibited Collaboration Competencies
paragraphs: Expert practitioners and agency officials we interviewed told us that the  designated leaders of interagency groups that they had been involved  with exhibited the following five competencies: worked well with people,  communicated openly with a range of stakeholders, built and maintained  relationships, understood other points of view, and set a vision for the  group. These competencies are also discussed by scholars in the  literature we reviewed.
Worked well with people: A few expert practitioners told us that  effective interagency leaders possessed “soft skills,” “people skills,” or  “interpersonal skills.” One expert practitioner told us that effective  interagency group leaders did not have to be extroverted, but they  had to be able to work well with people. Another expert practitioner  told us that the leader needed to talk in person with stakeholders  rather than managing or interacting remotely. This competency is  consistent with how some scholars have discussed the importance of  collaborative leaders possessing interpersonal skills. For example,  one scholar noted that collaborative leaders must be attuned to the  needs and motivations of others to lead collaborative efforts.
Communicated openly with a range of stakeholders: A few expert  practitioners told us that effective interagency group leaders had open  communications with a range of stakeholders. One expert practitioner  told us that it was important that the interagency group he led had an  open and honest discussion with key stakeholders (in this case state  and local officials) before attempting to resolve an issue to recognize  those officials’ concerns. Another expert practitioner told us the leader  needed to be able to communicate openly with the group’s members  about how they would benefit from the collaboration, and why they  were important to the collaboration. Some scholars have also noted  that it is important for collaborative leaders to possess good  communication skills. According to one scholar, research has shown  that, if communications are open and free, then stakeholders would  feel more comfortable in establishing longer-term working  relationships and collaboration on other projects.
Built and maintained relationships: A few expert practitioners and  agency officials stressed that the interagency group leader’s ability to  build and maintain relationships was critical to interagency  collaboration. According to one expert practitioner, it was important to  form personal and trusting relationships so that the group had a basis  for open and candid communication when difficulties arose. Another  expert practitioner said that building relationships helped individuals  know who to contact at other organizations involved in the  collaboration. Some scholars have noted that it is important for  collaborative leaders to build effecting working relationships. One  study noted that it is the job of the leader to help increase trust by  building working relationships and creating incentives for those in the  collaboration.
Understood other viewpoints: A few expert practitioners told us that  effective interagency leaders had the ability to draw out, understand,  and value other viewpoints. According to one expert practitioner, the  best interagency leaders had the ability to understand others,  especially those with other viewpoints. The expert practitioner added  that this skill helps stakeholders build trust. This competency is  consistent with how some scholars have discussed the need for  collaborative leaders to elicit other points of view. According to one  study, scholarly research has shown that leaders use this approach to  repeatedly elicit ideas and build integrative solutions, to break down  cultural barriers, to de-escalate conflict, and to provide feedback to  the group that heightens its performance.
Set a vision for the group: An expert practitioner and agency  officials told us that it was important for interagency leaders to set the  strategic vision for the group. According to agency officials,  interagency group leaders needed to have both the subject matter  expertise to understand what the interagency group could accomplish,  while also working with the group’s participants to collaboratively  determine the vision. Some scholars have reported on the need for  collaborative leaders to build a common vision. For example, one  study noted that the successful collaborator is a skilled visionary who  has the ability to see the big picture, and who thinks strategically,  developing goals and the structures, inputs, and actions needed to  achieve them.
The five competencies above are broadly consistent with the Office of  Personnel Management’s (OPM) executive core qualifications (ECQs).  OPM identified five ECQs for federal Senior Executive Service officials  that assess executive experience and potential, and measure whether an  individual has the broad executive skills needed to succeed in a variety of  Senior Executive Service positions. OPM defines one of the ECQs as the  ability to build coalitions internally with other federal agencies, sectors,  and levels of government to achieve common outcomes. The  competencies that are included in the ECQ for building coalitions and  their definitions are included in table 1 below.
In a January 2012 memorandum, OPM included partnering, political  savvy, and influencing/negotiating in its list of the core or supplemental  competencies for two leadership positions required under the GPRA  Modernization Act of 2010. Those leadership positions are the Agency  Priority Goal Leaders and the agency Performance Improvement  Officers. Moreover, OPM’s memorandum includes other supplemental  competencies related to collaboration—such as interpersonal skills for,  among other things, developing and maintaining effective relationships  with others.
