Federal Advisory Groups: DOT and DOE Can Take Steps to Better Assess Duplication Risk and Enhance Usefulness
Published: 2012-03-29T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Advisory groupsthose established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and other groups not subject to the actcan play an important role in the development of policy and government regulations. There are more than 1,000 FACA advisory groups and an unknown number of non-FACA advisory groups governmentwide. Non-FACA groups include intergovernmental groups. Section 21 of Pub. L. No. 111-139 requires GAO to conduct routine investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities. In that context, GAO reviewed (1) the extent to which the Department of Transportations (DOT) and Department of Energys (DOE) assessment process helps ensure advisory group efforts are not duplicative and what challenges, if any, exist in assessing potential duplication, and (2) to what extent DOT and DOE advisory groups are useful in assisting their respective agencies in carrying out their missions and how the groups usefulness could be enhanced. GAO selected DOT and DOE for review based on knowledge of these agencies advisory groups. GAO interviewed agency officials; reviewed advisory group documentation; and conducted case studies of five advisory groups.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Energy (DOE) guidance require officials to check for duplication prior to filing a charter to establish a new or renew an existing FACA advisory group. However, GAO found that DOT and DOEs processes for assessing duplication are often informal, and neither agency has specific steps identified for making such an assessment. Using an informal approach without specific steps makes it more likely that agency assessments for duplication will be inconsistent or incomplete. In addition, while basic information about the 15 DOT and 21 DOE fiscal year 2010 FACA advisory groups is publicly available in the FACA database, including designated points of contact and the objectives of the groups, no such information is readily available for non-FACA advisory groups. This limits the agencies ability to fully assess the universe of advisory groups for particular topic areas. DOT and DOE officials faced some challenges identifying and collecting information for the 19 DOT and 33 DOE non-FACA advisory groups GAO reviewed, relying on various sources and Internet searches to gather basic information, since neither agency maintains an inventory of its non-FACA advisory groups and their activities. In addition, advisory groups often address complex and highly technical issues that span across agencies. For example, one advisory group GAO identified focused on experimental and theoretical research in nuclear physics. Agency officials familiar with these types of technical topic areas and other potential stakeholders covering these same topics are best positioned to assess the potential for unnecessary duplication and would be even better positioned to do so if the departments develop specific assessment steps and enhance the visibility of non-FACA advisory groups.
DOT and DOE advisory groups can be effective tools for agencies to gather input on topics of interest by informing agency leaders about issues of importance to the agencies missions, consolidating input from multiple sources, and providing input at a relatively low cost. To further review the usefulness of advisory groups, GAO conducted case studies on five DOT and DOE FACA and non-FACA advisory groups and identified several practices that could enhance the usefulness of these advisory groups and, in some cases, also help avoid duplication. These practices include the following:
securing clear agency commitment,
finding a balance between responsiveness to the agency and independence,
leveraging resources through collaboration with similar groups, and
evaluating the groups usefulness to identify future directions for the group or actions to improve its usefulness.
The practices identified can help agencies leverage the advice produced by advisory groups to more efficiently and effectively address topics of importance to the agencies. For example, DOE officials from a FACA advisory group stated that coordination with officials involved in related groups helps to ensure sharing of useful information and that efforts are complementary rather than duplicative.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DOT and DOE document specific steps to assess potential duplication among FACA and non-FACA advisory groups and develop and make public basic information identifying non-FACA advisory groups to further inform periodic assessments. DOT and DOE agreed to consider the recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Advisory groups can play an important role in the development of policy  and government regulations by providing advice to federal agency  policymakers. There are more than 1,000 advisory groups established  under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA advisory groups) and  an unknown number of other advisory groups not subject to FACA (non- FACA advisory groups) among the miscellaneous bodies that agencies  routinely use to obtain input and recommendations from diverse  perspectives on a wide range of issues. Congress mandated that GAO  conduct routine investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and  initiatives with duplicative goals and activities. Such duplication can  waste scarce federal resources and result in less efficient and effective  federal efforts. In fiscal year 2010, there were 1,046 FACA advisory  groups governmentwide, with agency-reported, annual, direct costs of  approximately $387 million. While the full costs of FACA and non-FACA  advisory group activities are unknown and may not be large compared  with other agency expenditures, the wide use of these advisory groups— which may examine related topics—raises the potential for duplication  among these groups’ efforts. Agency officials devote time and resources  to manage, participate in, and respond to advisory group activities and  recommendations, and it is important that advisory groups are used  efficiently and effectively, particularly given continuing fiscal pressures.
In light of these issues, we examined (1) the extent to which the  Department of Transportation’s (DOT) and Department of Energy’s (DOE)  assessment process helps ensure advisory group efforts are not  duplicative and what challenges, if any, exist in assessing potential  duplication, and (2) to what extent DOT and DOE advisory groups are  useful in assisting their respective agencies in carrying out their missions  and how the groups’ usefulness could be enhanced.
