Results-Oriented Government
Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies Gao ID: GAO-06-15 October 21, 2005The federal government faces a series of challenges in the 21st century that will be difficult, if not impossible, for any single agency to address alone. Many issues cut across more than one agency and their actions are not well coordinated. Moreover, agencies face a range of barriers when they attempt to work collaboratively. This report identifies key practices that can help enhance and sustain agency collaboration. GAO also considered how the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) address collaboration among agencies. To illustrate these practices, we selected the Healthy People, wildland fire management, and Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense's health resource sharing collaborations.
Collaboration can be broadly defined as any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the organizations act alone. Agencies can enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts by engaging in the eight practices identified below. 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: 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 across agency boundaries; develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results; reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through agency plans and reports; and reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts through performance management systems. GAO has previously reported that GPRA, with its focus on strategic planning, the development of long-term goals, and accountability for results, provides a framework Congress, OMB, and executive branch agencies can use to consider the appropriate mix of long-term strategic goals and strategies needed to identify and address issues that cut across agency boundaries. In addition, to provide a broader perspective on the federal government's goals and strategies to address issues that cut across agencies, we previously recommended that (1) OMB develop a governmentwide performance plan as required by GPRA and (2) Congress consider amending GPRA to require a governmentwide strategic plan. OMB, through the President's Management Agenda (PMA), has emphasized improving government performance through governmentwide and agency-specific initiatives. One of these focuses specifically on improving coordination, but only between the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense for health programs and systems. However, many other areas that cut across agency boundaries would benefit from greater OMB focus and attention, including information sharing for homeland security, which GAO recently designated as a high-risk area. OMB has also used its Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) diagnostic tool to determine, among other things, whether individual programs duplicate other efforts and if agencies coordinate and collaborate effectively with related programs. The PART tool provides general guidance for assessing effective program coordination and collaboration, but does not discuss practices for enhancing and sustaining collaboration, such as those described and illustrated in this report.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-15, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-15
entitled 'Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies' which was released on
October 21, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government
Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
October 2005:
Results-Oriented Government:
Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal
Agencies:
GAO-06-15:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-15, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The federal government faces a series of challenges in the 21st century
that will be difficult, if not impossible, for any single agency to
address alone. Many issues cut across more than one agency and their
actions are not well coordinated. Moreover, agencies face a range of
barriers when they attempt to work collaboratively.
This report identifies key practices that can help enhance and sustain
agency collaboration. GAO also considered how the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) and the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) address collaboration among agencies. To illustrate these
practices, we selected the Healthy People, wildland fire management,
and Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense‘s health resource
sharing collaborations.
What GAO Found:
Collaboration can be broadly defined as any joint activity that is
intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the
organizations act alone. Agencies can enhance and sustain their
collaborative efforts by engaging in the eight practices identified
below. 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:
* 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
across agency boundaries;
* develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results;
* reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts through
agency plans and reports; and
* reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts through
performance management systems.
GAO has previously reported that GPRA, with its focus on strategic
planning, the development of long-term goals, and accountability for
results, provides a framework Congress, OMB, and executive branch
agencies can use to consider the appropriate mix of long-term strategic
goals and strategies needed to identify and address issues that cut
across agency boundaries. In addition, to provide a broader perspective
on the federal government‘s goals and strategies to address issues that
cut across agencies, we previously recommended that (1) OMB develop a
governmentwide performance plan as required by GPRA and (2) Congress
consider amending GPRA to require a governmentwide strategic plan.
OMB, through the PMA, has emphasized improving government performance
through governmentwide and agency-specific initiatives. One of these
focuses specifically on improving coordination, but only between the
Departments of Veterans Affairs and Defense for health programs and
systems. However, many other areas that cut across agency boundaries
would benefit from greater OMB focus and attention, including
information sharing for homeland security, which GAO recently
designated as a high-risk area. OMB has also used its PART diagnostic
tool to determine, among other things, whether individual programs
duplicate other efforts and if agencies coordinate and collaborate
effectively with related programs. The PART tool provides general
guidance for assessing effective program coordination and
collaboration, but does not discuss practices for enhancing and
sustaining collaboration, such as those described and illustrated in
this report.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that the Director of OMB focus on additional programs in
need of collaboration and promote the practices in this report. Options
include expanding the focus on collaboration in the President‘s
Management Agenda (PMA) and supplementing the Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) guidance with information about these practices. OMB agreed
with this recommendation. Agencies involved in the collaborations
provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at
(202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Key Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among
Federal Agencies:
GPRA and OMB's Management Tools Offer Opportunities to Foster Greater
Collaboration among Federal Agencies:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Federal Collaborative Efforts We Reviewed:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
TableTable 1: Federal Collaborative Efforts We Reviewed:
Abbreviations:
CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:
DOD: Department of Defense:
DOE: Department of Energy:
FDA: Food and Drug Administration:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
ICS: Incident Command System:
NIFC: National Interagency Fire Center:
NIH: National Institutes of Health:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool:
PMA: President's Management Agenda:
SES: Senior Executive Service:
USDA: U.S. Department of Agriculture:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:
VISN: Veterans Integrated Service Network:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 21, 2005:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Chairman:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
Achieving results for the nation increasingly requires that federal
agencies work together. From combating terrorism, monitoring infectious
diseases, and responding to natural disasters, the federal government
faces a series of challenges in the 21st century that will be
difficult, if not impossible, for any single agency to address alone.
Taking into account the nation's long-range fiscal challenges, the
federal government must identify ways to deliver results more
efficiently and in a way that is consistent with its multiple demands
and limited resources.
Our work has shown that many issues cut across more than one agency and
their actions are not well coordinated. Examples include the following:
* Four years after the 9/11 terrorist attacks the federal government's
efforts to achieve interoperable communications among emergency
responders at all levels of government have been hampered in part by an
inadequate level of interagency collaboration.[Footnote 1],[Footnote 2]
* No overall strategy integrates the threat-reduction and
nonproliferation programs of the Department of Defense (DOD),
Department of Energy (DOE), and others, and the agencies'
implementation of very similar programs has not always been well
coordinated. In particular, there is no governmentwide guidance
delineating the roles and responsibilities of agencies managing border
security programs. According to DOD and DOE officials managing these
programs, agencies' roles are not well delineated and coordination
could be improved.[Footnote 3]
We have also reported that agencies face a range of barriers when they
attempt to collaborate with other agencies.[Footnote 4] One such
barrier stems from missions that are not mutually reinforcing or that
may even conflict, making reaching a consensus on strategies and
priorities difficult. Another significant barrier to interagency
collaboration is agencies' concerns about protecting jurisdiction over
missions and control over resources. Finally, interagency collaboration
is often hindered by incompatible procedures, processes, data, and
computer systems. Instead, federal agencies carry out programs in a
fragmented, uncoordinated way, resulting in a patchwork of programs
that can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers,
and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort.
