The four interagency groups we reviewed possessed varied characteristics related to their purposes and outcomes, leadership structures, agency participation, and funding sources and staffing, as discussed in more detail below. We reported in 2011 that there were approximately 1.1 million school-age dependents of military parents in the United States. Because of their family situations, military dependent students may face a range of unique challenges, such as frequent moves throughout their school career and the emotional difficulties of having deployed parents. DOD and Education officials have a history of collaborating on education issues for children of military families. They formalized and broadened these efforts with an MOU, which they signed in June 2008. The purpose of the MOU was to establish a framework for collaboration between DOD and Education to address the quality of education and the unique challenges faced by children of military families. The MOU defined, in general terms, the basis on which these departments would work together to strengthen and expand school-based efforts to ease student transitions and help military dependent students develop academic and coping skills during periods of parental deployments. In addition, the MOU required the creation of a working group to ensure that the agencies meet the objectives of the MOU. The DOD and Education MOU Working Group (MOU Working Group), is co-chaired by representatives from DOD’s Defense Education Activity’s Educational Partnership Branch and Education’s Office of Innovation and Improvement, Military Liaison Team. The working group is also composed of representatives from several DOD and Education offices. The MOU Working Group has no separate budget. Working group representatives participate in working group activities as part of fulfilling their respective responsibilities at their home agencies. According to DOD and Education officials, they have made progress on a number of initiatives. For example, the Chief of the Educational Partnerships and Non-DOD School Program for DOD told us in May 2013 that 47 states had signed an interstate compact that allowed flexibility during the transfer of military dependent students across jurisdictions. It also allowed credits and course work to more easily transfer to the students’ new schools. In December 2012, we reported that about 700,000 inmates are released from federal and state custody each year, and another 9 million are booked into and released from local jails, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Moreover, we reported that these inmates face considerable challenges as they transition into, or reenter, society after incarceration. More than two-thirds of state prisoners are rearrested for a new offense within three years of their release and about half are reincarcerated. In January 2011, the U.S. Attorney General convened the Reentry Council, a group of 20 federal entities whose mission is to make communities safer, assist those who return from prison and jail in becoming productive citizens, and save taxpayer dollars by lowering the direct and collateral costs of incarceration. The premise of the Reentry Council is that many federal agencies have a major stake in assisting former inmates or inmates preparing for release from federal, state, and local correctional facilities. The U.S. Attorney General chairs the Reentry Council’s annual meeting. Also supporting the council is a staff-level working group that meets monthly. The Reentry Council has no separate budget, and its representatives participate in the group’s activities as part of fulfilling their responsibilities at their respective agencies. As we found in December 2012, among other accomplishments, the Reentry Council has been focused on reducing the barriers that exist for the reentry population. For example, the Reentry Council has taken several actions to address collateral consequences of criminal convictions—these are the laws and policies that restrict former inmates from things such as employment, welfare benefits, access to public housing, and eligibility for student loans for higher education. Such collateral penalties place substantial barriers to an individual’s social and economic advancement and can challenge successful reentry. As we reported in June 2012, during the 2007-2009 recession, the elevated unemployment rate and declining home prices worsened the financial circumstances for many families, along with their ability to make their mortgage payments. As we and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) reported, this period coincided with a rapid increase in the percentage of loans in foreclosure and increased demand for rental housing. In 2010, the Domestic Policy Council (DPC) established the Rental Policy Working Group, along with HUD, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury), to respond to the need for better coordination of federal rental policy. We reported in August 2012 that HUD, Treasury, USDA, the Department of Labor and the Federal Home Loan Banks administered 45 programs or activities that supported rental housing in fiscal year 2010. DPC leads the Rental Policy Working Group meetings. This group is supported by various subgroup meetings, which are lead by the respective leads for those groups, USDA, HUD, or Treasury. The Rental Policy Working Group has no separate budget, and group representatives participate in the group’s activities as part of fulfilling their responsibilities at their respective agencies. As we discuss in more detail later, HUD official told us that, since January 2013, HUD has continued working with USDA and Treasury to implement a set of alignment recommendations that would improve coordinated government-wide oversight of subsidized rental housing properties, and reduce the administrative burden on affordable housing owners and managers. For one of those recommendations, the Rental Policy Working Group launched a pilot program in six states to test the feasibility of conducting a single, recurring physical inspection for jointly subsidized rental housing properties that would satisfy all agencies’ inspection requirements. According to the Rental Policy Working Group, this pilot program has avoided 120 duplicative inspections across the six states that participated in a second round of this pilot program in 2013. positions rotate among its members at the first meeting of each year. Additionally, an executive director, who is appointed by USICH member agencies and reports directly to the USICH’s chairperson, manages USICH’s daily activities. USICH is required by law to meet at least four times per year, although it has met more frequently. Unlike the other interagency groups we reviewed, USICH receives an appropriation from Congress and employs full-time staff. According to HUD, the total number of people identified as experiencing homelessness on a single night has decreased by 9.2 percent between 2007 and 2013. A number of sub-populations have also demonstrated reductions in homelessness. Specifically, HUD reported that, from 2010 through 2013, the number of people experiencing chronic homelessness was reduced by more than 15 percent, and the number of homeless veterans was reduced by about 24 percent during that same period. GPRAMA is a significant enhancement of GPRA, which was the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in place during the 1990s to help resolve long-standing management problems in the federal government, and provide greater accountability for results. GPRA sought to focus federal agencies on performance by requiring agencies to develop long-term and annual goals—contained in strategic and annual performance plans—and measure and report on progress towards those goals annually. In our past reviews of its implementation, we found that GPRA provided a solid foundation to achieve greater results in the federal government. However, several key governance challenges remained, including addressing crosscutting issues. To help address this and other challenges, GPRAMA revises existing provisions and adds new requirements. Some of the new provisions and requirements that emphasize collaboration include: Cross-agency priority goals: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to coordinate with agencies to establish federal government priority goals that include outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of policy areas, as well as goals for management improvements needed across the government. The act also requires that OMB—with agencies—develop annual federal government performance plans to, among other things, define the level of performance to be achieved toward the cross-agency priority goals. GPRAMA also requires that OMB identify the agencies, organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities contributing to each crosscutting priority goal. Agency priority goals: Certain agencies are required to develop a limited number of agency priority goals every two years. Both the agencies required to develop these goals and the number of goals to be developed are determined by OMB. These goals are to reflect the highest priorities of each selected agency, as identified by the head of the agency, and be informed by the cross-agency priority goals, as well as input from relevant congressional committees. GPRAMA requires agencies to identify organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, and other activities—both internal and external to the agency— that contribute to each of their agency priority goals and include this information in their performance plans and provide it to OMB