Rotational assignment programs are work assignments at a different agency from the  one in which the participant is normally employed, with an explicit professional  development purpose. communication and teamwork, and establish networks with their civilian  counterparts.
section_title: Ensured Participation from High-Level Leaders In Regular, In-Person Group Meetings and Activities
paragraphs: High-level leaders, such as Cabinet Secretaries (or agency heads),  provided attention and support to each interagency group we reviewed by  frequently attending meetings in-person, participating in a range of the  groups’ activities, or both. Moreover, membership of three of the four  interagency groups we reviewed included high-level officials from the  Executive Office of the President, signaling that there was Presidential  support for implementing the group’s initiatives. In our September 2012  report on interagency collaborative mechanisms, we found that the  influence of leadership can be strengthened by a direct relationship with  the President, Congress, other high-level officials, or all of these  officials.involving high-level leaders because those leaders helped recruit key  participants and made policy-related decisions requiring a high-level of  authority. In one instance, officials told us that individuals were more likely  to attend meetings because of the opportunity to interact with or brief  high-level officials. Cabinet Secretaries (or agency heads), frequently  attended in-person the meetings of two of the four interagency groups we  reviewed. For instance, Cabinet Secretaries frequently attended USICH  meetings in-person, and USICH’s leadership has rotated among the  Secretaries of HUD, HHS, VA, and Labor since its formation. An HHS  official said that, beginning in 2009, USICH leadership set a goal to have  at least three Cabinet Secretaries attend each meeting. Officials from  USICH told us in May 2013 that USICH had consistently met this goal.
Officials told us that their interagency groups benefitted from  A few expert practitioners and agency officials told us that high-level  leaders publicly reported progress of group initiatives to their peers at  group meetings. This practice is consistent with how we have discussed  the use of data-driven performance reviews as a leadership strategy to  drive performance improvement of federal agencies. In our February  2013 report on data-driven performance reviews, we found that  attendance of high-level leaders fosters ownership and helps ensure  participants take the reviews seriously and that decisions and  commitments can be made. During a recent Reentry Council meeting,  chaired by the Attorney General, a representative from each participant  agency reported on his or her agency’s commitment to the Reentry  Council’s efforts and progress made supporting innovative reentry  policies or programs. According to agency officials, agency leaders were  aware of their interagency commitments and responsibility for regularly  briefing their counterparts at other federal agencies. The agency officials  noted that this regular peer reporting created a strong incentive for  agency leaders to keep informed of the progress made throughout the  year, and to set expectations with group participants and other staff.  Furthermore, a few expert practitioners and agency officials told us that  this senior-level involvement created a cascading level of accountability  and commitment within individual agencies because agency staff reported  to their senior leadership on their progress towards interagency  outcomes.
High-level leaders participated in a range of activities for each  interagency group we reviewed, such as speaking publicly about the  group’s issues, visiting affected communities, and convening a White  House conference with group participants and stakeholders. In addition to  the public housing myth buster described earlier in this report, high-level  HUD leaders conducted outreach to advance the Reentry Council’s  agenda. Specifically, in 2011, the HUD Secretary and Deputy Secretary  for Public and Indian Housing sent a letter to executive directors of public  housing authorities (PHAs) to clarify misconceptions. Specifically, the  letter explained current federal regulations and informed local PHAs that,  in many circumstances, formerly incarcerated individuals should not be  denied access to federally supported public housing. According to  Reentry Council officials, the letter from HUD’s senior leaders provided  important leadership commitment to the field on an issue that is perceived  as a major barrier to reentry.
section_title: Rotated Key Tasks and Responsibilities When Leadership of the Group Was Shared
paragraphs: Leadership of two of the groups that we reviewed—the DOD and  Education MOU Working Group and USICH—is shared between two or  more agencies. We previously found that agencies can convey their  support for the collaborative effort by sharing leadership. However, in  our prior work, we concluded that some agencies had difficulty  implementing shared leadership of an interagency collaboration  mechanism because it was unclear how the shared leadership model  would work in practice.