To help agencies overcome these barriers, and in response to your
request, this report identifies key practices that can help enhance and
sustain federal agency collaboration, along with illustrative examples
from select agencies. We also considered our prior work on how the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)[Footnote 5] can
be used to identify opportunities for improved collaboration among
federal agencies and on the role played by the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB)--as the focal point for overall management in the
executive branch agencies--in providing leadership and direction to
federal agencies' collaborative efforts.
To meet these objectives, we reviewed the relevant literature,
including our prior reports, and interviewed experts in the area of
collaboration. On the basis of these sources, we identified eight broad
practices that can facilitate greater collaboration among federal
agencies. We also identified areas where federal agencies are engaged
in collaborative efforts. Although achieving results may involve the
collaborative efforts of both federal and nonfederal partners, for the
purpose of this work we focused on the practices that federal agencies
can employ.[Footnote 6]
To illustrate these practices, we selected three areas where federal
agencies have developed substantial ongoing collaborations: Healthy
People 2010--a long-standing effort to develop and track public health
objectives for the nation, wildland fire management,[Footnote 7] and
health resource sharing between the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
and DOD at selected locations. We selected these areas based on expert
views and our prior work indicating that collaboration was taking place
in the area. The examples presented in this report are intended to be
illustrative. Therefore, we did not seek to show how the agencies in
each of the three collaborative areas engaged in every practice. In
addition, because the focus of our work was to identify practices for
effective collaboration, we did not assess whether the examples of
collaboration practices we highlighted resulted in improved agency
performance in the three areas.
To obtain perspectives on the practices we identified, we interviewed
officials and reviewed documents from the federal agencies involved in
the three collaborative efforts --VA, DOD, and the Departments of
Agriculture (USDA), Education, Health and Human Services (HHS), and the
Interior. In addition, we visited selected locations from among these
agencies that were involved in sharing resources with each other. We
also interviewed nonfederal stakeholders involved in the collaborative
efforts we selected.
Appendix I: provides a more detailed description of our scope and
methodology.
We conducted our work from May 2004 through August 2005 in offices in
the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; Boise, Idaho; Louisville and
Fort Knox, Kentucky; Pensacola, Florida; and Sacramento and Fairfield,
California, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
Results in Brief:
Collaboration can be broadly defined as any joint activity that is
intended to produce more public value than could be produced when
organizations act alone. Agencies can enhance and sustain their
collaborative efforts by engaging in the practices identified below:
* Define and articulate a common outcome. VA Gulf Coast Health Care
System and the Naval Hospital Pensacola, for example, collaborated on
building a new joint ambulatory care clinic in order to improve the
quality, access, and efficiency of health care delivery for their
respective populations.
* Establish mutually reinforcing or joint strategies designed to help
align activities, core processes, and resources to achieve a common
outcome. VA and DOD, for example, developed a joint strategic plan for
health resource sharing that discusses strategies such as developing
joint guidelines and policies and providing joint training.
* Identify and address needs by leveraging resources to support the
common outcome and, where necessary, opportunities to leverage
resources. For example, the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), in
Boise, Idaho, identifies and allocates federal firefighting resources
from different agencies as needed to suppress wildland fires.
* Agree on roles and responsibilities, including leadership. Officials
at the VA Northern California Health Care System and at Travis Air
Force Base, for example, jointly developed a charter that specified the
respective roles and responsibilities of an executive management team
as well as a charter for a working group for health resource sharing.
* Establish compatible policies, procedures, and other means to operate
across agency boundaries, including compatible standards and data
systems, and communicate frequently to address such matters as cultural
differences. Federal agencies with wildland fire management
responsibilities developed an interagency handbook that defines the
common standards, policies, and procedures they are to use in wildland
fire operations.
* Develop mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on the results of
the collaborative effort. HHS holds periodic progress reviews to assess
the status of achieving Healthy People 2010 objectives. The results of
these reviews are publicly reported on the Healthy People website.
* Reinforce agency accountability for collaborative efforts by using
strategic and annual performance plans to establish complementary goals
and strategies and by using performance reports to account for results.
The Forest Service has a goal in its fiscal year 2004-2008 strategic
plan, "Reduce the risk from catastrophic wildland fire," that
complements the interagency goals contained in the 10-year strategy for
reducing wildland fire risk.
* Reinforce individual accountability for collaborative efforts through
performance management systems by identifying competencies related to
collaboration and setting performance expectations for collaboration.
Interior evaluates the performance of its senior executives, in part,
on their ability to successfully collaborate with customers, partners,
and stakeholders.
For a number of these practices, it is critical to involve nonfederal
partners, key clients, and stakeholders in decisionmaking.
Additionally, running throughout these practices are a number of
factors such as leadership, trust, and organizational culture that are
necessary elements for a collaborative relationship.
We have previously reported that GPRA, with its focus on strategic
planning, the development of long-term goals, and accountability for
results, provides a framework that Congress, OMB, and executive branch
agencies can use to consider the appropriate mix of long-term strategic
goals and strategies needed to identify and address crosscutting
federal goals. For example, we have previously recommended that OMB
could provide a broader perspective on the federal government's goals
and strategies to address issues that cut across different federal
agencies, including redundancy and other inefficiencies in how the
government does its business, by fully implementing the GPRA
requirement to develop a governmentwide performance plan. Moreover, we
recommended Congress amend GPRA to require a governmentwide strategic
plan to provide a framework for identifying long-term goals and
strategies for addressing crosscutting issues.
OMB, through the President's Management Agenda (PMA), has emphasized
improving government performance through governmentwide and agency-
specific initiatives. OMB has established "standards for success" for
the initiatives and rates agencies' progress toward meeting these
standards. Among the PMA initiatives, only one focuses specifically on
improving coordination--coordination of VA and DOD programs and
systems. However, many other areas that cut across agency boundaries
would benefit from greater OMB focus and attention, including
information sharing for homeland security which we recently designated
as a high-risk area.[Footnote 8] OMB has also used the Program
Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a diagnostic tool consisting of
questions designed to provide a consistent approach to rating federal
programs. To determine whether programs are achieving results, PART
assesses, among other things, whether programs are duplicative of other
efforts--federal, state, local, and private--and whether agencies
coordinate and collaborate effectively with related programs. The PART
tool provides general guidance for assessing effective program
coordination and collaboration, but does not discuss any practices for
enhancing and sustaining collaboration, such as those described and
illustrated in this report.
