In 2005, we reported on key practices to enhance and sustain interagency collaboration. In our report, we broadly defined collaboration as any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the agencies act alone. We also described how agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by engaging in the eight practices identified below: define and articulate a common outcome; establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies; identify and address needs by leveraging resources; agree on roles and responsibilities; establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through agency plans and reports; and reinforce individual accountability through performance management systems. We noted that running throughout these practices are a number of factors such as leadership, trust, and organizational culture that are necessary elements for a collaborative working relationship. The highlights page from that report is included in Appendix II. As required by GPRAMA, OMB included a set of 14 interim crosscutting priority goals in the 2013 federal budget. These goals covered a variety of issues such as veteran career readiness, energy efficiency, export promotion, and real property management. OMB also designated relevant agencies and programs that will be responsible for each interim goal. In order to address these goals, OMB is relying on a range of collaborative mechanisms. For example, in order to address the crosscutting goal of improving career readiness of veterans, OMB noted that it will rely, in part, on a Department of Defense-Veterans Affairs Task Force that includes representation from the Departments of Defense, Labor, Education, and Veterans Affairs, OMB, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). Federal agencies have used a variety of mechanisms to implement interagency collaborative efforts, such as the President appointing a coordinator, agencies co-locating within one facility, or establishing interagency task forces. Figure 1 catalogues selected mechanisms that the federal government uses to facilitate interagency collaboration, which were identified through interviews with experts and a sample of our prior reports. Experts have defined an interagency mechanism for collaboration as any arrangement or application that can facilitate collaboration between agencies. This list may not be comprehensive; it reflects the mechanisms that were included in our sample. Based on our analysis of expert interviews and literature, as well as a sample of our prior reports, the mechanisms for interagency collaboration can serve the following general purposes. According to our analysis, and as demonstrated by the examples below, most collaborative mechanisms serve multiple purposes. Policy Development: For example, Congress established the Office of Science and Technology Policy in 1976 to serve as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment for the President with respect to major policies, plans, and programs of the federal government, among other things. The Office of Science and Technology Policy’s mission includes leading interagency efforts to develop and coordinate sound science and technology policies across the federal government. Program Implementation: As we reported in 2010, in the case of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Joint Field Offices, co- locating personnel meets the purpose of program implementation during an emergency. Specifically, personnel from a range of agencies temporarily co-locate to provide services to disaster victims in one location. Pub. L. No. 108-447, Division J, title VIII, 118 Stat. 2809, 3377-3393 (Dec. 8, 2004). handbook with common definitions and implementation policy guidance. Oversight and Monitoring: For example, as we reported in 2008, the Maritime Security Working Group, working on behalf of the Maritime Security Policy Coordination Committee, was responsible for monitoring and assessing implementation of actions related to the National Strategy for Maritime Security. Information Sharing and Communication: As we reported in 2008 and 2010, in the case of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center, co-locating personnel was intended to promote information sharing. Specifically, personnel from agencies responsible for combating counterfeiting, piracy, and related intellectual property rights crimes are co-located for the purpose of sharing information across organizational boundaries. GAO, Intellectual Property: Federal Enforcement Has Generally Increased, but Assessing Performance Could Strengthen Law Enforcement Efforts, GAO-08-157 (Washington, D.C.: Mar.11, 2008); and Intellectual Property: Agencies Progress in Implementing Legislation, but Enhancements Could Improve Future Plans, GAO-11-39 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 13, 2010). rotations to 30-minute online courses. The developmental activities we identified included training courses and programs, training exercises, interagency rotational programs, joint professional military education, and leadership development programs. The U.S. Army Command and General Staff College’s Interagency Fellowship Program is an example of one of these professional development activities. The College places Army officers at other federal agencies to learn the culture of the host agency, hone collaborative skills such as communication and teamwork, and establish networks with civilian counterparts. At the same time, participants increase workforce capacity at their host civilian agencies, such as the Department of State and U.S. Agency for International Development. In turn, the