USICH has employed an approach for implementing its shared leadership  model, which many of its participants told us has been beneficial. By law,  USICH must elect a chair and vice-chair from among its members and  rotate those positions among its members at the first meeting of each  year.  In practice, since the government-wide USICH’s strategic plan  was published in 2010, the current vice-chair has always been elected as  chair the following year. Moreover, USICH’s participants come from 19  departments and agencies, but at the time of this review, the chair and  vice-chair have always come from four agencies—HUD, HHS, VA, and  Labor—with significant homelessness programs. A HUD official who  participates in USICH told us this leadership model provides continuity of  federal agencies’ outcomes and strategies for reducing homelessness  over time, and provides a longer-term perspective on important issues  that will affect homelessness outcomes. VA officials told us that knowing  in advance which agency will become the next chair enables the chair  and co-chair to collaboratively establish short-term outcomes that have  the buy-in of USICH’s members. Officials told us that both the VA and  HUD Secretaries are approaching their current terms as equal co-chairs  rather than chair and vice-chair to ensure both agencies buy-in to the  Council’s outcomes and actions given the approaching deadline to  complete USICH’s outcome to prevent and end veterans’ homelessness  by 2015.
42 U.S.C. § 11312. official from the agency that hosted the meeting also served as the chair  of the meeting. A DOD official told us that they used this approach  because it provided a sense of ownership in the group’s activities.
section_title: Established Clear and Inclusive Procedures for Leading the Group During Initial Meetings
paragraphs: During initial meetings, participants of two of the four interagency groups  we reviewed established procedures for leading the group, such as the  frequency of meetings, protocols for communicating across agencies,  whether group meetings will have an agenda, and whether stakeholders  will take formal notes. We previously found that agencies bring diverse  cultures to collaborative efforts, and it is important to address these  differences to enable a cohesive working relationship and to create the  mutual trust required to sustain the collaborative effort. In our prior work,  we also found that it is important to establish ways to bridge  organizational cultures, such as developing common terminology,  compatible policies and procedures, and fostering open lines of  communication.
The MOU Working Group developed a communications protocol to  provide a clear understanding of (1) the preferred methods of  communicating, and (2) the chain-of-command protocol for  communicating within the different levels of organizations within those  agencies, including the military services. DOD officials told us it can be  difficult for employees at civilian agencies, such as Education, to  understand the terminology used by military officials as well as recognize  officials’ ranks in the different military services. Among other things, the  communications protocol defines a request for information and the  information that should be included in such a request, including what type  of information is needed, how and when it is needed, and the justification  for the deadline. The communications protocol specifies that it is meant to  guide the working relationships between DOD and Education, provide a  common understanding of the best ways to communicate and collaborate,  and that the communications protocol is not a rigid list of requirements  that is appropriate for every situation.
section_title: Distributed Leadership Responsibility for Group Activities Among Participants
paragraphs: In each interagency group we reviewed, leadership responsibility for  group activities was distributed among the different participant agencies.  Moreover, the individual(s) with responsibilities for these activities were  documented in the groups’ strategic plans, reports, or action plans.  Officials said they distributed responsibility of activities among the group’s  agencies and officials for various reasons, such as getting stakeholders to  buy-in to the group’s objectives, keeping stakeholders engaged, and  taking advantage of the individual expertise within the group.
For example, a DOJ official who co-chairs the Reentry Council’s staff- level working group said that it intentionally distributed leadership of the  subcommittees, in part, to disburse responsibility more broadly  throughout the federal government and to allow for interaction and  participation of a greater number of stakeholders. Reentry Council staff- level working group participants from VA, HUD, and HHS agreed that  distributing leadership of subcommittees was an effective approach. An  HHS official said this approach has allowed the subcommittees to be  staffed by a broader group of participants from within the agencies.  Moreover, VA officials told us that some agencies were a natural fit to  lead certain subcommittees. In one instance, VA officials said it made  sense for HHS to lead the subcommittee on health care because, among  other things, HHS officials have the technical expertise to fulfill many of  the subcommittees’ objectives.