We recommend that the Director of OMB continue to encourage interagency
collaboration by identifying additional programs in need of greater
collaboration to achieve common outcomes and promoting the
collaboration practices identified in this report. Options for
encouraging interagency collaboration include expanding the PMA
initiatives and associated standards for success to include a greater
focus on collaboration and supplementing the PART guidance with
information about the collaboration practices in this report.
We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OMB for comment.
OMB's Counsel to the Deputy Director for Management responded orally
that OMB agreed with the recommendation. We also provided relevant
sections of a draft of this report to the agencies involved in the
three collaboration efforts--VA, DOD, USDA, HHS, and the Departments of
Education and the Interior. They offered technical suggestions, which
we incorporated as appropriate.
Background:
Although there is no commonly accepted definition for collaboration,
for the purpose of this report we define it as any joint activity by
two or more organizations that is intended to produce more public value
than could be produced when the organizations act alone.[Footnote 9]
For example, joint activities can range from occasional meetings
between middle-management employees in which the existing division of
labor of the respective agencies is reaffirmed to the more structured
joint law enforcement teams operating over a long period of
time.[Footnote 10] In contrast, absent effective collaboration, routine
interagency meetings can be dutifully attended without having any
substantive information communicated, joint agreements reached among
the agencies, or agreements implemented. Although, according to this
definition, collaboration can involve federal and nonfederal
governmental organizations as well as nongovernmental organizations,
this report focuses on the actions federal agencies can take to improve
collaboration.
Federal Collaborative Efforts We Reviewed:
To illustrate practices that can enhance and sustain collaboration
among federal agencies, we selected three federal collaborative
efforts--Healthy People 2010, wildland fire management, and VA and DOD
health resource sharing--in which federal agencies work across agency
lines to achieve common outcomes. Appendix II provides additional
information on these three efforts.
Healthy People 2010:
Healthy People 2010, a federal effort led by HHS and involving a number
of other federal agencies, is a set of national public health
objectives, with associated indicators to measure progress, which are
revisited every 10 years. These objectives are intended to cover the
most significant preventable threats to health and support two broad
national goals--(1) increasing the quality and years of healthy life
and (2) eliminating health disparities. The Healthy People objectives
are divided among 28 focus areas. In this report we looked at two focus
areas that involved multiple federal agencies--Nutrition and
Overweight, and Disability and Secondary Conditions. The goal of the
Nutrition and Overweight focus area is to promote health and reduce
chronic disease associated with diet and weight. The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) and National Institutes of Health (NIH) are colead
agencies for the Nutrition and Overweight focus area. The goal of the
Disability and Secondary Conditions focus area is to promote the health
of people with disabilities, prevent secondary conditions, and
eliminate disparities between people with and without disabilities in
the U.S. population. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and the Department of Education's National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research are colead agencies for
Disability and Secondary Conditions. Since it was established in 1979,
Healthy People has engaged a diverse group of stakeholders throughout
the country, including public and private organizations.
Wildland Fire Management:
Wildland fires contribute to ecological health in forests and
rangelands by maintaining plant species diversity, limiting the spread
of insects and disease, and promoting new growth, among other things.
However, past management practices, including a concerted federal
policy in the 20th century of suppressing fires to protect communities
and ecosystem resources, unintentionally resulted in steady
accumulation of dense vegetation that fuels large, intense, wildland
fires than can have catastrophic effects on ecosystems and nearby
communities. Federal agencies responsible for wildland fire management
(wildland fire agencies) include the Forest Service at USDA and the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife
Service, and National Park Service at Interior.
The first single comprehensive federal wildland fire policy for USDA
and Interior was established in 1995 in response to the prior year's
fire season with its 34 fatalities.[Footnote 11] The 1995 policy is
based on several guiding principles including interagency cooperation-
-in particular, "fire management planning, preparedness, suppression,
fire use, monitoring, and research will be conducted on an interagency
basis with the involvement of all parties." Interagency collaboration
in the area of fire suppression, however, predated this 1995 federal
policy. For example, the Bureau of Land Management and the Forest
Service established a joint coordination center at Boise, Idaho, in
1965. This center has since evolved into the current NIFC, housing the
five wildland fire agencies along with the National Weather Service,
Department of Commerce; Office of Aircraft Services, Department of the
Interior; United States Fire Administration, Department of Homeland
Security; and the National Association of State Foresters. A series of
catastrophic wildland fires in 2000 resulted in the wildland fire
agencies and their partners developing a long-term, collaborative
approach for reducing wildland fire risk and the reviewing and updating
of the 1995 federal wildland fire policy. The collaborative approach
and update are the basis for the current wildland fire management
policy and practice.
VA and DOD Health Resource Sharing:
VA operates one of the nation's largest health care systems. Of the 7.4
million total enrollees in fiscal year 2004, VA obligated $28.4 billion
to provide care to 5.2 million total patients, which included veterans
and eligible nonveterans. Currently, health care is provided through
157 VA hospitals and nearly 900 outpatient clinics nationwide. DOD
spends about $30.4 billion on health care for over 9.1 million
beneficiaries, including active-duty personnel and retirees, and their
dependents. Most DOD health care is provided at more than 530 Army,
Navy, and Air Force military treatment facilities worldwide,
supplemented by civilian providers. While both agencies have distinct
missions--the VA focuses on providing benefits to veterans and their
families and DOD focuses on maintaining the combat readiness of the
military--both provide health care services.
To encourage sharing of federal health resources between VA and DOD, in
1982 Congress passed the Veterans' Administration and Department of
Defense Health Resources Sharing and Emergency Operations Act (the
"Sharing Act").[Footnote 12] Previously, VA and DOD health care
facilities, many of which are colocated or in close geographic
proximity, operated virtually independently of each other. The Sharing
Act authorizes VA medical centers and military treatment facilities to
become partners and enter into sharing agreements to buy, sell, and
barter medical and support services. The intent of the law was not only
to remove legal barriers, but also to encourage VA and DOD to engage in
health resource sharing to more effectively and efficiently use federal
health resources.
Additional legislation was passed in 2002 to encourage and foster VA
and DOD health resource sharing. Under the Bob Stump National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2003, VA and DOD were required, among
other things, to develop a joint strategic plan and incorporate the
joint goals and strategies into the respective departments' strategic
and performance plans that are required under GPRA. VA and DOD were
also required to establish a high-level interagency committee to
develop and implement collaborative efforts and to establish a joint
incentive program to provide incentives for implementing, funding, and
evaluating creative health resource sharing initiatives. VA and DOD are
each required to make a minimum contribution of $15 million from each
department's appropriations each year for four years to fund the joint
program,[Footnote 13] the Joint Incentive Fund Program. Proposals for
funding for either onetime investments or recurring operations must be
jointly developed by VA and DOD. To ensure continuity of operations,
projects involving recurring costs must be self-sustaining and the
incentive funds can be used for no more than two years for operational
costs.