To address our objectives, we selected two agencies—DOT and DOE— and developed and applied a methodology to better understand how their  advisory groups function. We selected DOT and DOE based on  knowledge of these agencies’ advisory groups and because they  represented two federal agencies working on a range of issues and topics  with a similar number of FACA advisory groups. To identify DOT and  DOE FACA advisory groups, agency officials verified the active fiscal year   To assess  2010 FACA advisory groups identified in the FACA database.the reliability of the FACA database, we reviewed existing documentation  and database use protocols and interviewed knowledgeable agency  officials about the data. FACA groups are any advisory groups, with  limited exceptions, that are established or utilized by a federal agency  and that have at least one member who is not a federal employee.  Because there is no single uniform definition of non-FACA advisory  groups, we developed a definition to identify these groups and relied on  DOT and DOE officials to identify groups that met the definition. For our  work, non-FACA advisory groups are defined as: “groups active in fiscal  year 2010 that serve primarily an advisory function and provide input to  the agency and/or component agency offices on areas related to the  agency or office’s mission. These groups may have a mix of federal and  non-federal members, and are established to provide advice or  recommendations on issues or policies pertaining to the agency or its  components.” Non-FACA advisory groups are not subject to FACA for a  variety of reasons, including statutory language that excludes a group or  membership consisting entirely of federal government employees. To  assess the extent to which DOT’s and DOE’s assessment process helps  ensure advisory group efforts are not duplicative, and to determine what  challenges may exist in assessing potential duplication, we identified and  gathered information for the 88 DOT and DOE advisory groups active in  fiscal year 2010 and reviewed 47 for potential duplication, overlap, and  fragmentation. Specifically, we selected these 47 groups by focusing on  the most common advisory group issue areas for DOT and DOE, which  were aviation and energy, respectively. For these groups, we reviewed  charters and other agency-provided documentation to help determine with  more specificity the types of issues or topics the groups cover. We then  selected those groups that focus on common issues or topic areas for  further analysis and interviewed agency officials involved in the selected  groups with potential overlap or fragmentation in these broad areas to  better understand whether in fact the groups’ efforts were potentially  duplicative. In addition, we collected information from DOT and DOE to  determine any internal agency processes used to determine duplication,  overlap, or fragmentation and the extent to which there was an  awareness of other FACA or non-FACA advisory groups within the  agency or governmentwide that focused on the same issues as their  groups. To review the usefulness of DOT and DOE advisory groups in  assisting their respective agencies in carrying out their mission, and to  identify practices to enhance their usefulness or help avoid duplication,  we conducted case studies on three FACA and two non-FACA advisory  groups. We judgmentally selected these advisory groups to obtain a mix  of characteristics, including the agency they advise, how the group was  established, and whether they generated reports or recommendations.  For each case study, we reviewed relevant documentation and  interviewed agency officials, advisory group members, and third party or  industry stakeholders to obtain perspectives on the group’s usefulness.  For example, we asked about how helpful the group was at assisting the  agency in carrying out its mission, the impact the group or its products  had on the agency, and the value added by the group. To understand the  extent to which advisory groups provided input on topics of importance to  their respective agencies’ missions, we developed criteria and gathered  information on a selection of FACA and non-FACA advisory groups by  reviewing information from the FACA database for the 36 actively  chartered DOT and DOE FACA advisory groups and interviewing agency  officials for both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 to March 2012  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the  evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives. For a more detailed  description of our objectives, scope, and methodology, see appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Advisory groups—both FACA and non-FACA—exist throughout the  executive branch of the federal government, providing input and advice to  agencies in a variety of ways, such as preparing reports and developing  recommendations. Agencies are not required to implement the advice or  recommendations of advisory groups because they are by design  advisory. While an advisory group’s input or recommendations may form  the basis for a federal agency’s decisions or policies, other factors may  play a role in determining what action an agency ultimately takes.  However, both types of advisory groups serve as a mechanism for federal  agencies to obtain input from internal and external stakeholders such as  academics, industry associations, or other agencies.
FACA was enacted in 1972 in response to concerns that federal advisory  groups were proliferating without adequate review, oversight, or  accountability. The General Services Administration (GSA) Committee  Management Secretariat oversees each federal agency’s management of  FACA advisory groups, develops guidelines and regulations, and  conducts an annual review of FACA advisory groups governmentwide.  For example, GSA provides guidance to federal agencies sponsoring  FACA advisory groups and is involved in the process to establish new  and oversee the management of existing FACA advisory groups. GSA  collects and makes available governmentwide FACA advisory group  information that agencies—including DOT and DOE—are required to  provide through a publicly accessible database each fiscal year. In  addition, each agency also develops its own policies and procedures for  following FACA requirements. For example, DOT and DOE each have  policy manuals governing the management of their FACA advisory  groups. Each agency sponsoring FACA advisory groups appoints a  Committee Management Officer responsible for overseeing compliance  with FACA requirements, and appoints to each FACA advisory group a  Designated Federal Official (DFO) responsible for attending meetings,  approving agendas, and maintaining records on costs and membership,  among other duties. Decisions regarding the establishment of new FACA  advisory groups and recommendations to terminate or continue existing  groups are made by the head of each agency based on  recommendations made by the Committee Management Officer, the DFO  assigned to each group, or other agency officials.