In addition to distributing leadership responsibility across the participating  agencies, high-level agency officials and subject-matter experts from the  different member agencies participate in different sub-groups that support  USICH and the Reentry Council. Membership of USICH and the Reentry  Council is largely composed of cabinet-level officials who meet regularly  but infrequently to discuss a range of topics, such as the path of work to  be completed or progress made on group initiatives. In addition to those  meetings, the Reentry Council and USICH are supported by a sub-group  of high-level agency officials who, among other things, prepare  recommendations for consideration at Reentry Council and USICH  meetings. Moreover, both groups sometimes convene working groups  composed of subject-matter experts to work on specific program-level  initiatives and tasks.
section_title: Approaches for Managing Resources from Select Interagency Groups
paragraphs: Key Considerations for Implementing  Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms  Resources
How will the collaborative mechanism
Created an inventory of resources  be funded? If interagency funding is  needed, is it permitted?
How will the collaborative mechanism  be staffed?  developed online tools or other  resources that facilitate joint  interactions? dedicated towards interagency  outcomes.  Leveraged related agency resources  toward the group’s outcomes.  Pilot tested new collaborative ideas,  programs, or policies before investing  resources.
subsections: section_title: Created an Inventory of Resources Dedicated Towards Interagency Outcomes
paragraphs: Agency officials from all four of the interagency groups we reviewed, and  OMB staff told us that agencies generally do not receive specific funding  for interagency activities. interagency group had available, two of the interagency groups  developed a detailed inventory of programs and authorities that related to  the outcomes of the interagency group. According to officials, the  inventories that each of the groups developed were intended to help the  group better understand the full range of federal programs and resources  devoted to government-wide outcomes or initiatives. For example,  officials told us the Rental Policy Working Group developed an inventory  of government programs that were related to each of the group’s 10 rental  alignment proposals. The inventory was based on information from  federal, state, and local government officials as well as housing  developers and managers and included relevant regulations, statutes,  and policies. Additionally, the inventory was used to promote   To understand the resources that the  understanding of government-wide rental programs, and according to  officials, was useful in making decisions about the coordination of related  programs across agency lines and between levels of government.
An inventory of relevant resources can also be used to identify the range  of federal spending on an issue, which can result in more coordinated  spending. In fiscal year 2011, DOJ, Labor, and HHS separately  administered reentry grant programs. The Attorney General convened  the Reentry Council, in part, to coordinate agencies’ reentry efforts to  further prevent unnecessary duplication and share promising practices.  Participants of the Reentry Council told us they developed an inventory of  federal resources that are used to assess where resources are targeted  to enable federal and local stakeholders to leverage these investments.  To develop this inventory, participants of the Reentry Council created a  spreadsheet that listed relevant funding streams and resources from their  agencies that were dedicated to reentry programs. The inventory  identified the amount of funding, the intended purpose, and jurisdictions  associated with resources. The information from this inventory is available  in an online resource with an interactive map of reentry resources across  the United States.
Officials we spoke with said this type of inventory can also help  communicate some of the differences between agency organizational  cultures, capabilities of agencies to control spending, and array of  program tools being used to achieve mission objectives. For example, in  the instance of USICH, agency officials reported that their agencies often  had different policy and program tools, such as grants, at their disposal.  Accordingly, in the early days of the Council, participants from the  different agencies needed to understand the different purposes and  requirements of the policy and program tools that each agency could  bring to the table. In the case of HHS, homeless individuals may be  eligible for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  program. But, since TANF is administered by the states, HHS cannot  require states to use those grant funds for certain purposes. HHS officials  told us that HHS’s Administration for Children and Families sent out an  informational memorandum informing community-based organizations  that they can spend TANF grant funds on homeless individuals. Officials  from USICH told us that this memo sent a powerful message to the field  about the opportunity of TANF agencies to engage in state and local  efforts to end homelessness, and strategic steps they can take that are  within their authority. HHS officials also noted that, given the nature of the  program, they cannot require TANF funds to be dedicated to any specific  group, including those experiencing homelessness. According to HHS  officials, the nature of TANF funds can sometimes present a challenge to  working across agency cultures because partners may expect that HHS  can target funds more directly toward homeless individuals than they can.  In contrast, the VA directly provides services to homeless individuals  through medical centers. Therefore, it has more direct control over the  specific homelessness outcomes that USICH is trying achieve. Officials  from USICH told us their role is to facilitate a broad understanding of the  policy and program tools that each member agency brings to the table.