civilian agencies can free up resources to send personnel to teach or attend courses at the College. Additionally, in many cases, agencies use more than one mechanism to address an issue. For example, climate change is a complex, crosscutting issue, which involves many collaborative mechanisms. As we reported in 2011, these mechanisms include entities within the Executive Office of the President and interagency groups throughout government, including task forces and working groups. As shown in figure 2 below, the collaborative mechanisms in place to address climate change vary with regard to membership and purpose. The collaboration structures within the Executive Office of the President provide high-level policy direction for federal climate change programs and activities. Other mechanisms are in place—including specially created interagency offices and interagency groups—to provide coordination of science and technology policy across the federal government. For example, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, which began as a presidential initiative in 1989, was codified by the Global Change Research Act of 1990. This program coordinates and integrates federal research on changes in the global environment and their implications for society, and is led by an interagency governing body, the Committee on Environment, Natural Resources, and Sustainability Subcommittee on Global Change Research. The subcommittee, facilitated by a national coordination office, provides overall strategic direction and is responsible for developing and implementing an integrated interagency program. Although the mechanisms we list in figure 2 differ in complexity and scope, they all benefit from certain key features, which raise issues to consider when implementing these mechanisms. According to expert views and our prior work, these key features fall into the categories of outcomes and accountability; bridging organizational cultures; leadership; clarity of roles and responsibilities; participants; resources; and written guidance and agreements. Many of these key features are related to our previously-identified collaboration practices. Have short-term and long-term outcomes been clearly defined? Is there a way to track and monitor progress toward the short-term and long-term outcomes? Do participating agencies have collaboration-related competencies or performance standards against which individual performance can be evaluated? Do participating agencies have the means to recognize and reward accomplishments related to collaboration? Organizational Outcomes and Accountability: As we reported in 2008, we interviewed experts in collaborative resource management. Based on these interviews, we found that most of the experts emphasized the importance of groups having clear goals. They explained that in a collaborative process, the participants may not have the same overall interests—in fact they may have conflicting interests. However, by establishing a goal based on what the group shares in common, rather than on where there is disagreement among missions or philosophies, a collaborative group can shape its own vision and define its own purpose. When articulated and understood by the members of a group, this shared purpose provides people with a reason to participate in the process. For example, in 2012, we reported that Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), in collaboration with other federal agencies, shared a joint commitment to preventing and ending veteran homelessness by 2015. Representatives at two veteran and homeless advocacy organizations told us that sharing a common strategic goal between VA and HUD had been beneficial. Federal agencies can use their strategic and annual performance plans as tools to drive collaboration with other agencies and other partners and establish complementary goals and strategies for achieving results. We have found that agencies that create a means to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of collaborative efforts can better identify areas for Agencies’ priority goals—and agency involvement in improvement. federal government priority goals—provide additional opportunities to articulate the goals of collaborative efforts.required under GPRAMA to monitor the federal government and agency priority goals on at least a quarterly basis, which provides additional opportunities for collaboration with contributing partners. Individual Accountability: Agencies link personal accountability to collaboration by adding a collaboration-related competency or performance standard against which individual performance can be evaluated. As we previously reported, the Department of State revised the competencies used to evaluate the Foreign Service Officers to focus Specifically, the competencies now identify knowledge on collaboration. of other agencies and interagency cooperation among the skill sets to be assessed.increased interest in foreign policy advisor assignments, demonstrated by the increase in the number of applicants to the program in recent years. Agency officials said that this change, in part, resulted in We reported in October 2000, that the Veterans Health Administration’s Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN), headquartered in Cincinnati, implemented performance agreements that focused on patient services for the entire VISN and were designed to encourage the VISN’s medical centers to work collaboratively. In 2000, the VISN Director had a performance agreement with “care line” directors for patient services, such as primary care, medical and surgical care, and mental health care.