FACA sets forth requirements for FACA advisory groups’ formation, their  operations, and how they provide advice and recommendations to the  federal government. To help avoid duplication of resources, FACA  regulations require that the process to establish, renew, or reestablish  discretionary FACA advisory groups—those established under agency  authority or authorized by statute—must include an explanation stating  why the group’s functions cannot be performed by the agency, another  existing group, or other means. FACA also articulates broad  requirements for balance, transparency, and independence. For example,  for transparency, a range of information is to be reported in the FACA  database, and meeting minutes and reports are to be made available to  the public. The act also requires that all FACA advisory groups have a  charter containing specific information, including the group’s scope and  objectives, a description of duties, and the period of time necessary to  carry out its purposes. Charters—and thus the FACA advisory groups—  generally expire at the end of 2 years unless renewed by the agency, the  Congress, or executive order. This requirement was intended to  encourage agencies to periodically reexamine their need for FACA  advisory groups.
As previously noted, not every advisory group that provides advice or  recommendations to an agency is subject to the FACA requirements. An  advisory group may not be subject to FACA for a variety of reasons,  including statutory language that may exempt a group from FACA.
Further, certain types of groups are also exempt from FACA, including  groups not managed or controlled by the executive branch, groups with  membership consisting entirely of federal government officials, or  intergovernmental groups. Non-FACA advisory groups are generally less  formal than those established under and subject to the requirements of  FACA. Because they are not subject to FACA, non-FACA advisory  groups are not required to follow FACA requirements to hold public  meetings or to make meeting minutes and reports publicly available.  Similarly, agencies are not required to collect or report information  identifying non-FACA advisory groups, and GSA does not have any  oversight responsibilities pertaining to non-FACA advisory groups. While  there is no specific entity or office that oversees non-FACA advisory  groups, general guidance for the management of some of these groups— such as federal interagency groups—may be included within the agency’s  committee management policy manuals. For example, DOT’s committee  management policy covers FACA advisory groups, as well as interagency  groups—one type of non-FACA advisory group—while DOE’s policy is  focused exclusively on FACA advisory groups.
Agency-reported fiscal year 2010 costs for DOT and DOE FACA advisory   As noted groups were approximately $4 and $13.6 million, respectively. above, agencies self-report cost information, such as travel and per diem  costs incurred by FACA advisory group activity or payments to members  or consultants. Agencies sponsoring FACA advisory groups determine  the level of financial and administrative support for their groups.  Variations in costs are common given factors such as the number of  meetings held or compensation rates for groups’ members. For fiscal year  2010, the FACA database identified the 15 DOT and 21 DOE actively  chartered FACA advisory groups covering various topics and issues  related to their respective agency’s mission.
section_title: The Absence of Specific Assessment Steps and Readily Available Information on Non-FACA Groups Hinders Efforts to Assess Duplication Risk
subsections: section_title: DOT and DOE Informally Assess Advisory Groups for Duplication
paragraphs: The approach used by DOT and DOE to assess duplication amongst  advisory groups is often informal, and agency officials are not always  clear about what steps should be taken to ensure the assessment of  existing advisory groups is consistently made. GSA relies on federal  agencies to follow the FACA requirement to check for duplication prior to  filing a charter to establish a new, or renew an existing, FACA advisory  group under agency authority. Furthermore, guidance for our two selected  agencies requires officials to determine whether the objectives or duties  of a proposed FACA advisory group could be achieved by an existing  entity, committee, or organization within the agency or governmentwide.  Some DOT and DOE officials told us they use the FACA database to  check for potentially duplicative advisory groups. This may be a good first  step to identifying FACA groups working on similar issues; however, it  does not necessarily provide an adequate assessment for duplication.  While the FACA database contains information on advisory group issue  areas, it is limited in its ability to directly identify related groups. For  example, a search of the FACA database in the issue area of “surface  and vehicular transportation” yielded approximately 60 FACA advisory  groups working across 10 federal agencies. Further, issue areas are self- identified by agency officials and may not be consistently defined across  agencies.
We found that several agency officials were not aware of a process to  determine whether the objectives or duties of an advisory group could be  achieved by an existing entity, committee, or organization. In cases  where officials indicated they were aware of a process, when asked to  describe the process, a number described informal approaches for  checking for duplication and did not articulate consistent steps taken to  make these determinations. Several DOE officials reported that the  agency’s Committee Management Office is involved and engages each  FACA advisory group’s DFO to be aware of any existing entity or  committee that could achieve the objectives being proposed, but they did  not provide additional detail outlining formal steps taken to identify these  groups. DOT and DOE officials also indicated that agency officials  working in a program or issue area are generally able to identify groups  that may be addressing similar topics using their existing knowledge of  agency offices and programs. For example, some DOT officials noted that  high-level program officials are likely to be aware of other groups dealing  with an area of possible duplication and that this approach can serve as  an informal mechanism to help identify relevant advisory groups working  on related issues. However, without a process with specific steps to  check for duplication (such as reaching out to key contacts of relevant  advisory groups) assessment results may be inconsistent or incomplete.