Our annual reports on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication have  highlighted the challenges associated with the lack of a comprehensive  list of federal programs and funding information. We have found that a  first step in identifying potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication  among federal programs or activities involves creating a comprehensive  list of programs along with related funding information. Currently, no  comprehensive list exists, nor is there a common definition for what  constitutes a federal “program.” In our prior work, we found that the lack  of a common definition for a program makes it difficult to develop a  comprehensive list of all federal programs. The lack of a list, in turn,  makes it difficult to determine the scope of the federal government’s  involvement in particular areas and, therefore, where action is needed to  avoid fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. We also found that federal  budget information is often unavailable or insufficiently reliable to identify  the level of funding provided to programs or activities. For example,  agencies could not isolate budgetary information for some programs  because the data were aggregated at higher levels. Without knowing the  full range of programs involved or the cost of implementing them, gauging  the magnitude of the federal commitment to a particular area of activity, or  the extent to which associated federal programs are duplicative is difficult.  To help address these challenges, GPRAMA requires the Director of  OMB to compile and make publicly available a comprehensive list of all  federal programs, and to include the purposes of each program, how it  contributes to the agency’s mission and goals, as well as recent funding  information. In May 2013, OMB published program inventories developed  by 24 agencies. We will report on these inventories later this year.
section_title: Leveraged Related Agency Resources Toward the Group’s Outcomes
paragraphs: Officials who participate in the Reentry Council told us that they identified  the range of resources dedicated to the crosscutting issue, and looked for  ways to leverage existing activities, tools, or programs that can benefit the  interagency group. By assessing their relative strengths and limitations,  collaborating agencies looked for opportunities to leverage each others’  resources, thus obtaining additional benefits that would be unavailable if  they were working separately.
In the case of the Reentry Council, it used two technological resources to  share information. For external information sharing, information about the  Council is available on an existing website of the National Reentry  Resource Center that is funded in part through DOJ’s Second Chance Act  grant program. website that was entirely dedicated to reentry issues. Therefore, it made  sense to put the Reentry Council’s information on that website.
The Second Chance Act of 2007 authorized grant funding for the establishment of a  reentry resource center to, among other things, provide education, training, and technical  assistance for States, tribes, territories, local governments, service providers, nonprofit  organizations, and corrections institutions and disseminate best practice information to  states and other relevant entities. See, Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 101(c)(2),122 Stat. 657,  666-667 (2008) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3797w(m). documents on MAX is given on a page-by-page basis, which allows  interagency groups to control access as needed. Some groups involved  with more sensitive policy development have decided to have a closed  group where only specific individuals have access.
Interagency groups we reviewed also leveraged the expertise of other  agency officials to improve their programs and spending. Several  agencies—including HHS, DOJ, and Labor—used the Reentry Council to  identify individuals from other agencies to provide input into the grants  programs that they administer. In one instance, as part of their work on  the Reentry Council, Labor officials developed “Face Forward” grants,  which were designed to give youth a chance at success by offering  support services, training, and skills development that can help them  obtain employment and overcome the stigma of a juvenile record. They  included officials from DOJ who helped Labor officials score the grant  applications and decide which grants would receive funding. Labor staff  members said that this relationship helped them to spend the funds in a  more strategic manner because they had additional information on the  topic. To solicit this participation from DOJ staff, Labor staff members  identified the specific time commitment and expertise that they needed  from the DOJ staff. They provided this list of commitments to a DOJ  official who co-chairs the Reentry Council’s staff-level working group. The  DOJ official was then able to recruit the appropriate officials from DOJ.
section_title: Pilot Tested New Collaborative Ideas, Programs, or Policies before Investing Resources
paragraphs: Given limited resources, interagency groups we reviewed pilot-tested  selected ideas, programs, or policies before investing more extensive  resources into implementation. Through pilot testing, groups were able to  allow time to identify unanticipated consequences, implementation  challenges, or to gather information on program effectiveness. In the case  of the Rental Policy Working Group, in November 2011, USDA, HUD, and  Treasury worked with their housing finance agency counterparts at the  state level in Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, Minnesota, Oregon, and  Ohio to eliminate duplicative physical inspections of rental housing  subsidized through more than one public funding source. A second  round of this initial pilot was conducted in 2013 with the same states  participating. The purpose of the second round was to address issues  that arose during the first pilot. Specifically, this pilot worked to ensure  that (1) all of the inspections could be completed in a timely manner, and  (2) all of the inspection reports were shared with all relevant parties in a  timely manner. The 2013 pilot achieved both of these goals, and HUD  reports that as a result, the Rental Policy Working Group avoided 120  duplicative inspections across six states. The Rental Policy Working  Group plans to expand this pilot in 2014 by adding an additional 25  states.
