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

Letter

Background

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.

The Absence of Specific Assessment Steps and Readily Available Information on Non-FACA Groups Hinders Efforts to Assess Duplication Risk

DOT and DOE Informally Assess Advisory Groups for Duplication

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.

Information on DOT and DOE Non-FACA Advisory Groups Is Not Readily Available

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.

Assessing Advisory Groups Requires Familiarity with Complex Subject Areas, the Agency, and Potential Stakeholders

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.

Certain Practices Have Helped Enhance the Usefulness of Some Advisory Groups

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.

Conclusions

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

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.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

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.

Appendix II: DOT and DOE Fiscal Year 2010 Advisory Groups

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).

Appendix III: Additional Information on 36 Actively Chartered FACA Advisory Groups

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).

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Energy

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Linda Calbom, (206) 287-4809 or calboml@gao.gov.

Staff Acknowledgments

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.