In contrast, one of the DOT agency offices we reviewed, the Federal  Aviation Administration (FAA) Office of Rulemaking, has a policy that  outlines specific steps agency officials should take prior to establishing a  new advisory group. This policy is specific to aviation rulemaking advisory  groups, covers both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups, and clearly  lays out the process used to determine the need for and how to establish  a new group. For instance, when an FAA office identifies an issue on  which it would be helpful to obtain advice from industry, officials decide  whether to request the standing Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee  to accept the task or to charter a new aviation rulemaking committee  based on the best fit given the specific topic or activity. The Aviation  Rulemaking Advisory Committee is a formal, standing FACA advisory  group; aviation rulemaking committees are non-FACA advisory groups  formed on an ad hoc basis, for a specific purpose, and are typically of  limited duration. One FAA official involved in these rulemaking advisory  groups noted that this guidance offers those offices establishing advisory  groups a process they can use to establish and manage their advisory  groups, a useful tool because Congress often directs FAA to use these  types of advisory groups to conduct rulemakings.
section_title: Information on DOT and DOE Non-FACA Advisory Groups Is Not Readily Available
paragraphs: While readily available information on FACA advisory groups—such as a  designated point of contact and description of objectives—is accessible  through a centralized database managed by GSA, similar information is  not available for non-FACA advisory groups. Information on all FACA  advisory groups—including DOT’s and DOE’s fiscal year 2010 groups—is  readily available through the public FACA database, providing agency  officials and interested parties with a basic level of transparency. This  includes basic information such as contact information and descriptions of  activities. In contrast, federal agencies are not required to, and may or  may not track their non-FACA advisory groups, and neither of our two  selected agencies had an existing inventory of all non-FACA advisory  groups that provide advice or input to the agency. Using an agreed-upon  definition for non-FACA advisory groups, DOT identified 19 and DOE  identified 33 fiscal year 2010 non-FACA advisory groups. However, we  could not confirm whether the groups identified include all of the non- FACA advisory groups for each agency, and DOT and DOE officials  noted they do not necessarily consider their various groups as falling  under a single definition of non-FACA advisory groups.
Both DOT and DOE agency officials faced some challenges identifying  and collecting basic information for non-FACA advisory groups—including  agency points of contact and brief group descriptions—and the process  was, at points, time consuming or cumbersome for them. DOT and DOE  officials used different approaches to identify non-FACA advisory groups  but encountered the following similar challenges in collecting basic  information on these groups:
DOT generally relied on officials at the program level to identify the  agency’s non-FACA advisory groups, and in most cases, agency  liaisons served as a conduit to identify the groups by providing  officials working on various programs with the non-FACA definition.  According to DOT officials, challenges in compiling the requested  information included identifying the agency point of contact and  locating additional descriptive information pertaining to non-FACA  advisory group activities. For example, one agency official we spoke  with relied on an Internet search engine to locate relevant information  about some of the non-FACA advisory groups. Another DOT official  was able to identify a few advisory groups based on indirect  involvement and knowledge of agency activities and programs. Of the  four DOT agency components that identified non-FACA advisory  groups for this review, only one identified these groups based on a  readily available roster. In this case, Maritime Administration officials  identified five non-FACA advisory groups using a committee roster the  agency maintains for internal purposes. This roster identifies the  names of both FACA and non-FACA groups, any subcommittees, and  primary and secondary points of contact.
DOE officials coordinated with each of their program offices to identify  their non-FACA advisory groups based on the agreed-upon definition.  The officials told us there was some difficulty in trying to identify the  non-FACA advisory groups because basic information pertaining to  these groups is not readily available as it is for FACA advisory groups.  DOE officials told us that they had to coordinate the efforts of multiple  program offices to compile the information and noted the process was  time-consuming because there is no existing source for non-FACA  advisory group information. As a result, the program officers had to  cull much of the information for these groups from various Internet  websites.
Because there is no way to readily identify non-FACA advisory groups  providing advice to the agencies, there is no formal source of information  enabling agency officials to conduct a comprehensive check for  potentially duplicative groups. For example, DOT officials told us that,  because they are only able to check whether a FACA advisory group  overlaps or duplicates the work of existing FACA advisory groups, they  would not necessarily be aware of potential overlap with advisory groups  not subject to FACA. DOT officials also pointed out that, given the time  and resources required to establish and manage an advisory group, there  is no incentive to maintain a FACA advisory group that duplicates the  activities of another group. However, with limited visibility over the  universe of non-FACA advisory groups, there is no assurance that  agency officials checking for duplication would know where to look or  whom to contact for additional information necessary to assess  duplication vis-à-vis those groups. This raises the risk that new advisory  groups may be created or existing groups retained that are unnecessarily  duplicative and therefore not an efficient use of agency resources.  Further, this absence of readily available information may hinder other  federal agencies from coordinating with or ensuring that their advisory  groups are not unnecessarily duplicative with DOT or DOE non-FACA  advisory groups.