We have pointed out that VA and DOD health resource sharing faces long-
standing barriers, including incompatible computer systems that affect
the exchange of patient health information, inconsistent reimbursement
and budgeting policies, and burdensome agreement approval
processes.[Footnote 14] OMB has also singled out VA and DOD resource
sharing for increased attention through its PMA initiative.
Nonetheless, our work has also shown that at specific sites, VA and DOD
are actively involved in health resource sharing activities.[Footnote
15] For this work, we reviewed health resource sharing at three of
those sites, covering the Army, Navy, and Air Force. See appendix I for
a complete list of the VA and DOD sites we visited.
Key Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among
Federal Agencies:
Drawing from the literature we reviewed, the experts we interviewed,
and our prior work, we identified eight key practices that can help
federal agencies enhance and sustain their collaborative efforts. The
federal collaborative efforts we reviewed helped further refine the
practices and provided a wide variety of concrete illustrations of how
the practices can apply in different federal agency contexts.
While collaboration among federal agencies can take many different
forms, the practices generally consist of two or more agencies:
* defining and articulating a common outcome;
* establishing mutually reinforcing or joint strategies to achieve the
outcome;
* identifying and addressing needs by leveraging resources;
* agreeing upon agency roles and responsibilities;
* establishing compatible policies, procedures, and other means to
operate across agency boundaries;
* developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report the results of
collaborative efforts;
* reinforcing agency accountability for collaborative efforts through
agency plans and reports; and:
* reinforcing individual accountability for collaborative efforts
through agency performance management systems.
For a number of these practices, it is also critical to involve
nonfederal partners, key clients, and stakeholders in decision making.
Additionally, agencies can strengthen their commitment to work
collaboratively by articulating their agreements in formal documents,
such as a memorandum of understanding, interagency guidance, or an
interagency planning document, signed by senior officials in the
respective agencies.
Running throughout these eight practices are a number of factors such
as leadership and trust that are necessary elements for a collaborative
working relationship. These factors are established, sustained, and
reinforced through that relationship, thereby fostering a collaborative
culture.[Footnote 16]
Define and Articulate the Common Outcome:
To overcome significant differences in agency missions, cultures, and
established ways of doing business, collaborating agencies must have a
clear and compelling rationale to work together. The compelling
rationale for agencies to collaborate can be imposed externally through
legislation or other directives or can come from the agencies' own
perceptions of the benefits they can obtain from working together. In
either case, the collaborative effort requires agency staff working
across agency lines to define and articulate the common federal outcome
or purpose they are seeking to achieve that is consistent with their
respective agency goals and mission. Moreover, the development of a
common outcome takes place over time and requires sustained resources
and commitment.
Following the authority provided in the Sharing Act, a number of VA and
DOD facilities have collaborated to achieve their common goals. VA Gulf
Coast Health Care System and the Naval Hospital Pensacola, for example,
collaborated to build a new joint ambulatory care clinic to improve the
quality, access, and efficiency of health care delivery for their
respective populations. The VA wanted to expand its medical facilities
and increase the type of medical services available in the area, as
most beneficiaries who needed specialty care were transported by the VA
to Biloxi, Mississippi, or New Orleans, Louisiana, adding to the cost
of care.[Footnote 17] The Navy, with several aging medical facilities,
was facing a demand for services from a growing population of retirees
and students from the cryptology school on the naval base. Over the
course of nearly a year, officials from the VA Gulf Coast Health Care
System and the Naval Hospital Pensacola, who had already shared medical
services in the past, agreed to build a joint ambulatory care center to
provide closer and expanded services as a way of improving access for
both VA and Navy populations. This agreement was formalized in a
concept paper signed by the director of VA Gulf Coast Health Care
System and the Commanding Officer of the Naval Hospital Pensacola.
USDA and Interior's current collaboration in managing wildland fires
stemmed from the catastrophic wildland fires of 2000. The fires
prompted the President to request that the Secretaries of USDA and the
Interior develop a response to severe wildland fires, reduce their
effects, and ensure sufficient firefighting resources in the
future.[Footnote 18] Additionally, the conference committee report
accompanying the fiscal year 2001 Interior appropriations act directed
the Secretaries to work with the relevant Governors to develop a 10-
year strategy for reducing wildland fire risk.[Footnote 19] The
Departments' response and conference committee direction resulted in
the National Fire Plan that included a collaborative approach for a 10-
year strategy and implementation plan to reduce the risk of
catastrophic wildland fires.[Footnote 20]
The fires in 2000 also led to a review of the 1995 federal fire policy,
which concluded that while the policy was sound and appropriate, the
implementation was incomplete, particularly where it involved
"collaboration, coordination, and integration across agency
jurisdiction and across different disciplines."[Footnote 21] As a
result of the review, as well as studies by the National Academy of
Public Administration and GAO, USDA and Interior established the
Wildland Fire Leadership Council in 2002 to provide leadership and
oversight in implementing the National Fire Plan and the federal fire
policy. This interagency council, comprised of senior USDA and Interior
officials, federal, state, tribal, and county representatives,
including the heads of the five wildland fire agencies, meets regularly
to foster policy coordination and the resolution of interagency
differences.
In the case of the Healthy People initiative, federal agencies, along
with state and local government agencies and nongovernmental
organizations, came together voluntarily to collaborate because they
shared an overall commitment to and responsibility for health promotion
and disease prevention. Recognizing that progress in improving the
nation's health required the active participation and leadership of
this diverse array of organizations, the collaboration has grown to
over 600 organizations since it began in 1988. Officials from several
federal agencies with public health responsibilities worked together to
review and update as necessary the Healthy People objectives. For
example, the CDC, along with the Department of Education's National
Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research, worked together to
assess current public health conditions and concluded that the health
and well-being of people with disabilities was an issue that could be
better represented in the Healthy People 2010 agenda. Scientific and
technological advances, societal attitudes, and labor market changes
had redefined the extent to which physical or mental conditions are
disabling,[Footnote 22] and such changes should also be reflected in
the public health system. As a result of this collaborative review,
"Disability and Secondary Conditions" was included as a new focus area
for Healthy People 2010. The goal for this new focus area is to
"promote the health of people with disabilities, prevent secondary
conditions, and eliminate disparities between people with and without
disabilities." Specific objectives for this focus area include (1)
establishing a standardized operational definition for disability and
collecting information on people with disabilities, thereby enabling
government policymakers, researchers, and clinicians to make better-
informed decisions; (2) eliminating disparities in employment between
working-age adults with and without disabilities; and (3) increasing
the proportion of children and youth with disabilities in regular
education programs.