for publication on Performance.gov. directs agencies to include tax expenditures in their identification of organizations and programs that contribute to their agency priority goals. OMB is required to develop a single, government-wide performance website to communicate government-wide and agency performance information. The website— implemented by OMB as Performance.gov—is required to make available information on agency priority goals and cross-agency priority goals, updated on a quarterly basis; agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and performance updates; and an inventory of all federal programs. For more information, see GAO, Managing for Results: Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued Development of Performance.gov, GAO- 13-517 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2013). must also designate a goal leader, who is responsible for achieving the goal. Federal program inventory: GPRAMA requires OMB to compile and make publicly available a list of all federal programs, and to include the purposes of each program, how it contributes to the agency’s mission and goals, and recent funding information. Data-driven performance reviews: GPRAMA requires data-driven performance reviews at the federal level with a provision that federal agencies conduct quarterly performance reviews on progress toward their agency priority goals. Specifically, agencies are required to assess how relevant programs and activities contribute to achieving agency priority goals; categorize goals by their risk of not being achieved; and for those at risk, identify strategies to improve performance. GPRAMA also specified that the reviews must occur on at least a quarterly basis and involve key leadership and other relevant parties both within and outside the agency. Strategic reviews: OMB’s 2013 guidance directs agencies to conduct annual strategic reviews of progress toward strategic objectives to inform their decision making, beginning in 2014. Agency leaders are responsible for assessing progress on each strategic objective established in the agency strategic plan, including mission, as well as management or crosscutting objectives. Among other things, the reviews are intended to strengthen collaboration on crosscutting issues by identifying and addressing crosscutting challenges or fragmentation. Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms Outcomes Have short-term and long-term outcomes been clearly defined? Started group with most directly affected participants and gradually broadened to others. Conducted early outreach to participants and stakeholders to identify shared interests. Held early in-person meetings to build relationships and trust. Identified early wins for the group to accomplish. represented the collective interests of participants. Developed a plan to communicate outcomes and track progress. Revisited outcomes and refreshed interagency group. Establishing shared outcomes and goals that resonate with, and are agreed upon by all participants, is essential to achieving outcomes in interagency groups, but can also be challenging. Participants each bring different views, organizational cultures, missions, and ways of operating. They may even disagree on the nature of the problem or issue being addressed. We identified a number of challenges in our prior work that interagency groups face when attempting to develop shared goals, including building a coalition of key federal participants, agreeing on the nature of a crosscutting issue, establishing mutually agreed-upon outcomes or objectives, and incorporating outcomes into strategic plans or implementation plans, among others. Furthermore, agency officials involved in several of the interagency groups we reviewed cautioned that if agencies don’t have a vested interest in the outcomes, and if outcomes are not aligned with agency objectives, participant agencies would not invest their limited time and resources. They told us that the process of developing shared or group outcomes takes time, requires building relationships, and creating trust. The following approaches were used by agency officials to avoid or address these challenges. We found that three of the four interagency groups we reviewed were started with a smaller group of key participants. Several expert practitioners we spoke with emphasized the importance of ensuring initial participation from agencies that have significant responsibility or interest in a crosscutting issue area. Officials reported that these early interactions helped to establish initial momentum and a vision for subsequent collaborative efforts. Over time, this smaller group of participants added agencies that had a more targeted commitment in the group’s activities and outcomes. For example, prior to the formation of the Reentry Council, a core group of agencies with considerable involvement in reentry issues and programs met to discuss their common interests and the possibility of further coordinating their efforts. According to one official we spoke with, these agencies included the Departments of Labor, Justice, Veterans Affairs, Education, Housing and Urban Development, and Health and Human Services. Following a number of early interactions, and meetings between officials from these agencies, interest grew for a more formal and coordinated approach to advance effective reentry policies. Subsequently, the U.S. Attorney General convened the Reentry Council in January 2011. Over time, interest has more than doubled to include 20 federal agencies. Agency officials in all four interagency groups we reviewed and a number of expert practitioners emphasized the importance of reaching out to potential participants and identifying shared interests. While the interagency groups we reviewed benefitted from starting with a smaller group of participants, our past work found that if collaborative efforts do not consider the input of all relevant stakeholders, important opportunities for achieving outcomes may be missed. Officials reported that shared interests are the driving force for collaborative efforts, and collecting early input from participants was necessary to determine whether interagency collaboration would be mutually beneficial. In some cases, agency officials agreed on the nature of an issue. However in other cases, officials held conflicting perspectives. To overcome conflicting perspectives, participants of interagency groups conducted outreach to stakeholders to build reasonable agreement. In one instance, USICH conducted extensive outreach to participants and stakeholders prior to developing shared interagency outcomes and a national strategic plan in 2010. Specifically, USICH’s outreach activities included feedback collected from workgroups composed of federal officials, expert practitioner panels, input from more than 750 leaders at regional stakeholder forums, focus groups, congressional staff, consumer advisory boards, and written comments from thousands of community experts and individuals. According to documents that outlined the process for gathering stakeholder input and interviews with officials that participate in USICH, this input helped to inform the plan’s priorities and strategies. In addition, participants reported that it was essential to develop a practical and evidence-based plan with on-the-ground solutions that have widespread support. Furthermore, agency officials from HUD, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), HHS and Department of Labor (Labor), each reported that they are committed to the national strategic plan on homelessness and believe it reflects their own agency’s objectives and interests. Three of the interagency groups we examined and both expert practitioner panels stressed the importance of holding in-person meetings during the early stages of an interagency group. They each noted that personal interactions contributed to relationship-building, which formed the foundation for all subsequent activities and helped to break down silos. These meetings also enabled officials to learn about individual perspectives and aided in the transfer of knowledge between participating agencies. In addition, officials reported that in-person interactions helped build trust and strengthen professional networks. In our past work, we found that trust is an essential element to collaborative relationships. We also previously found that positive working relationships between participants from different agencies bridge organizational cultures. These relationships build trust and foster communication, which facilitates collaboration. Other officials we spoke with emphasized the importance of building trust on an individual basis with officials from participating agencies with related policy and program responsibilities. The purpose and activities for these in-person meetings varied and included planning, negotiating agreements, and information sharing, among others. For example, participants of the Rental Policy Working Group said that when they began working together, they spent several months building relationships and understanding each agency’s rental housing programs, policies, and efforts. One expert practitioner told us that in-person meetings were essential for the Southeast Environmental Partnership for Planning and Sustainability to negotiate an agreement on environmentally acceptable procedures for controlled burns. Controlled burns, sometimes called prescribed burns, refer to the process of setting fires under controlled conditions. Initially, partnership participants had a very different view of controlled burns as an environmental activity. Officials from