section_title: Assessing Advisory Groups Requires Familiarity with Complex Subject Areas, the Agency, and Potential Stakeholders
paragraphs: GAO, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: Federal Actions Needed to Ensure Safety and  Expand Their Potential Uses within the National Airspace System, GAO-08-511  (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2008). offices, and advisory groups have emerged over time and serve a  similar role as the Air Traffic Procedures Advisory Committee  (ATPAC), a DOT FACA advisory group. Based on their review,  agency officials involved in ATPAC identified potential duplication with  ATPAC and other DOT advisory groups covering aviation topics  including aviation charts, publications, or procedures. In this case,  extensive knowledge of the organization, its history, and awareness of  current advisory groups agencywide enabled these officials to perform  this assessment, which raised questions about the ongoing need for  ATPAC. According to FAA officials, ATPAC was the only mechanism  of its kind for industry input to the FAA when it was created in 1976  but, over time, has essentially become a conduit to pass issues  identified by members on to the appropriate FAA office or group.  However, these officials noted this was the first step in the  assessment process that will ultimately require internal agency  concurrence to consider whether to retain or terminate ATPAC. Other  agency officials we spoke with had differing perspectives regarding  whether unnecessary duplication with ATPAC and other DOT aviation  advisory groups exists.
section_title: Certain Practices Have Helped Enhance the Usefulness of Some Advisory Groups
paragraphs: While advisory groups are not the sole source of information or input for  agencies such as DOT and DOE, they can be a relatively effective and  efficient way to gather input on topics of interest. Specifically, advisory  groups can inform agencies about topics of importance to the agency’s  mission, consolidate input from multiple sources, and provide input at a  relatively low cost. We reviewed information on 36 DOE and DOT FACA  advisory groups and found that these groups all provided some form of  input to agencies about topics related to the agency’s mission. For  example, each of the 36 FACA advisory groups had goals and topics that  were aligned with their respective agency’s missions or strategic goals,  and each was engaged in activities that could help it produce advice,  such as producing reports and making formal recommendations.
To further review the usefulness of advisory groups, we conducted case  studies on five DOT and DOE FACA and non-FACA advisory groups and  identified several practices that helped enhance the usefulness of some  of these advisory groups and, in some cases, also helped avoid  duplication (see table 1 below). The five case studies provided examples  of how agencies may address issues that could impact an advisory  group’s usefulness. According to some members, stakeholders, and  agency officials involved in these five advisory groups, certain practices  or circumstances positively affected the group’s usefulness, while in other  cases, the absence of those practices or circumstances may have limited  the group’s usefulness. Practices identified as influencing the usefulness  of some advisory groups include (1) securing clear agency commitment,  (2) finding a balance between responsiveness to the agency and  independence, (3) leveraging resources through collaboration with similar  groups, and (4) evaluating the group’s usefulness to identify future  directions for the group or actions to improve its usefulness.
Securing agency commitment: Clear agency commitment to an advisory  group can help enhance the group’s usefulness. As we have noted  before, perhaps the single most important element in successfully  implementing organizational change is the demonstrated, sustained   Agency commitment to advisory groups can  commitment of top leaders.be demonstrated by active participation in meetings, open communication  with group members, and allocation of resources to the group. Some  agency officials, members, and third party stakeholders explained that the  level of agency commitment can positively or negatively impact the  usefulness of advisory groups. For example, high-level agency  participation can help the advisory group consider the agency’s needs  when developing recommendations and may impact the likelihood that  recommendations are implemented. In contrast, an absence of agency  commitment to an advisory group can hinder the group’s usefulness by  limiting resources or information that may help the group to be useful to  the agency.
According to DOT officials, involvement of high level decision makers  enhanced the usefulness of the Federal Interagency Committee on  Emergency Medical Services (FICEMS). FICEMS is a statutorily  mandated body not subject to FACA whose members primarily are   The group shares information and discusses  federal agency officials.methods to improve emergency medical services and produces formal  recommendations and reports. The Administrator of DOT’s National  Highway Traffic Safety Administration is a FICEMS member, which  officials believe enhances the group’s usefulness. Because DOT has  committed high-level involvement to FICEMS, the items discussed during  meetings directly involve the agency’s decisionmakers with the authority  to make changes based on the advice.
The marine transportation system encompasses numerous modes of transportation  overseen by multiple agencies, one of which is the Maritime Administration. highways. According to members and a stakeholder, the Maritime  Administration may have had limited commitment to MTSNAC in part  because the group’s original scope was the marine transportation system  and all related federal agencies, some of which is beyond the  administration’s jurisdiction. In their view, MTSNAC provided a useful and  needed service by addressing the wide-ranging issues affecting the  marine transportation system, but its advice may have been better  targeted at agency officials with a commitment to the broader marine  transportation system.