In defining and articulating a common outcome, where appropriate,
federal agencies should involve nonfederal partners, key clients, and
stakeholders. In doing so, federal agencies can better address their
interests and expectations and gain their support in achieving the
objectives of the collaboration. In developing the Healthy People 2010
objectives, HHS included as partners nonfederal organizations such as
state and local public health, mental health, and environmental
agencies; professional health groups; and health and recreation
organizations. In addition, HHS solicited public comments and invited
individuals from academia, businesses, the faith community, health care
providers, advocacy groups and community-based organizations, and
nonprofit or voluntary agencies to attend public meetings to discuss
the proposed Healthy People 2010 objectives.
Establish Mutually Reinforcing or Joint Strategies:
To achieve a common outcome, collaborating agencies need to establish
strategies that work in concert with those of their partners or are
joint in nature. Such strategies help in aligning the partner agencies'
activities, core processes, and resources to accomplish the common
outcome.
Federal agencies have developed mutually reinforcing strategies to
accomplish the Healthy People 2010 goal for the nutrition and
overweight focus area--to promote health and reduce chronic diseases
associated with diet and weight. For example, USDA, in collaboration
with HHS, updates the Dietary Guidelines for Americans that provides
advice on good dietary habits and serves as the basis for federal food
and nutrition education programs.[Footnote 23] One of FDA's strategies
to achieve this goal is to require that food labels provide information
to consumers that will assist them in planning healthful diets. And one
of NIH's strategies towards this goal was to promote the use of their
evidence-based guidance for treating overweight conditions and obesity-
-Clinical Guidelines on the Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment
of Overweight and Obesity in Adults: The Evidence Report.[Footnote 24]
VA and DOD, on the other hand, have developed joint strategies. As
required by the Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2003, VA and DOD's Joint Executive Council, comprised of senior
leadership and staff involved in health and benefit activities from
both agencies, developed a joint strategic plan for the delivery of
benefits and services.[Footnote 25] The plan identifies strategies for
accomplishing each of six strategic goals. The strategies include
developing joint guidelines and policies for the delivery of high-
quality care and assurance of patient safety, and providing joint
training in multiple disciplines.
In the area of wildland fire management, federal agencies have involved
nonfederal partners, key clients, and stakeholders in the development
of joint strategies to achieve their common goal of preventing and
suppressing wildland fires. In the aftermath of a series of wildland
fires in 2000, the President directed the Secretaries of USDA and the
Interior to identify short-term strategies for responding to severe
wildland fires. Subsequently, the conference committee report
accompanying the fiscal year 2001 appropriations act directed the
Secretaries to work with Governors of the affected states on a long-
term strategy to deal with wildland fires. Moreover, the Secretaries
were directed to engage the Governors in a "collaborative structure to
cooperatively develop" a comprehensive strategy with the states as
"full partners in the planning, decision-making and implementation" of
such strategy. Serving as a conduit for a broad range of nonfederal
stakeholders, the Western Governors' Association, in collaboration with
USDA and Interior, developed a 10-year comprehensive strategy and
implementation plan that includes a number of actions that are to be
carried out in concert. For example, the Wildland Fire Leadership
Council, National Association of State Foresters, and National
Association of Counties are jointly responsible for assessing "the
training, equipment, safety awareness of, and services provided by
rural, volunteer, and other firefighters that work in the wildland-
urban interface."
Identify and Address Needs by Leveraging Resources:
Collaborating agencies should identify the human, information
technology, physical, and financial resources needed to initiate or
sustain their collaborative effort. Collaborating agencies bring
different levels of resources and capacities to the effort. By
assessing their relative strengths and limitations, collaborating
agencies can look for opportunities to address resource needs by
leveraging each others' resources, thus obtaining additional benefits
that would not be available if they were working separately.
Wildland fire agencies collaborate to quickly identify and address
resource needs for suppressing wildland fires. According to NIFC, no
single agency is capable of providing the resources needed to respond
to especially large fires or to multiple concurrent fires. NIFC
monitors the occurrence of wildland fires and coordinates and mobilizes
wildland firefighting resources nationally to suppress those fires.
Local and regional federal fire centers unable to meet personnel,
equipment, and supply needs contact NIFC in Boise, Idaho. In response,
NIFC provides certain resources and requests others from the closest
available federal agency. For example, NIFC could request firefighting
resources, including aircraft, personnel, telecommunications equipment,
and ground and air transportation for equipment and supplies, from the
Forest Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service,
and the National Park Service to respond to an incident on land under
the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Land Management.
In the three cases we examined of VA and DOD health resource sharing,
the agencies each had the incentive to work collaboratively to share
facilities, medical supplies, and skilled medical personnel, enabling
them to leverage resources. For example, in 1996 the Ireland Army
Community Hospital at Fort Knox entered into an agreement with the
Louisville VA Medical Center in which VA would provide primary care
services for active duty military personnel and their families. In
return, the Army provided VA with space, supplies, and equipment for a
new outpatient clinic for VA patients and agreed to fill some
prescriptions for VA patients. As a VA official noted, in a time of
tight resources, there is an incentive for the VA and the Army to be
partners, enabling them to accomplish their respective missions.
In another example, the VA Northern California Health Care Systems and
the David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air Force Base established a
joint dialysis clinic that expanded services and increased the number
of VA and Air Force patients served. Prior to the opening of the joint
clinic, the medical center made its dialysis clinic available on an
emergency basis to the VA, which lacked its own dialysis facilities.
The VA sent its northern California patients to private physicians in
the area at a higher cost. With a growing demand for dialysis services,
the VA and Air Force worked collaboratively to develop and submit a
proposal to the national Joint Incentive Fund for a joint clinic. This
joint proposal was subsequently awarded funding, enabling an expansion
of the dialysis facility to serve both DOD and VA patients.
Agree on Roles and Responsibilities:
Collaborating agencies should work together to define and agree on
their respective roles and responsibilities, including how the
collaborative effort will be led. In doing so, agencies can clarify who
will do what, organize their joint and individual efforts, and
facilitate decisionmaking. Committed leadership by those involved in
the collaborative effort, from all levels of the organization, is also
needed to overcome the many barriers to working across agency
boundaries.
The five federal agencies with wildland fire management
responsibilities jointly developed and update the Interagency Standards
for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations--an operations handbook that
defines the roles and responsibilities for all personnel engaged in
managing wildland fire operations, regardless of agency affiliation.