the Environmental Protection Agency focused on controlled burns as a contributor to air pollution, whereas officials from other federal and state agencies that conduct controlled burns, such as the Departments of the Interior, Agriculture, and Defense, viewed it as an important activity to sustain and manage land. Over time, officials from these agencies began to gain a better understanding of each other’s perspectives by meeting face-to-face. This interaction built trust and allowed them to reach common ground. Ultimately, the officials who conducted controlled burns for preservation of landscape ecologies adopted methods to minimize the environmental effects of these burns. Meanwhile, officials responsible for regulating air pollution gained a better appreciation for the value of fire in ecological restoration and preservation. A number of agency officials and expert practitioners recommended that newly formed interagency groups identify and pursue “early wins” as an approach to build momentum and develop positive working relationships between group participants. According to officials, “early wins” should be practical and achievable projects that can be completed in the short-term. We were told that early wins allowed officials to establish relationships with their counterparts in other agencies and enabled teams to practice working together. This approach is consistent with our prior work that identified key practices from select efficiency initiatives, which highlighted the importance of identifying easily accomplished initiatives that can generate immediate returns to gain momentum for efficiency improvements. Early wins had a secondary benefit of demonstrating the benefits of collaboration. Officials from the groups reported that achieving early wins, allowed participants to build upon recent experiences, working relationships, improved knowledge of related programs, and team structures that had been established to coordinate group activities. Participants of the Reentry Council’s staff-level working group initially employed an approach to identify “low hanging fruit” and intentionally sought early successes to build support and momentum. According to these officials, these early wins kept participants engaged and involved. For example, after forming the Reentry Council, participants agreed to participate in a “myth busting” campaign to address common misconceptions and dispel myths associated with the reentry population. According to Department of Justice (DOJ) officials, the “myth busting” campaign was implemented within existing authorities and received widespread support among participant agencies. As part of the campaign, the Council and its subcommittees developed short one or two-page whitepapers that clarified government policies, rules, and regulations related to formerly incarcerated individuals, and distributed them to stakeholders at the federal, state, and local levels. In one instance, the myth buster noted that there is a misconception that housing assistance from public housing authorities (PHA) is not generally allowable for formerly incarcerated individuals who qualify under federal guidelines (see figure 2). According to DOJ officials, a number of local housing authorities—such as New York City and New Orleans, Louisiana—have since reconsidered admissions policies for formerly incarcerated individuals. In another example of a quick win, Reentry Council member agencies developed new policies that enhanced their ability to meet the needs of the reentry population. Specifically, DOJ officials told us that VA had previously not been permitted to conduct outreach to incarcerated veterans until six months prior to their release. According to Reentry Council documents, VA revised its administrative policy that limited prison outreach. According to these documents, the revised policy allows for assessment and release planning with incarcerated veterans earlier than six months before release, thus enhancing the odds of successful reentry to society. Agency officials in two of the groups we reviewed described a process for developing goals that represented the collective interests of participants, and articulating goals a high enough level that participants could reach agreement, but with enough specificity that participants felt they had a stake in the group’s goals. For example, an official from the Reentry Council’s staff-level working group told us that they developed six goals that were intentionally crafted at a high level to attract widespread support from participating agencies. Although broad, the goals were also focused on important issue areas and challenges that participating agencies expressed interest in addressing. The group goals included: promoting statutory, policy, and practice changes to reduce crime and identifying research- and evidence-based practices; identifying opportunities and barriers to improve outcomes; improve the well-being of formerly incarcerated people; supporting initiatives in the areas of education, employment, health, housing, faith-based reentry services, drug treatment, and family and community well-being; leveraging resources across agencies; and, coordinating messaging and communication about prisoner reentry. Agency officials we spoke with said that these goals had not changed since being adopted in 2011, and are likely to remain relevant into the future. To represent the collective interests of its participants, USICH has a policy to reach agreement among its members to ensure that all views are heard. As noted above, USICH is composed of the heads (or their designee) of 19 federal agencies. All 19 agencies have equal votes in any decisions brought before the group. USICH worked through its Council Policy Group to develop strategic interagency opportunities, built consensus, and laid the groundwork for the decisions brought before the leadership. We observed this process take place in June 2012 when USICH was considering revisions to objectives in its strategic plan. All of the interagency groups we examined had developed formal plans or strategies that included outcomes, objectives, and descriptions of the group. We have previously reported on the importance of reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts through agency plans and reports. Our prior work found that agencies that articulate their agreements in formal documents can strengthen their commitment to working collaboratively. The DOD and Education MOU Working Group developed a strategic plan to track its progress toward objectives, actions, and measurable outcomes that fulfilled the intention of their interagency agreement. Specifically, the strategic plan was aligned to focus on areas identified in the MOU, including expanding the quality of educational opportunities for military-dependent students, overcoming challenges military-dependent students face due to transitions or deployments, collaborative use of data, and increasing awareness of relevant education-related issues. The working group’s strategic plan describes the areas of mutual interest, and outlines specific objectives within these areas of interest that promote greater collaboration and improve the education of children of military families. For example, one objective calls for increasing awareness of education-related issues for military dependent children. The strategic plan provides related action items, such as development of a joint strategic communication plan, and subtasks with measurable outcomes, target audiences, and individual agency leads to promote accountability. DOD and Education officials told us that the strategic plan helped them examine and prioritize their areas of collaboration to plan for future efforts, and reflect on the extent to which they are meeting the original intent of the MOU. Several expert practitioners emphasized that interagency groups should periodically revisit their outcomes, and ensure that their work is aligned with current needs. In past work, we have discussed the importance of sustainability of group leadership. However, several expert practitioners noted that the group’s duration should be dictated by the nature of the outcome. In fact, the expert practitioners added that, to stay productive, many groups need to refresh their focus. If groups are not able to agree to a clear outcome, one expert practitioner noted that the group may decide to cease operating entirely. In some cases, interagency groups achieve their outcomes and can cease to meet or change focus. In other cases, expert practitioners told us that the focus of some groups changed over time and needed to be refreshed or given a new focus for the group to continue. In the instance of the MOU Working Group, in May 2010—which was two years after the working group was formed—the President announced that an Interagency Policy Committee on Education would develop a new study directive to strengthen military families. This directive included outcomes to ensure excellence in military children’s education and their development, which included: Reducing negative impacts of frequent relocations and absences; and Encouraging the healthy development of military children. Improving the quality of the educational experience; These outcomes were directly related to the work of the DOD and Education MOU Working Group, which focused on improving educational outcomes for children from military families, according to DOD and Education officials. According to senior Education officials, the directive led Education to place an even greater priority on its collaborative efforts with DOD, and built upon the MOU Working Group’s strategic plan and related initiatives. The study directive provided another framework under which DOD and Education have worked together to improve the quality of education for military dependent children. DOD officials told us that, over the past two years, they have refocused on a number of new goals and emerging issues of importance. In one instance, the department has moved to focus on charter schools, with an emphasis on those in military instillations, and with high concentrations of military dependent students. Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms Accountability Is there a way to track and monitor progress? Developed performance measures and Do participating agencies have tied them to shared outcomes. Identified and shared relevant agency performance data. collaboration-related competencies or performance standards against which individual performance can be evaluated? Developed methods to report on the group’s progress that are open and transparent. Incorporated interagency group activities into individual performance expectations. Agencies in all of the groups we reviewed developed performance measures—or other approaches to track contributions—within their own agencies that related to the outcomes of the interagency group. However, officials explained that within interagency efforts, the commitment of individual agencies varied. This difference in commitment is reflected in the prominence of interagency group activities in the agency’s performance measures. For example, some goals of the national strategic plan on homelessness are reflected in the agency priority goals of HUD and VA. HUD and VA also have some shared performance measures. For example, the agencies have a goal related to the percent of chronically homeless veterans who are served by the HUD-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing program. This is a shared program between HUD and VA that combines housing choice voucher rental assistance for veterans experiencing homelessness provided by HUD with case management and clinical services provided by VA. Through shared performance management, coordinated technical assistance, and communication to the field, the percentage of chronically homeless veterans served by this program increased by 49 percent in fiscal year 2009 to more than 65 percent in fiscal year 2013, according to USICH. In another instance, two agencies participating in the Reentry Council– DOJ and Labor–have developed internal agency outcomes and performance measures to track progress toward their shared outcomes. For example, DOJ has established an outcome to increase the number of inmate participants in its Residential Drug Abuse Program by 6 percent over four years from 18,500 to 19,920. In contrast, while HUD officials participate in the Reentry Council, the Reentry Council’s outcomes are not explicitly included in the agency’s strategic plans. Nevertheless, the agency officials said to us that their participation in the Reentry Council aligned with HUD’s Strategic Plan, Goal 3, which focuses on utilizing housing as a platform for improving quality of life. In our June 2013 report on the initial implementation of GPRAMA, we found that performance information can be used across a range of management functions to improve results, from setting program priorities and allocating resources, to taking corrective action to solve program problems. Moreover, we found that, if agencies do not use performance measures and performance information to track progress toward outcomes, they may be at risk of failing to achieve their outcomes. We have found this practice also holds true for efforts between federal agencies. To develop performance measures, one interagency group helped participants by creating a number of guides and toolkits to assist federal officials and stakeholders in measuring the performance of their efforts. Specifically, HUD developed and shared resources on performance measurement related to homelessness with participants from USICH. These resources both provided training on developing performance measures, and identified available HUD data sources, which agencies could use when creating performance measures. USICH and HUD officials told us that within interagency groups, it was necessary to agree on common data sources that will be used to track performance. For example, USICH and its participants have agreed to use HUD’s point-in-time count, which provides a snapshot of the number of people experiencing homelessness on a given night in America. According to the point-in-time counts, the total number of people identified as experiencing homelessness on a single night declined by 9.2 percent, or from about 672,000 in 2007 to about 610,000 in 2013. Reaching agreement on a common data source for tracking homelessness was a challenging process because it required agencies to agree to common definitions of homelessness, and the methodology for collecting the data, which had been a long-standing problem. Identifying and collecting timely data is necessary to track and review performance over time. In our prior work on the use of data-driven performance reviews, we found that agencies should look for opportunities to leverage data produced by other agency components or outside entities. We also found that agreeing on common definitions is one way to bridge organizational cultures. USICH also leveraged additional useful data sources from participating agencies. In one instance, the development and implementation of HUD’s Homeless Management Information Systems provided counts of the total number of people who use emergency shelters or transitional housing programs during the course of a year. According to documents from USICH, these data allow USICH and its stakeholders to track lengths of stay in shelters, service use patterns, and flow in and out of the system. Based on these data, USICH learned that the annual estimate of individuals using shelter decreased by about 5 percent between 2007 and 2013 from 213,000 to 203,000 people, whereas, the number of persons in families using shelters has increased by about 7 percent from about 178,000 to about 192,000 people during that period. Officials from all four groups we reviewed and expert practitioners stressed the importance of developing processes to regularly report the progress of the group. Performance reporting happened in a variety of ways, including posting information on websites, public reporting in meetings, and developing written reports for Congress. Each of the groups we reviewed had different levels of transparency and their approaches for reporting mirrored this transparency. For example, USICH regularly posts progress reports on its website and provides an annual report to Congress. In the case of the Reentry Council, agencies provided written updates on their progress on specific initiatives, which were circulated among the group participants. Highlights from these written updates were also circulated through press releases. Furthermore, the Reentry Council posted information to a website, which described issues the group is addressing, summarized accomplishments to date, laid out priorities moving forward, and pointed to key resources and links. Both the MOU Working Group and the Rental Policy Working Group circulated updates through measures such as written reports to the White House and updates at group meetings. At various times, the Rental Policy Working Group shared progress through the Office of Urban Affairs’ Blog, which is posted on the website for the Executive Office of the President. We have previously reported about the importance of publicly reporting performance information as a tool for accountability. Senior agency officials from three of the groups we examined told us that the activities and outcomes of the interagency group they participated in are reflected in their individual performance contracts. In some cases, individuals told us that the interagency group was explicitly named in the performance contract. In other cases, individuals told us that the work of the interagency group was aligned with the policy areas named in their performance contract. For example, staff from participating agencies explicitly included performance expectations for collaboration with the Reentry Council within their performance expectations and rating standards. As such, a satisfactory performance rating for these individuals is contingent upon collaboration with the group. The agency’s performance management system also tracked individual contributions toward the Reentry Council, as well as participation in group meetings and activities. An explicit alignment of daily activities with broader results helps individuals see the connection between their daily activities and organizational goals and encourages individuals to focus on achieving goals, as we found in a 2003 report. Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms Leadership Has a lead agency or individual been Designated group leaders exhibited identified? If leadership will be shared between one or more agencies, have roles and responsibilities been clearly identified and agreed upon? collaboration competencies. Ensured participation from high-level leaders in regular, in-person group meetings and activities. Rotated key tasks and responsibilities when leadership of the group was shared. Established clear and inclusive procedures for leading the group during initial meetings. for group activities among participants. Expert practitioners and agency officials we interviewed told us that the designated leaders of interagency groups that they had been involved with exhibited the following five competencies: worked well with people, communicated openly with a range of stakeholders, built and maintained relationships, understood other points of view, and set a vision for the group. These competencies are also discussed by scholars in the literature we reviewed. Worked well with people: A few expert practitioners told us that effective interagency leaders possessed “soft skills,” “people skills,” or “interpersonal skills.” One expert practitioner told us that effective interagency group leaders did not have to be extroverted, but they had to be able to work well with people. Another expert practitioner told us that the leader needed to talk in person with stakeholders rather than managing or interacting remotely. This competency is consistent with how some scholars have discussed the importance of collaborative leaders possessing interpersonal skills. For example, one scholar noted that collaborative leaders must be attuned to the needs and motivations of others to lead collaborative efforts. Communicated openly with a range of stakeholders: A few expert practitioners told us that effective interagency group leaders had open communications with a range of stakeholders. One expert practitioner told us that it was important that the interagency group he led had an open and honest discussion with key stakeholders (in this case state and local officials) before attempting to resolve an issue to recognize those officials’ concerns. Another expert practitioner told us the leader needed to be able to communicate openly with the group’s members about how they would benefit from the collaboration, and why they were important to the collaboration. Some scholars have also noted that it is important for collaborative leaders to possess good communication skills. According to one scholar, research has shown that, if communications are open and free, then stakeholders would feel more comfortable in establishing longer-term working relationships and collaboration on other projects. Built and maintained relationships: A few expert practitioners and agency officials stressed that the interagency group leader’s ability to build and maintain relationships was critical to interagency collaboration. According to one expert practitioner, it was important to form personal and trusting relationships so that the group had a basis for open and candid communication when difficulties arose. Another expert practitioner said that building relationships helped individuals know who to contact at other organizations involved in the collaboration. Some scholars have noted that it is important for collaborative leaders to build effecting working relationships. One study noted that it is the job of the leader to help increase trust by building working relationships and creating incentives for those in the collaboration. Understood other viewpoints: A few expert practitioners told us that effective interagency leaders had the ability to draw out, understand, and value other viewpoints. According to one expert practitioner, the best interagency leaders had the ability to understand others, especially those with other viewpoints. The expert practitioner added that this skill helps stakeholders build trust. This competency is consistent with how some scholars have discussed the need for collaborative leaders to elicit other points of view. According to one study, scholarly research has shown that leaders use this approach to repeatedly elicit ideas and build integrative solutions, to break down cultural barriers, to de-escalate conflict, and to provide feedback to the group that heightens its performance. Set a vision for the group: An expert practitioner and agency officials told us that it was important for interagency leaders to set the strategic vision for the group. According to agency officials, interagency group leaders needed to have both the subject matter expertise to understand what the interagency group could accomplish, while also working with the group’s participants to collaboratively determine the vision. Some scholars have reported on the need for collaborative leaders to build a common vision. For example, one study noted that the successful collaborator is a skilled visionary who has the ability to see the big picture, and who thinks strategically, developing goals and the structures, inputs, and actions needed to achieve them. The five competencies above are broadly consistent with the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) executive core qualifications (ECQs). OPM identified five ECQs for federal Senior Executive Service officials that assess executive experience and potential, and measure whether an individual has the broad executive skills needed to succeed in a variety of Senior Executive Service positions. OPM defines one of the ECQs as the ability to build coalitions internally with other federal agencies, sectors, and levels of government to achieve common outcomes. The competencies that are included in the ECQ for building coalitions and their definitions are included in table 1 below. In a January 2012 memorandum, OPM included partnering, political savvy, and influencing/negotiating in its list of the core or supplemental competencies for two leadership positions required under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. Those leadership positions are the Agency Priority Goal Leaders and the agency Performance Improvement Officers. Moreover, OPM’s memorandum includes other supplemental competencies related to collaboration—such as interpersonal skills for, among other things, developing and maintaining effective relationships with others. Rotational assignment programs are work assignments at a different agency from the one in which the participant is normally employed, with an explicit professional development purpose. communication and teamwork, and establish networks with their civilian counterparts. High-level leaders, such as Cabinet Secretaries (or agency heads), provided attention and support to each interagency group we reviewed by frequently attending meetings in-person, participating in a range of the groups’ activities, or both. Moreover, membership of three of the four interagency groups we reviewed included high-level officials from the Executive Office of the President, signaling that there was Presidential support for implementing the group’s initiatives. In our September 2012 report on interagency collaborative mechanisms, we found that the influence of leadership can be strengthened by a direct relationship with the President, Congress, other high-level officials, or all of these officials.involving high-level leaders because those leaders helped recruit key participants and made policy-related decisions requiring a high-level of authority. In one instance, officials told us that individuals were more likely to attend meetings because of the opportunity to interact with or brief high-level officials. Cabinet Secretaries (or agency heads), frequently attended in-person the meetings of two of the four interagency groups we reviewed. For instance, Cabinet Secretaries frequently attended USICH meetings in-person, and USICH’s leadership has rotated among the Secretaries of HUD, HHS, VA, and Labor since its formation. An HHS official said that, beginning in 2009, USICH leadership set a goal to have at least three Cabinet Secretaries attend each meeting. Officials from USICH told us in May 2013 that USICH had consistently met this goal. Officials told us that their interagency groups benefitted from A few expert practitioners and agency officials told us that high-level leaders publicly reported progress of group initiatives to their peers at group meetings. This practice is consistent with how we have discussed the use of data-driven performance reviews as a leadership strategy to drive performance improvement of federal agencies. In our February 2013 report on data-driven performance reviews, we found that attendance of high-level leaders fosters ownership and helps ensure participants take the reviews seriously and that decisions and commitments can be made. During a recent Reentry Council meeting, chaired by the Attorney General, a representative from each participant agency reported on his or her agency’s commitment to the Reentry Council’s efforts and progress made supporting innovative reentry policies or programs. According to agency officials, agency leaders were aware of their interagency commitments and responsibility for regularly briefing their counterparts at other federal agencies. The agency officials noted that this regular peer reporting created a strong incentive for agency leaders to keep informed of the progress made throughout the year, and to set expectations with group participants and other staff. Furthermore, a few expert practitioners and agency officials told us that this senior-level involvement created a cascading level of accountability and commitment within individual agencies because agency staff reported to their senior leadership on their progress towards interagency outcomes. High-level leaders participated in a range of activities for each interagency group we reviewed, such as speaking publicly about the group’s issues, visiting affected communities, and convening a White House conference with group participants and stakeholders. In addition to the public housing myth buster described earlier in this report, high-level HUD leaders conducted outreach to advance the Reentry Council’s agenda. Specifically, in 2011, the HUD Secretary and Deputy Secretary for Public and Indian Housing sent a letter to executive directors of public housing authorities (PHAs) to clarify misconceptions. Specifically, the letter explained current federal regulations and informed local PHAs that, in many circumstances, formerly incarcerated individuals should not be denied access to federally supported public housing. According to Reentry Council officials, the letter from HUD’s senior leaders provided important leadership commitment to the field on an issue that is perceived as a major barrier to reentry. Leadership of two of the groups that we reviewed—the DOD and Education MOU Working Group and USICH—is shared between two or more agencies. We previously found that agencies can convey their support for the collaborative effort by sharing leadership. However, in our prior work, we concluded that some agencies had difficulty implementing shared leadership of an interagency collaboration mechanism because it was unclear how the shared leadership model would work in practice. USICH has employed an approach for implementing its shared leadership model, which many of its participants told us has been beneficial. By law, USICH must elect a chair and vice-chair from among its members and rotate those positions among its members at the first meeting of each year. In practice, since the government-wide USICH’s strategic plan was published in 2010, the current vice-chair has always been elected as chair the following year. Moreover, USICH’s participants come from 19 departments and agencies, but at the time of this review, the chair and vice-chair have always come from four agencies—HUD, HHS, VA, and Labor—with significant homelessness programs. A HUD official who participates in USICH told us this leadership model provides continuity of federal agencies’ outcomes and strategies for reducing homelessness over time, and provides a longer-term perspective on important issues that will affect homelessness outcomes. VA officials told us that knowing in advance which agency will become the next chair enables the chair and co-chair to collaboratively establish short-term outcomes that have the buy-in of USICH’s members. Officials told us that both the VA and HUD Secretaries are approaching their current terms as equal co-chairs rather than chair and vice-chair to ensure both agencies buy-in to the Council’s outcomes and actions given the approaching deadline to complete USICH’s outcome to prevent and end veterans’ homelessness by 2015. 42 U.S.C. § 11312. official from the agency that hosted the meeting also served as the chair of the meeting. A DOD official told us that they used this approach because it provided a sense of ownership in the group’s activities. During initial meetings, participants of two of the four interagency groups we reviewed established procedures for leading the group, such as the frequency of meetings, protocols for communicating across agencies, whether group meetings will have an agenda, and whether stakeholders will take formal notes. We previously found that agencies bring diverse cultures to collaborative efforts, and it is important to address these differences to enable a cohesive working relationship and to create the mutual trust required to sustain the collaborative effort. In our prior work, we also found that it is important to establish ways to bridge organizational cultures, such as developing common terminology, compatible policies and procedures, and fostering open lines of communication. The MOU Working Group developed a communications protocol to provide a clear understanding of (1) the preferred methods of communicating, and (2) the chain-of-command protocol for communicating within the different levels of organizations within those agencies, including the military services. DOD officials told us it can be difficult for employees at civilian agencies, such as Education, to understand the terminology used by military officials as well as recognize officials’ ranks in the different military services. Among other things, the communications protocol defines a request for information and the information that should be included in such a request, including what type of information is needed, how and when it is needed, and the justification for the deadline. The communications protocol specifies that it is meant to guide the working relationships between DOD and Education, provide a common understanding of the best ways to communicate and collaborate, and that the communications protocol is not a rigid list of requirements that is appropriate for every situation. In each interagency group we reviewed, leadership responsibility for group activities was distributed among the different participant agencies. Moreover, the individual(s) with responsibilities for these activities were documented in the groups’ strategic plans, reports, or action plans. Officials said they distributed responsibility of activities among the group’s agencies and officials for various reasons, such as getting stakeholders to buy-in to the group’s objectives, keeping stakeholders engaged, and taking advantage of the individual expertise within the group. For example, a DOJ official who co-chairs the Reentry Council’s staff- level working group said that it intentionally distributed leadership of the subcommittees, in part, to disburse responsibility more broadly throughout the federal government and to allow for interaction and participation of a greater number of stakeholders. Reentry Council staff- level working group participants from VA, HUD, and HHS agreed that distributing leadership of subcommittees was an effective approach. An HHS official said this approach has allowed the subcommittees to be staffed by a broader group of participants from within the agencies. Moreover, VA officials told us that some agencies were a natural fit to lead certain subcommittees. In one instance, VA officials said it made sense for HHS to lead the subcommittee on health care because, among other things, HHS officials have the technical expertise to fulfill many of the subcommittees’ objectives. In addition to distributing leadership responsibility across the participating agencies, high-level agency officials and subject-matter experts from the different member agencies participate in different sub-groups that support USICH and the Reentry Council. Membership of USICH and the Reentry Council is largely composed of cabinet-level officials who meet regularly but infrequently to discuss a range of topics, such as the path of work to be completed or progress made on group initiatives. In addition to those meetings, the Reentry Council and USICH are supported by a sub-group of high-level agency officials who, among other things, prepare recommendations for consideration at Reentry Council and USICH meetings. Moreover, both groups sometimes convene working groups composed of subject-matter experts to work on specific program-level initiatives and tasks. Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms Resources How will the collaborative mechanism Created an inventory of resources be funded? If interagency funding is needed, is it permitted? How will the collaborative mechanism be staffed? developed online tools or other resources that facilitate joint interactions? dedicated towards interagency outcomes. Leveraged related agency resources toward the group’s outcomes. Pilot tested new collaborative ideas, programs, or policies before investing resources. Agency officials from all four of the interagency groups we reviewed, and OMB staff told us that agencies generally do not receive specific funding for interagency activities. interagency group had available, two of the interagency groups developed a detailed inventory of programs and authorities that related to the outcomes of the interagency group. According to officials, the inventories that each of the groups developed were intended to help the group better understand the full range of federal programs and resources devoted to government-wide outcomes or initiatives. For example, officials told us the Rental Policy Working Group developed an inventory of government programs that were related to each of the group’s 10 rental alignment proposals. The inventory was based on information from federal, state, and local government officials as well as housing developers and managers and included relevant regulations, statutes, and policies. Additionally, the inventory was used to promote To understand the resources that the understanding of government-wide rental programs, and according to officials, was useful in making decisions about the coordination of related programs across agency lines and between levels of government. An inventory of relevant resources can also be used to identify the range of federal spending on an issue, which can result in more coordinated spending. In fiscal year 2011, DOJ, Labor, and HHS separately administered reentry grant programs. The Attorney General convened the Reentry Council, in part, to coordinate agencies’ reentry efforts to further prevent unnecessary duplication and share promising practices. Participants of the Reentry Council told us they developed an inventory of federal resources that are used to assess where resources are targeted to enable federal and local stakeholders to leverage these investments. To develop this inventory, participants of the Reentry Council created a spreadsheet that listed relevant funding streams and resources from their agencies that were dedicated to reentry programs. The inventory identified the amount of funding, the intended purpose, and jurisdictions associated with resources. The information from this inventory is available in an online resource with an interactive map of reentry