Balancing responsiveness with independence: Balancing responsiveness  to agencies’ needs with ensuring independence can improve the  usefulness of an advisory group. On one hand, responding to agencies’  needs may help advisory groups produce useful recommendations or  reports. But on the other hand, as we have previously reported, the  advice and recommendations of federal advisory groups should be    independent of influence by the entity that created the advisory group. Similarly, we previously reported that advisory groups’ independence is  important because the effectiveness of FACA advisory groups can be  undermined if the members are, or are perceived to be, lacking  independence.
According to officials and members of the Electricity Advisory Committee  (EAC), a DOE FACA advisory group, EAC’s responsiveness to DOE  needs enhanced its usefulness and officials worked closely with the  group’s members to focus the direction of the group to meet the agency’s  needs. According to some EAC members, agency officials generally  identified the topic to be covered while members determined how EAC  would address the topic and sometimes identified additional topics to  cover. Officials found EAC members to be responsive to DOE needs. For  example, at DOE’s suggestion, EAC began developing “quick response”  products to react to agency requests for information and input in lieu of  lengthier reports. DOE officials also assisted with the development of  agendas for meetings, which can be highly interactive. This type of  dialogue between agency officials and advisory group members can help  the advisory group meet agency needs and enhance the usefulness of  the group’s products.
However, there may be a tension between responsiveness and  independence that could affect the group’s usefulness. Some advisory  group members indicated that some situations may challenge members’  efforts to maintain independence. For example, in one instance, members  of MTSNAC said that their sponsoring agency drafted recommendations  and asked the group to endorse them, which the group declined. The  members believed that the consensus-based recommendations they  developed were valid even if they were not the recommendations that the  agency wanted to hear. When asked for their perspectives on the group’s  usefulness in general, DOT officials stated that they implemented some of  MTSNAC’s recommendations and, while they did not always agree with  other recommendations, members’ diverse and varied perspectives could  be useful.
Leveraging resources through collaboration: Collaboration between an  advisory group and other groups focusing on similar topics can help  agencies spend resources efficiently, prevent unnecessary duplication,  and enhance the group’s usefulness. As we reported in 2011, interagency  mechanisms or strategies to coordinate programs that address  crosscutting issues may reduce potentially duplicative, overlapping, and   Collaboration with groups focusing on similar topics  fragmented efforts.may help ensure that groups are not duplicating activities but are instead  focusing on the most useful tasks. Similarly, it may help advisory groups  leverage existing resources to more quickly obtain information or  expertise already possessed by other groups, thereby enhancing their  usefulness and efficiency. Some advisory groups—such as non-FACA  interagency coordination groups—share resources and information with  other advisory groups.
One official explained that collaborating and coordinating helps DOE’s  federal Smart Grid Task Force (SGTF) to be useful and accomplish its  purpose. SGTF is a statutorily mandated non-FACA group created  primarily for the federal agencies involved in smart grid activities to  coordinate projects and priorities, and the group’s members are  representatives of the relevant agencies. According to one agency  official and a third party stakeholder, SGTF’s coordinating function is  useful in part because member agencies can become more aware of  ongoing or proposed activities in the federal government that may affect  their agency. Further, an agency official explained that members  contributed to the body of knowledge about smart grid activities, for  example, by collaboratively identifying common challenges for smart grid  implementation. DOE also benefits from SGTF reaching out beyond the  federal government—involving states and other entities—to accomplish  its purpose. For example, SGTF members are statutorily required to  coordinate with members of EAC’s smart grid subcommittee, who are  nonfederal parties with interests or expertise in the smart grid. According  to DOE agency officials, SGTF and EAC members meet every few  months to discuss smart grid technological changes and developments.  Agency officials stated that this type of coordination helps minimize the  risk of unnecessary duplication of efforts.
GAO-08-1026T. changes needed to bring about performance improvements and enhance  usefulness.
Some officials from DOT’s FAA have taken steps to evaluate ATPAC, a  FACA advisory group, and are consequently better equipped to assess  the group’s strengths, weaknesses, and whether the group continues to  be relevant and useful. For example, officials (1) collected information on  the group’s accomplishments—identifying the number of issues  addressed over a number of years, (2) gathered members’ perspectives  on the relevance and continuation of the group, and (3) informally  considered whether the group’s costs outweigh its benefits. Based on the  information gathered on ATPAC’s accomplishments, officials determined  that the group’s workload had decreased. For example, while the  committee resolved an average of about 16 issues per year over its first  29 years, over the last 6 years, ATPAC resolved approximately 6 issues  per year. According to agency officials, FAA and ATPAC have responded  to the change in workload by decreasing the frequency of meetings from  about four to three times a year. Agency officials explained that they are  further evaluating the group and may consider additional actions in the  future.
The practices identified through our advisory group case studies— securing agency commitment, balancing responsiveness with  independence, leveraging resources through collaboration with similar  groups, and evaluating usefulness—can help agencies leverage the  advice produced by both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups to better  address topics of importance to the agencies and avoid duplication of  efforts.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Advisory groups exist governmentwide and are generally considered  useful and cost efficient mechanisms for federal agencies to obtain advice  and input from a range of stakeholders and experts. However, the  advisory group environment is fluid, and the potential for duplication  exists both within and outside the agency as advisory groups are routinely  established and used, taking on new issues in response to emerging  agency needs. Therefore, assessments of whether existing advisory  groups continue to be needed or whether another body or entity may be  better suited to carry out advisory functions are important to help prevent  unnecessary duplication and inefficient use of government resources.