For example, according to the handbook, the Incident Commander for a
wildland fire is responsible for all incident activities, including
developing the fire management strategy and tactics, and ordering,
deploying, and releasing resources. The Incident Commander is supported
by an Incident Command Staff that may include a safety officer,
information officer, operations section chief, planning section chief,
logistics section chief, finance section chief, and a liaisons
officer.[Footnote 26] In addition to specifying the roles and
responsibilities, the interagency handbook also identifies the
qualifications required for each position. For each wildland fire
incident, staff meeting these qualifications are assigned to these
roles, regardless of the agency for which they work.
The VA and the Air Force in Northern California specified the roles and
responsibilities for health resource sharing in two joint charters.
These charters define a jointly staffed management structure for
resource sharing--the Executive Management Team and the Joint
Initiatives Working Group. One charter defines the roles and
responsibilities of the Executive Management Team in determining the
workload and fiscal implications of the sharing agreements, providing a
dispute resolution system for the collaborative effort, and setting
policy for sharing agreements and joint ventures. The other defines the
roles and responsibilities of the Joint Initiatives Working Group for
making recommendations to the Executive Management Team on sharing
opportunities, reimbursement methodologies, facility and space
considerations, and staffing personnel requirements. These charters
have helped sustain the collaborative effort, despite routine rotations
of DOD staff to other military installations.
The leadership continuity provided by VA partners has also helped to
sustain collaborative efforts in the face of periodic changes in DOD
leadership. At the three local sites we visited, VA and DOD officials
we spoke with said that it was important to have committed VA
individuals who had a common understanding of both the VA and military
environment and resource needs. One official said such individuals are
instrumental in initiating and sustaining the collaboration for
resource sharing.
Establish Compatible Policies, Procedures, and Other Means to Operate
across Agency Boundaries:
To facilitate collaboration, agencies need to address the compatibility
of standards, policies, procedures, and data systems that will be used
in the collaborative effort. Furthermore, as agencies bring diverse
cultures to the collaborative effort, it is important to address these
differences to enable a cohesive working relationship and to create the
mutual trust required to enhance and sustain the collaborative effort.
Frequent communication among collaborating agencies is another means to
facilitate working across agency boundaries and prevent
misunderstanding.
The Interagency Standards for Fire and Fire Aviation Operations
handbook mentioned previously also specifies common standards,
operational policies, and procedures used for wildland fire operations.
The interagency handbook includes standards for training and
firefighting equipment as well as policies and procedures for
developing a response to wildland fire, aviation operations, and
communications. For example, the handbook specifies the standards for
the chemicals used to suppress wildland fires, such as long-term
retardants, suppressant foam, and water enhancers. It also establishes
policies and procedures for the safe application of aerial and ground
suppressants in a way that does not harm the ecosystem.
The interagency Wildland Fire Leadership Council was established by
USDA and Interior to facilitate collaboration across agency boundaries
by providing leadership and the consistent implementation of wildland
fire management goals and policy. The council deals with national
policy issues, such as nationwide resource allocation and
prioritization that cut across the different federal agencies. One
official noted that the council members are the ultimate authority
within their departments for wildland fire management. As such, they
can negotiate and set wildland fire management policy for their
respective departments. Council members are to ensure their respective
agency's disparate interests, missions, and multiple responsibilities
are not adversely affected by policy decisions the council makes
collectively. While the council meets several times a year, council
staff--coordinators from both USDA and Interior--communicate more
frequently and serve as liaisons to the various agencies.[Footnote 27]
Collaborating agencies may also need to find common ground while still
satisfying their respective operating needs. For example, in discussing
where to locate the new joint ambulatory care clinic, VA and DOD at
Pensacola had to overcome differences in their respective security
standards. VA officials had expressed concern about their
beneficiaries' access to medical facilities located on military bases
during periods of heightened security. Navy officials wanted the new
clinic to be within walking distance from the Center for Cryptology so
students attending the school could have easy access. At the same time,
the Navy had concerns that easy access to the base could expose the
cryptology school, which is a top secret facility, to unauthorized
individuals. To address differences in security standards, the VA and
the Navy agreed to install a security fence around the new clinic,
creating an enclave within the naval base with a separate entrance that
is accessible from a public highway.
The ability to work collaboratively requires mutual trust among the
respective parties--a shared belief that the partners will carry out
their part of the joint agreement. Experts in collaboration and agency
officials involved in all three efforts we examined--Healthy People
2010, VA and DOD health resource sharing, and wildland fire management-
-mentioned trust as a key to enhancing and sustaining collaborative
efforts. Trust can be fostered in a variety of ways. For example,
officials at NIFC suggested that trust among staff from the different
wildland fire agencies was fostered through joint activities that
provided opportunities for face-to-face interaction, such as
interagency training and national or regional conferences. Trust can
also be a function of shared interest or background in an area. In the
case of NIFC, although staff have different agency affiliations, most
of them have field experience fighting fires.
Fostering an interagency culture, according to NIFC staff we
interviewed, can help facilitate collaborative efforts across agency
boundaries and enhances a cohesive working relationship among staff
from the different federal agencies with wildland fire
responsibilities. For example, the agencies at NIFC reinforce a common
interagency culture by hiring staff who have had experience and feel
comfortable working in an interagency environment. An interagency
environment, according to one official, is reinforced at NIFC in a
variety of ways, including staff wearing a common interagency badge and
co-location of staff by functional areas rather than by agency,
reflecting the integrated staffing.
Develop Mechanisms to Monitor, Evaluate, and Report Results:
Federal agencies engaged in collaborative efforts need to create the
means to monitor and evaluate their efforts to enable them to identify
areas for improvement. Reporting on these activities can help key
decision makers within the agencies, as well as clients and
stakeholders, to obtain feedback for improving both policy and
operational effectiveness.
To monitor and report on the status of achieving the Healthy People
2010 objectives, HHS holds progress reviews in which the federal
agencies with lead responsibilities for a focus area report on the
progress towards achieving the objectives. Other federal agencies that
do work related to the focus area also participate in these meetings.
The agencies discuss the data trends, barriers to achieving the
objectives, strategies undertaken to overcome barriers, and alternative
approaches to attain further progress. A summary report of the progress
review, including contact information, is made available to the public
through the Healthy People website. Additionally, HHS conducts a
midcourse review to assess the status of the overall Healthy People
objectives and identify the significant health trends and gaps in
preventive health issues. As the midcourse review could result in the
modification of the Healthy People 2010 objectives, the proposed
revisions to the objectives will be made available for public
comment.[Footnote 28]
Federal wildland fire agencies assess fire operations through "after
action" reviews. According to interagency policy and standards, after
each wildland fire incident, the wildland fire agencies should conduct
reviews with personnel from different agencies along functional areas-
-for example, the incident management team and smokejumpers
(firefighters who use parachutes to get to the fire).[Footnote 29] As
part of these reviews, personnel who worked on the incident discuss the
strengths and weaknesses of the operations and determine what can be
learned from it. Personnel assess what was planned, what actually
happened, why, and what can be done to improve wildland fire
management. Managers should address such aspects as the initial
assessment of resource requirements, safety and welfare of personnel,
fire suppression operations, and administrative responsibilities.