resources across the United States. Officials we spoke with said this type of inventory can also help communicate some of the differences between agency organizational cultures, capabilities of agencies to control spending, and array of program tools being used to achieve mission objectives. For example, in the instance of USICH, agency officials reported that their agencies often had different policy and program tools, such as grants, at their disposal. Accordingly, in the early days of the Council, participants from the different agencies needed to understand the different purposes and requirements of the policy and program tools that each agency could bring to the table. In the case of HHS, homeless individuals may be eligible for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program. But, since TANF is administered by the states, HHS cannot require states to use those grant funds for certain purposes. HHS officials told us that HHS’s Administration for Children and Families sent out an informational memorandum informing community-based organizations that they can spend TANF grant funds on homeless individuals. Officials from USICH told us that this memo sent a powerful message to the field about the opportunity of TANF agencies to engage in state and local efforts to end homelessness, and strategic steps they can take that are within their authority. HHS officials also noted that, given the nature of the program, they cannot require TANF funds to be dedicated to any specific group, including those experiencing homelessness. According to HHS officials, the nature of TANF funds can sometimes present a challenge to working across agency cultures because partners may expect that HHS can target funds more directly toward homeless individuals than they can. In contrast, the VA directly provides services to homeless individuals through medical centers. Therefore, it has more direct control over the specific homelessness outcomes that USICH is trying achieve. Officials from USICH told us their role is to facilitate a broad understanding of the policy and program tools that each member agency brings to the table. Our annual reports on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication have highlighted the challenges associated with the lack of a comprehensive list of federal programs and funding information. We have found that a first step in identifying potential fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among federal programs or activities involves creating a comprehensive list of programs along with related funding information. Currently, no comprehensive list exists, nor is there a common definition for what constitutes a federal “program.” In our prior work, we found that the lack of a common definition for a program makes it difficult to develop a comprehensive list of all federal programs. The lack of a list, in turn, makes it difficult to determine the scope of the federal government’s involvement in particular areas and, therefore, where action is needed to avoid fragmentation, overlap, or duplication. We also found that federal budget information is often unavailable or insufficiently reliable to identify the level of funding provided to programs or activities. For example, agencies could not isolate budgetary information for some programs because the data were aggregated at higher levels. Without knowing the full range of programs involved or the cost of implementing them, gauging the magnitude of the federal commitment to a particular area of activity, or the extent to which associated federal programs are duplicative is difficult. To help address these challenges, GPRAMA requires the Director of OMB to compile and make publicly available a comprehensive list of all federal programs, and to include the purposes of each program, how it contributes to the agency’s mission and goals, as well as recent funding information. In May 2013, OMB published program inventories developed by 24 agencies. We will report on these inventories later this year. Officials who participate in the Reentry Council told us that they identified the range of resources dedicated to the crosscutting issue, and looked for ways to leverage existing activities, tools, or programs that can benefit the interagency group. By assessing their relative strengths and limitations, collaborating agencies looked for opportunities to leverage each others’ resources, thus obtaining additional benefits that would be unavailable if they were working separately. In the case of the Reentry Council, it used two technological resources to share information. For external information sharing, information about the Council is available on an existing website of the National Reentry Resource Center that is funded in part through DOJ’s Second Chance Act grant program. website that was entirely dedicated to reentry issues. Therefore, it made sense to put the Reentry Council’s information on that website. The Second Chance Act of 2007 authorized grant funding for the establishment of a reentry resource center to, among other things, provide education, training, and technical assistance for States, tribes, territories, local governments, service providers, nonprofit organizations, and corrections institutions and disseminate best practice information to states and other relevant entities. See, Pub. L. No. 110-199, § 101(c)(2),122 Stat. 657, 666-667 (2008) (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 3797w(m). documents on MAX is given on a page-by-page basis, which allows interagency groups to control access as needed. Some groups involved with more sensitive policy development have decided to have a closed group where only specific individuals have access. Interagency groups we reviewed also leveraged the expertise of other agency officials to improve their programs and spending. Several agencies—including HHS, DOJ, and Labor—used the Reentry Council to identify individuals from other agencies to provide input into the grants programs that they administer. In one instance, as part of their work on the Reentry Council, Labor officials developed “Face Forward” grants, which were designed to give youth a chance at success by offering support services, training, and skills development that can help them obtain employment and overcome the stigma of a juvenile record. They included officials from DOJ who helped Labor officials score the grant applications and decide which grants would receive funding. Labor staff members said that this relationship helped them to spend the funds in a more strategic manner because they had additional information on the topic. To solicit this participation from DOJ staff, Labor staff members identified the specific time commitment and expertise that they needed from the DOJ staff. They provided this list of commitments to a DOJ official who co-chairs the Reentry Council’s staff-level working group. The DOJ official was then able to recruit the appropriate officials from DOJ. Given limited resources, interagency groups we reviewed pilot-tested selected ideas, programs, or policies before investing more extensive resources into implementation. Through pilot testing, groups were able to allow time to identify unanticipated consequences, implementation challenges, or to gather information on program effectiveness. In the case of the Rental Policy Working Group, in November 2011, USDA, HUD, and Treasury worked with their housing finance agency counterparts at the state level in Wisconsin, Michigan, Washington, Minnesota, Oregon, and Ohio to eliminate duplicative physical inspections of rental housing subsidized through more than one public funding source. A second round of this initial pilot was conducted in 2013 with the same states participating. The purpose of the second round was to address issues that arose during the first pilot. Specifically, this pilot worked to ensure that (1) all of the inspections could be completed in a timely manner, and (2) all of the inspection reports were shared with all relevant parties in a timely manner. The 2013 pilot achieved both of these goals, and HUD reports that as a result, the Rental Policy Working Group avoided 120 duplicative inspections across six states. The Rental Policy Working Group plans to expand this pilot in 2014 by adding an additional 25 states. In another instance, USICH noted that it focuses on implementing strategies it has found to be effective at reducing or ending homelessness. It shared that innovative program models can begin as pilots and use evidence of savings to make the case for sustainability and expansion. Specifically, the Community Support Program for People Experiencing Chronic Homelessness in Massachusetts provides non- clinical support services to adults who are experiencing chronic homelessness so that they can be permanently housed in the community, and prevent avoidable hospitalizations. Initially, this program began as a pilot program with a cap on enrollment. This approach allowed the partners to launch the program and establish new partnerships, service models, and payment mechanisms. When the pilot program demonstrated results, including savings associated with reductions in hospitalizations, it was sustained and the enrollment cap was lifted. We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the heads of the nine key agencies that participated in the four interagency groups that we reviewed for this study. These included the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Labor, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. We also shared a draft of this report for review and comment