FACA requirements direct agencies to check for duplication among  advisory groups, and DOT and DOE guidance incorporates these  requirements. However, neither agency’s guidance includes specific  steps for assessing duplication, resulting in an informal process that is not  always comprehensive. These issues are further exacerbated by the lack  of visibility over non-FACA groups, which often address the same or  similar issues as FACA advisory groups. Advisory groups addressing  similar issues may also be housed in different agencies across  government, further complicating any assessment for duplication. While  agencies are not required to track their non-FACA advisory groups,  having available at least minimal information about non-FACA advisory  groups, as well as specific assessment steps, would help ensure more  comprehensive assessments of whether new advisory groups should be  created and existing groups should be retained. DOT and DOE are only  two among many federal government agencies that widely use advisory  groups, however, these actions could be a good first step in facilitating  coordination and sharing of information of advisory groups  governmentwide.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To reduce the risk of potential duplication of efforts and further inform  assessments of advisory groups, we recommend that the Secretary of  Transportation and the Secretary of Energy take the following two  actions:  Identify and document specific steps that should be taken in  periodically assessing potential duplication and the ongoing need for  both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups.
Develop and make public (e.g., on the agency’s website) information  identifying non-FACA advisory groups providing advice to the  agency—including the group name, agency point of contact, and a  brief description of the group’s purpose.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided copies of our draft report to DOT, DOE, and GSA for their  review and comment. DOT and DOE agreed to consider the  recommendations. GSA provided technical comments, which we  incorporated.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of Energy, the  Administrator of the General Services Administration, and other interested  parties. The report also is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (206) 287-4809 or calboml@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix V.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The FACA database is available to the public at www.fido.gov/facadatabase. groups may have a mix of federal and nonfederal members and are  established to provide advice or recommendations on issues or  policies pertaining to the agency or its components.
Because the non-FACA advisory groups were self-identified by DOT and  DOE officials based on this definition, the groups identified may not  include all of the existing non-FACA advisory groups for each agency.Non-FACA advisory groups are not subject to FACA for a variety of  reasons, including statutory language that excludes a group or  membership consisting entirely of federal government employees.
We gathered information for each of the 88 FACA and non-FACA  advisory groups identified as active in fiscal year 2010 using the FACA  database and working with agency officials to collect information for each  non-FACA group, such as a purpose statement or group descriptions. To  better understand advisory group management, operations, and agency  oversight responsibilities, we reviewed relevant documentation such as  the FACA regulations and guidance, DOT and DOE committee  management policies, and prior GAO reports on advisory groups. We  interviewed agency officials within GSA’s Committee Management  Secretariat and General Counsel and agency officials within DOT and  DOE Committee Management Offices to better understand how each  agency operates and manages advisory groups. We also spoke with  aviation industry groups that participate as members in some DOT  aviation advisory groups to obtain their perspectives on general  experiences with these advisory groups.
To assess the reliability of the FACA database, we (1) reviewed existing  documentation related to the database, (2) reviewed a previous GAO  data reliability assessment of the FACA database, (3) reviewed database  use protocols, including verification and internal controls, and (4)  interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data. We  determined that the data used were sufficiently reliable for the purposes  of identifying FACA advisory groups and their status, presenting the total  cost of FACAs, determining the most commonly reported interest areas,  and analyzing FACA missions and activities.
To assess the extent to which DOT’s and DOE’s assessment process  helps to ensure advisory groups efforts are not duplicative, and to  determine what challenges may exist in assessing duplication, we  narrowed the scope of our review and assessed the potential for  duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among 47 of the 88 FACA and  non-FACA advisory groups identified as active within fiscal year 2010.  Specifically, we reviewed the 47 groups focusing on those interest areas  most relevant to DOT and DOE—using the interest area identification in  the FACA database and assigning these same interest areas to the non- FACA advisory groups—ultimately identifying aviation and energy as the  most common advisory group interest areas for DOT and DOE,  respectively. We also formulated definitions for duplication, overlap, and  fragmentation using the broad definitions provided in GAO’s recent work.For the FACA advisory groups, we reviewed information within the FACA  database performance measures section, their charters, and other  agency documentation; for the non-FACA advisory groups, we reviewed  agency provided descriptions and other agency documentation to help  determine with more specificity the types of issues or topics the groups  covered. We reviewed responses to a brief questionnaire sent to agency  points of contact for the 47 selected DOT and DOE groups asking the  respondents to identify, among other items, (1) any internal agency  processes used to determine duplication, overlap, or fragmentation of  proposed advisory groups with existing advisory groups and (2) their  awareness of any other FACA or non-FACA advisory group within the  agency or governmentwide that focused on the same issues as their  group.