According to federal wildland fire management policy, these after
action reviews are then used to modify fire management plans.
Wildland fire agencies also plan to evaluate their overall joint
activities, although these evaluations have not yet been conducted.
Under the Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal
Wildland Fire Management Policy, USDA and Interior agreed to conduct
fire management reviews approximately every 4 years to provide
information for improving both policy and operational
effectiveness.[Footnote 30] According to the interagency strategy,
these evaluations will be consistent with GPRA requirements and agency
strategic plans.
Reinforce Agency Accountability for Collaborative Efforts through
Agency Plans and Reports:
A focus on results, as envisioned by GPRA, implies that federal
programs contributing to the same or similar results should collaborate
to ensure that goals are consistent and, as appropriate, program
efforts are mutually reinforcing. Federal agencies can use their
strategic and annual performance plans as tools to drive collaboration
with other agencies and partners and establish complementary goals and
strategies for achieving results. Such plans can also reinforce
accountability for the collaboration by aligning agency goals and
strategies with those of the collaborative efforts. Accountability for
collaboration is reinforced through public reporting of agency results.
USDA, a stakeholder for the Nutrition and Overweight focus area of
Healthy People 2010, uses its strategic plan to reinforce its
commitment to support key Healthy People 2010 objectives. The main goal
for the Nutrition and Overweight focus area in Healthy People 2010 is
to "Promote health and reduce chronic disease associated with diet and
weight." To track progress towards that goal, Healthy People developed
seven objectives related to food and nutrient intake, such as fruit
intake and total fat intake. A goal in USDA's strategic plan for fiscal
years 2002-2007 is to contribute to reductions in obesity of the
American public consistent with the goals of Healthy People 2010.
Specifically, one of the performance measures in USDA's strategic plan
is to promote healthier eating habits and lifestyles, setting as a goal
for 2007, as a partner with HHS, "to take actions to encourage a
reduction in overweight and obesity such that adult obesity will be no
greater than 20% and child and adolescent overweight will be no greater
than 8%."[Footnote 31]
Federal agencies involved in wildland fire management have goals in
their strategic plans that are compatible with those of the National
Fire Plan's 10-year comprehensive strategy to reduce the wildland fire
risk to communities and the environment. In its fiscal year 2003-2008
strategic plan, Interior makes specific reference to the National Fire
Plan and the 10-year comprehensive strategy. Additionally, the plan
describes strategies that include restoring fire-adapted ecosystems and
reducing hazardous fuels through collaboration, consistent with the 10-
year comprehensive strategy. Similarly, the Forest Service, also making
specific reference to the 10-year comprehensive strategy, has a
compatible goal--"Reduce the risk from catastrophic wildland fire"--in
its strategic plan for fiscal years 2004-2008.
Reinforce Individual Accountability for Collaborative Efforts through
Performance Management Systems:
High-performing organizations use their performance management systems
to strengthen accountability for results, specifically by placing
greater emphasis on fostering the necessary collaboration both within
and across organizational boundaries to achieve results.[Footnote 32]
Within the federal government, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
and OMB now require such emphasis under the new performance-based pay
system for agency senior executives. Under this system, agencies are to
hold executives accountable for, among other things, collaboration and
teamwork across organizational boundaries to help achieve goals by
requiring the executives to identify programmatic crosscutting, and
partnership-oriented goals through the performance expectations in
their individual performance plans.
As a first step in reinforcing individual accountability for
collaborative efforts, agencies set expectations for senior executives
for collaboration within and across organizational boundaries in their
individual performance plans. For example, as part of its Senior
Executive Service (SES) performance management system, Interior, one of
the agencies involved in wildland fire management, requires all of its
senior executives to incorporate in their individual performance plans
a competency related to collaboration--"Building Collaboration and
Partnerships with Customers/Partners/Stakeholders." Specifically, for
this competency, senior executives are to communicate, consult, and
cooperate with customers, partners, and stakeholders to ensure that
Interior's missions and programs effectively empower citizens in the
support of conservation. According to an Interior official, Interior's
bureaus have the flexibility to cascade the required senior executive
competency related to collaboration to their non-SES employees'
individual performance plans.
In addition, we have recommended that agencies have senior executives
identify specific programmatic crosscutting goals that would require
collaboration to achieve in their individual performance
plans.[Footnote 33] To this end, HHS holds all senior executives
accountable for the crosscutting "One-HHS" program objectives that
relate to their job responsibilities.[Footnote 34] For example, NIH
senior executives are to cascade the One-HHS program objectives into
their individual performance plans, as appropriate. One of these
program objectives is to "improve the quality of health care" by
improving the coordination, communication, and application of health
research results. To meet this objective, an NIH senior executive, who
is the agency's colead for the Healthy People 2010 Nutrition and
Overweight focus area, set an expectation in her individual performance
plan to enhance health care quality and treatment through the
coordination and translation of nutrition sciences, obesity, and
physical activity research and policy-related activities, through
collaborative and coordinated interagency activities at the federal and
other levels. Further, NIH is beginning to cascade the One-HHS program
objectives to all NIH employees through their individual performance
plans.
In addition, we have recommended that agencies have senior executives
name the relevant internal or external organizations with which they
would collaborate to reinforce a focus across organizational
boundaries.[Footnote 35] To this end, a senior executive at Interior's
Bureau of Land Management set an expectation in his individual
performance plan to assure that interagency fire program policies and
operational changes are made in collaboration with interagency partners
and stakeholders. In his self-assessment for the year, the senior
executive named the Fire Director for the USDA Forest Service. The
National Wildfire Coordinating Group, an interagency activity
coordinating group, tasked the executive and the Fire Director to
develop an interagency implementation strategy for the federal wildland
fire management policy. By closely collaborating with other federal
agencies and state representatives, the senior executive and the USDA
Fire Director designed a strategy that was approved for implementation
by the Wildland Fire Leadership Council last year.