In another instance, USICH noted that it focuses on implementing  strategies it has found to be effective at reducing or ending  homelessness. It shared that innovative program models can begin as  pilots and use evidence of savings to make the case for sustainability and  expansion. Specifically, the Community Support Program for People  Experiencing Chronic Homelessness in Massachusetts provides non- clinical support services to adults who are experiencing chronic  homelessness so that they can be permanently housed in the community,  and prevent avoidable hospitalizations. Initially, this program began as a  pilot program with a cap on enrollment. This approach allowed the  partners to launch the program and establish new partnerships, service  models, and payment mechanisms. When the pilot program  demonstrated results, including savings associated with reductions in  hospitalizations, it was sustained and the enrollment cap was lifted.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the heads of  the nine key agencies that participated in the four interagency groups that  we reviewed for this study.  These included the Secretaries of the U.S.  Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human  Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Treasury, and  Veterans Affairs.  We also shared a draft of this report for review and  comment with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB), and the Executive Director of the U.S. Interagency Council on  Homelessness (USICH).
The Departments of Defense, Education, Labor and USICH had no  comments on the report. We received technical comments from the  Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and  Urban Development, Justice, Treasury, and Veteran Affairs, as well as  OMB, which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees 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: Highlights Page from GAO-06-15
section_title: Appendix II: Highlights Page from GAO-12- 1022
section_title: Appendix III: List of Collaborative Mechanisms from GAO-12-1022
section_title: Appendix IV: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: This report is part of a series of reports under our mandate in GPRAMA to  periodically examine how agencies are implementing the law. The  objectives of this report are to examine how select interagency groups  (such as task forces, working groups, councils, and committees): 1)  defined their missions and desired outcomes; 2) measured performance  and ensured accountability 3) established leadership approaches; and 4)  used resources, such as funding, staff and technology.
Following issuance of our 2012 report on interagency collaboration, we  continued our work to identify the most commonly implemented  mechanism for collaboration, from the list of mechanisms (listed in  appendix III). Accordingly, this report focuses on one of these  mechanisms—interagency groups—(also referred to as councils,  committees, task forces, and working groups), because they were the  most commonly cited interagency mechanism in our sample of GAO  reports on collaboration published from January 2005 through February  2013.
After narrowing our scope to focus on interagency groups, we conducted  an analysis to determine the most common challenges that interagency  groups face when collaborating. To identify the most common challenges,  we reviewed a sample of GAO reports on collaboration, which were  issued from January 2005 through February 2013. We also reviewed  relevant recommendations from our prior work directed at interagency  groups. We organized the challenges that these reports identified into the  key issues from our 2012 report and found that the most common  challenges that interagency groups experienced fell under the key  features of:
Outcomes
Accountability
Leadership
Resources  To identify implementation approaches that agencies have used to  address or avoid these challenges, we identified a limited number of  interagency groups from our prior work that have addressed or avoided  one or more of these challenges. To identify interagency groups that have  addressed one or more collaboration-related challenges, we examined  our sample of reports, including areas that we previously identified as  being at risk for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; high-risk;  crosscutting federal priority goals under GPRAMA; and prior  recommendations, to identify groups that addressed, or partially  addressed, these challenges. Based on a review of our prior work, we  identified potential interagency groups that exhibited some of the  practices to enhance and sustain collaboration. We then narrowed the  list of interagency groups to four groups that represented a balanced and  diverse set of characteristics, such as the number of participating  agencies, duration, creation vehicle (for example, through laws, etc.), and  groups with both voluntary and mandated participation. Our final selection  of interagency groups includes the following:
Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Education  (Education) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group
Federal Interagency Reentry Council (Reentry Council)
Rental Policy Working Group
U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH)
To arrive at a subset of agencies to interview about their participation in  the selected groups, we selected the lead agency, entity, or agencies  from each group. We also interviewed agencies that we determined to be  key contributors. We interviewed officials from the following entities:  Office of Management and Budget; U.S. Department of Agriculture;  Department of Defense; Department of Education; Department of Health  and Human Services; Department of Housing and Urban Development;  Department of Justice; Department of Labor; Department of the Treasury;  Department of Veterans Affairs; USICH; and the Domestic Policy Council  in the Executive Offices of the President. During these interviews, we  asked working group members about the implementation approaches that  they had employed to establish and enhance outcomes, accountability,  leadership, and resources. We did not interview all contributors to all  interagency groups. For interagency groups with three or fewer federal  agency participants, we interviewed officials from all participant agencies.  We also observed a Reentry Council event and a USICH meeting to  identify potential implementation approaches. In addition, to identify  collaborative leadership competencies, we reviewed relevant academic  literature and relevant reports.