with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Executive Director of the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH). The Departments of Defense, Education, Labor and USICH had no comments on the report. We received technical comments from the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Treasury, and Veteran Affairs, as well as OMB, which we incorporated as appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V. This report is part of a series of reports under our mandate in GPRAMA to periodically examine how agencies are implementing the law. The objectives of this report are to examine how select interagency groups (such as task forces, working groups, councils, and committees): 1) defined their missions and desired outcomes; 2) measured performance and ensured accountability 3) established leadership approaches; and 4) used resources, such as funding, staff and technology. Following issuance of our 2012 report on interagency collaboration, we continued our work to identify the most commonly implemented mechanism for collaboration, from the list of mechanisms (listed in appendix III). Accordingly, this report focuses on one of these mechanisms—interagency groups—(also referred to as councils, committees, task forces, and working groups), because they were the most commonly cited interagency mechanism in our sample of GAO reports on collaboration published from January 2005 through February 2013. After narrowing our scope to focus on interagency groups, we conducted an analysis to determine the most common challenges that interagency groups face when collaborating. To identify the most common challenges, we reviewed a sample of GAO reports on collaboration, which were issued from January 2005 through February 2013. We also reviewed relevant recommendations from our prior work directed at interagency groups. We organized the challenges that these reports identified into the key issues from our 2012 report and found that the most common challenges that interagency groups experienced fell under the key features of: Outcomes Accountability Leadership Resources To identify implementation approaches that agencies have used to address or avoid these challenges, we identified a limited number of interagency groups from our prior work that have addressed or avoided one or more of these challenges. To identify interagency groups that have addressed one or more collaboration-related challenges, we examined our sample of reports, including areas that we previously identified as being at risk for fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; high-risk; crosscutting federal priority goals under GPRAMA; and prior recommendations, to identify groups that addressed, or partially addressed, these challenges. Based on a review of our prior work, we identified potential interagency groups that exhibited some of the practices to enhance and sustain collaboration. We then narrowed the list of interagency groups to four groups that represented a balanced and diverse set of characteristics, such as the number of participating agencies, duration, creation vehicle (for example, through laws, etc.), and groups with both voluntary and mandated participation. Our final selection of interagency groups includes the following: Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Education (Education) Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Working Group Federal Interagency Reentry Council (Reentry Council) Rental Policy Working Group U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness (USICH) To arrive at a subset of agencies to interview about their participation in the selected groups, we selected the lead agency, entity, or agencies from each group. We also interviewed agencies that we determined to be key contributors. We interviewed officials from the following entities: Office of Management and Budget; U.S. Department of Agriculture; Department of Defense; Department of Education; Department of Health and Human Services; Department of Housing and Urban Development; Department of Justice; Department of Labor; Department of the Treasury; Department of Veterans Affairs; USICH; and the Domestic Policy Council in the Executive Offices of the President. During these interviews, we asked working group members about the implementation approaches that they had employed to establish and enhance outcomes, accountability, leadership, and resources. We did not interview all contributors to all interagency groups. For interagency groups with three or fewer federal agency participants, we interviewed officials from all participant agencies. We also observed a Reentry Council event and a USICH meeting to identify potential implementation approaches. In addition, to identify collaborative leadership competencies, we reviewed relevant academic literature and relevant reports. In addition to the illustrative examples described above, we hosted two expert practitioner panels, in coordination with the Senior Executive Association, to identify and discuss useful practices and lessons for implementing interagency groups. We selected panelists that were recipients of the Presidential Distinguished Rank Award in 2011 or 2012 and that had experience leading or participating in interagency groups. We invited these panelists to share their perspectives on interagency groups; we did not ask them to speak on behalf of the federal agencies or organizations that these participants represent or represented. Of the expert practitioners listed below seven practitioners participated in two small group panels and we conducted individual interviews with the other four. The following expert practitioners participated in our panels and interviews: Charles A. Casto, Retired Regional Administrator, Region III, U.S. Dr. John Clifford, Chief Veterinary Officer and Deputy Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture William J. Fleming, Retired Deputy Chief Human Capital Officer and Director for Human Resources Management, U.S. Department of Commerce James D. Giattina, Director of the Water Protection Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Rowan Gould, Deputy Director for Operations, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior Lana T. Hurdle, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs, U.S. Department of Transportation Michael W. Lowder, Director, Office of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, U.S. Department of Transportation Dr. Alexander E. MacDonald, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Laboratories and Cooperative Institutes and Director, Earth System Research Laboratory, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce Dr. A. Stanley Meiburg, Deputy Regional Administrator for Region 4, Craig H. Middlebrook, Deputy Administrator, Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation, U.S. Department of Transportation Thomas P. Skelly, Director, Budget Service, U.S. Department of Based on our interviews with interagency group participants and expert practitioner panelists, we identified and categorized recurring themes under each of the four considerations from our prior work and developed from these a set of approaches associated with each challenge. If more than one group had used the approach and found it to be effective, we included it in our list. If a limited number of groups experienced a specific challenge, but identified a way to address it, we noted this in the text. For example, only two interagency groups in our sample had a shared leadership model. While our examples were limited to two groups, this is a frequently cited challenge in our work, so we included the approach, but noted in the text that the finding was only supported by two groups we reviewed. We asked agency officials to review the examples for accuracy and incorporated their comments where appropriate. We did not independently verify the effectiveness of these examples, but did examine agency documentation and support for testimonial evidence where available. We also note that our findings rest on the examples we reviewed and the practitioners we interviewed and thus may not be applicable to all interagency groups. For example, in this report, we focus on interagency groups that respond to non-emergency situations, which require a different type of response than emergencies. Also, all of the policy or topic areas in our examples are currently high-priorities of this administration, as demonstrated by the involvement of the Executive Office of the President or Cabinet-level officials in the groups. As such, this report provides agency perspectives and approaches that have been effective in addressing collaboration-related considerations for the groups we studied, but does not provide a comprehensive or universally applicable set of implementation approaches for interagency group. We previously found that interagency groups can vary widely depending on the purpose, composition, or other unique characteristics, and as such, approaches that have proven effective for one group may not always apply to other groups. Nevertheless, we identified common approaches among the groups we reviewed. We conducted this performance audit from November 2012 to February 2014 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant Director, and Mallory Barg Bulman, Analyst-in-Charge, supervised the development of this report. Peter Beck, Martin De Alteriis, and Don Kiggins made significant contributions to this report. Karin Fangman provided legal counsel and Alicia Cackley, Andrew Finkel, David Maurer, and Paul Schmidt made key contributions to this report.

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