From these 47 advisory groups, we then selected those groups that focus  on common issues or topic areas in these broad areas for further analysis  to better understand whether in fact the groups’ efforts were potentially  duplicative and interviewed agency officials in the following offices:
DOT: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials within the Office  of the Deputy Administrator; Air Traffic Organization; Office of Aviation  Safety; and Office of Policy, International Affairs and Environment that  were involved in five FACA and four non-FACA advisory groups that  were identified as potentially duplicative, overlapping or fragmented;  and
DOE: Office of the Secretary; Office of Science; Office of Health,  Safety and Security; and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable  Energy officials that were involved in three FACA and five non-FACA  advisory groups that were identified as potentially duplicative,  overlapping, or fragmented.
To review the usefulness of DOT and DOE advisory groups in assisting  their respective agencies in carrying out their mission, and to identify  practices to enhance their usefulness or help avoid duplication, we  conducted in-depth case studies on three FACA and two non-FACA  advisory groups. See table 3 below.
We judgmentally selected these five advisory groups to obtain a mix of  characteristics with the purpose of reporting additional details on a  targeted selection of advisory groups.coverage across several characteristics, we considered the following  factors in selecting the advisory group case studies: the agency they  advise, FACA status, age, how the group was established, and whether  they generated reports or recommendations. For FACA advisory groups,  we also considered results from the performance measures section of the  FACA database, but this information was not available for non-FACA  advisory groups. For each case study, we reviewed relevant  documentation and interviewed agency officials, advisory group  members, and third party or industry stakeholders to obtain their  perspectives on the group’s activities and its usefulness to the agency.  For instance, to understand the group’s usefulness, we asked about how  helpful the group was at assisting the agency in carrying out its mission,  the impact the group or its products had on the agency, and the value  added by the group. For example, we met with FAA, Maritime  Administration, and National Highway Traffic Safety Administration  officials to discuss the effectiveness and usefulness of selected DOT  advisory groups. The two selected non-FACA advisory groups were  interagency coordination bodies whose membership consisted of federal  employees. Because of this, the interviewees were able to represent both  the agency and member perspectives. We reviewed advisory group  charters, reports, meeting minutes, and performance measures from the   To obtain a diverse mix and  FACA database, other documentation as available, and observed an  advisory group meeting for the Electricity Advisory Committee.
In addition, we developed criteria to understand the extent to which  advisory groups provided input on topics of importance to their respective  agencies’ missions and to describe the advice producing activities of  advisory groups, such as whether the advisory group held meetings and  produced reports and recommendations and if the groups’ objectives  were documented and were related to the agency’s strategic goals or  mission. We developed these criteria by reviewing a selection of previous  GAO reports, including those on the Government Performance and  Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) and the Program  Assessment Review Tool (PART),assess effectiveness and usefulness in consultation with internal GAO  experts, and soliciting the perspectives of agency officials. We applied  these criteria only to the 36 DOT and DOE FACA advisory groups actively  chartered in fiscal year 2010 because similar information for non-FACA  advisory groups was not available. We also gathered information on a  selection of FACA and non-FACA advisory groups by reviewing  information from the FACA database, advisory group charters and  websites, relevant agency strategic planning documents, and interviewing  agency officials for both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups.   identifying a list of potential criteria to  We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 to March 2012  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe the  evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: DOT and DOE Fiscal Year 2010 Advisory Groups
paragraphs: To identify DOT and DOE FACA advisory groups, agency officials verified  the active fiscal year 2010 groups identified in the FACA database. To  identify non-FACA advisory groups providing input and advice to DOT  and DOE, agency officials used the following definition: groups active in  fiscal year 2010 that serve primarily an advisory function and provide  input to the agency and/or component agency offices on areas related to  the agency or office’s mission. These groups may have a mix of federal  and nonfederal members, and are established to provide advice or  recommendations on issues or policies pertaining to the agency or its  components. We selected those groups focusing on the most common  advisory group issue areas of aviation for DOT and energy for DOE for  further review, covering 47 of the 88 DOT and DOE advisory groups  active in fiscal year 2010 (see tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8).
section_title: Appendix III: Additional Information on 36 Actively Chartered FACA Advisory Groups
paragraphs: To understand the extent to which advisory groups provided input to  agencies on topics of importance to their missions, we reviewed  information on the 15 DOT and 21 DOE FACA advisory groups that were  actively chartered in fiscal year 2010. We selected information to review  by developing criteria based on agency officials’ input and a review of  relevant literature—including FACA guidelines and GAO reports on the  Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act. Each of the  36 FACA advisory groups had documented goals and topics that were  aligned with their respective agency’s missions or strategic goals (See  table 9). Further, each was engaged in activities that could help the group  produce advice (See table 10).
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Linda Calbom, (206) 287-4809 or calboml@gao.gov.
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Sharon Silas, Assistant  Director; Kathy Gilhooly; Laura Henry; Delwen Jones; Hannah Laufe;  Janet Lee; Sara Ann Moessbauer; Steven Putansu; and Maria Wallace  made key contributions to this report.