In addition to the illustrative examples described above, we hosted two  expert practitioner panels, in coordination with the Senior Executive  Association, to identify and discuss useful practices and lessons for  implementing interagency groups. We selected panelists that were  recipients of the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award in 2011 or 2012  and that had experience leading or participating in interagency groups.
We invited these panelists to share their perspectives on interagency  groups; we did not ask them to speak on behalf of the federal agencies or  organizations that these participants represent or represented. Of the  expert practitioners listed below seven practitioners participated in two  small group panels and we conducted individual interviews with the other  four.
The following expert practitioners participated in our panels and  interviews:
Charles A. Casto, Retired Regional Administrator, Region III, U.S.
Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer and Deputy Administrator,  Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of  Agriculture
William J. Fleming, Retired Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer and  Director for Human Resources Management, U.S. Department of  Commerce  James D. Giattina, Director of the Water Protection Division, U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency
Dr. Rowan Gould, Deputy Director for Operations, Fish and Wildlife  Service, U.S. Department of the Interior
Lana T. Hurdle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs,  U.S. Department of Transportation
Michael W. Lowder, Director, Office of Intelligence, Security, and  Emergency Response, U.S. Department of Transportation
Dr. Alexander E. MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Administrator for  Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes and Director, Earth System  Research Laboratory, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric  Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Dr. A. Stanley Meiburg, Deputy Regional Administrator for Region 4,
Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator, Saint Lawrence Seaway  Development Corporation, U.S. Department of Transportation
Thomas P. Skelly, Director, Budget Service, U.S. Department of  Based on our interviews with interagency group participants and expert  practitioner panelists, we identified and categorized recurring themes  under each of the four considerations from our prior work and developed  from these a set of approaches associated with each challenge. If more  than one group had used the approach and found it to be effective, we  included it in our list. If a limited number of groups experienced a specific  challenge, but identified a way to address it, we noted this in the text. For  example, only two interagency groups in our sample had a shared  leadership model. While our examples were limited to two groups, this is  a frequently cited challenge in our work, so we included the approach, but  noted in the text that the finding was only supported by two groups we  reviewed. We asked agency officials to review the examples for accuracy  and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We did not  independently verify the effectiveness of these examples, but did examine  agency documentation and support for testimonial evidence where  available.
We also note that our findings rest on the examples we reviewed and the  practitioners we interviewed and thus may not be applicable to all  interagency groups. For example, in this report, we focus on interagency  groups that respond to non-emergency situations, which require a  different type of response than emergencies. Also, all of the policy or  topic areas in our examples are currently high-priorities of this  administration, as demonstrated by the involvement of the Executive  Office of the President or Cabinet-level officials in the groups. As such,  this report provides agency perspectives and approaches that have been  effective in addressing collaboration-related considerations for the groups  we studied, but does not provide a comprehensive or universally  applicable set of implementation approaches for interagency group. We  previously found that interagency groups can vary widely depending on  the purpose, composition, or other unique characteristics, and as such,  approaches that have proven effective for one group may not always  apply to other groups. Nevertheless, we identified common approaches  among the groups we reviewed.
We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to February  2014 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 V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant Director,  and Mallory Barg Bulman, Analyst-in-Charge, supervised the  development of this report. Peter Beck, Martin De Alteriis, and Don  Kiggins made significant contributions to this report. Karin Fangman  provided legal counsel and Alicia Cackley, Andrew Finkel, David Maurer,  and Paul Schmidt made key contributions to this report.