High-performing organizations include results-oriented goals in
individual performance plans (or performance agreements) to encourage
senior executives to work collaboratively across traditional
organizational boundaries or "silos." 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.[Footnote 36] 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. In particular, the mental health care line director's performance
agreement included improvement goals related to mental health for the
entire VISN. To make progress towards these goals, this care line
director had to work across each of the VISN's four medical centers
with the corresponding care line managers at each medical center. As
part of this collaboration, the care line director needed to establish
consensus among VISN officials and external stakeholders on the
strategic direction for the services provided by the mental health care
line across the VISN; develop, implement, and revise integrated
clinical programs to reflect that strategic direction for the VISN; and
allocate resources among the centers for mental health programs to
implement these programs.
GPRA and OMB's Management Tools Offer Opportunities to Foster Greater
Collaboration among Federal Agencies:
GPRA, with its focus on strategic planning, the development of long-
term goals, and accountability for results, provides a framework that
Congress, OMB, and executive branch agencies can use to consider the
appropriate mix of long-term strategic goals and strategies needed to
identify and address federal goals that cut across agency boundaries.
For example, we have previously reported that the strategic and annual
performance planning processes under GPRA provide opportunities for
federal agencies to identify other agencies addressing related
outcomes, and coordinate with these agencies to ensure that program
goals are complementary; strategies are mutually reinforcing; and, as
appropriate, common performance measures are used.
OMB, as the focal point for overall management in the executive branch,
plays a key role in aligning the federal government's resources and
activities. To better manage the accomplishment of crosscutting policy
goals, we have recommended that OMB fully implement the GPRA
requirement to develop a governmentwide performance plan.[Footnote 37]
A governmentwide performance plan could provide a broader perspective
of the federal government's goals and strategies to address issues that
cut across different federal agencies, including redundancy and other
inefficiencies in how the government does its business.
Moreover, we have recommended Congress amend GPRA to require a
governmentwide strategic plan to provide a framework for identifying
long-term goals and strategies for addressing crosscutting issues. A
strategic plan for the federal government, along with key national
indicators to assess the government's performance, could provide an
additional tool for governmentwide reexamination of existing programs,
as well as proposals for new programs. If fully developed, a
governmentwide strategic plan can potentially provide a cohesive
perspective on the long-term goals of the federal government and
provide a much-needed basis for fully integrating, rather than merely
coordinating, a wide array of federal activities.
In addition to the role it could play in implementing GPRA, OMB could
also use its PMA (President's Management Agenda) and PART (Program
Assessment Rating Tool) tools to foster greater federal agency
collaboration. According to OMB, the PMA was implemented to remedy long-
standing federal agency management and performance challenges. The PMA
consists of five governmentwide initiatives--strategic management of
human capital, competitive sourcing, improved financial performance,
expanded electronic government, and budget and performance integration.
For each initiative, OMB has established goals or "standards for
success," and OMB rates agencies' status each quarter in achieving the
goals and making progress toward them. Additionally, the PMA has nine
agency-specific initiatives such as privatization of military housing
and reform of food aid programs, which OMB also rates
quarterly.[Footnote 38]
Among the governmentwide initiatives in the PMA is the strategic
management of human capital. One of the standards for success for this
initiative is having performance appraisals and award programs for all
members of the SES and managers, as well as most of the workforce, that
effectively align with agency mission, goals, and outcomes and hold
them accountable for results. In addition, as stated earlier, high-
performing organizations can place greater emphasis on fostering
necessary collaboration to achieve results through their performance
management systems for all levels of employees. OMB and OPM have
recognized this strategic use of performance management and require SES
members to be held accountable for collaboration and teamwork across
organizational boundaries.[Footnote 39] However, the PMA standards do
not include a similar focus on collaboration and teamwork for managers
and the rest of the workforce, and thus miss an opportunity to
reinforce to agencies that their performance management systems are
strategic tools to strengthen accountability for results.
One of the nine agency-specific initiatives focuses on improving
coordination of VA and DOD programs and systems to allow for the
seamless transition and continuity of care of beneficiaries from active
duty to veteran status. Apart from this case, however, our work has
shown that many issues cut across more than one agency and their
actions are not well coordinated. Therefore, such issues would benefit
from the greater attention and focus that PMA could provide. For
example, information sharing for securing the homeland is a
governmentwide effort involving multiple federal agencies, including
OMB; DOD; the Departments of Homeland Security, Justice, and State; and
the Central Intelligence Agency. We have recently highlighted this
issue as a high-risk area in need of broad-based transformation in
order to facilitate information sharing among and between government
entities and the private sector.[Footnote 40] To do this will require
an extraordinary level of collaboration among the federal, state, and
local governments and the private sector.
OMB developed PART as a diagnostic tool meant to provide a consistent
approach to assessing federal programs during the executive budget
formulation process. PART covers four broad topics for all programs
selected for review: (1) program purpose and design, (2) strategic
planning, (3) program management, and (4) program results. In
conducting PART assessments of federal agency programs, OMB considers,
among other things, whether the program coordinates and collaborates
effectively with related programs and whether duplication exists. In
addition, consistent with our recommendation, OMB has begun to use the
PART framework to conduct assessments of groups of programs in similar
areas that cut across agency boundaries.[Footnote 41] The PART tool
provides general guidance for assessing effective program coordination
and collaboration: to demonstrate effective collaboration, agencies
need to provide evidence of collaborative efforts "leading to
meaningful actions in management and resource allocation"--for example,
a joint grant announcement, planning documents, or performance goals.
However, while these are important steps, as OMB recognizes, such
evidence alone does not demonstrate that meaningful collaboration has
occurred.
Agency officials from each of the case study agencies we interviewed
agreed that OMB could play an effective role in fostering greater
collaboration among federal agencies. Some officials we interviewed
indicated that the PMA and PART tools were appropriate vehicles for
sharing the practices in this report. For example, an official stated
that for VA and DOD resource sharing, being singled out as a PMA
initiative provided a high level of visibility to the issue--the
additional attention they have received by having a higher-level entity
such as OMB focus on the issue has been helpful in directing leadership
attention and resources. Furthermore, some officials stated that it
would be helpful to have more expanded criteria for assessing
collaboration than the existing guidance provided by OMB for its PART
assessments.
Conclusions:
As the challenges of the 21st century grow, it will become increasingly
important for Congress, OMB, and executive agencies to consider how the
federal government can maximize performance and results through
improved collaboration. Our prior work has shown that many issues cut
across more than one agency and their actions are not well coordinated.
In this report, we identify key practices that can help enhance and
sustain collaboration among federal agencies. We also describe how
select agencies' collaboration efforts to address common goals reflect
one or more of these practices. The specific ways in which the case
agencies implemented the practices may not be appropriate for adoption
by other federal agencies seeking to improve their collaboration.
Nevertheless, the practices themselves can be adapted to address the
specific collaboration challenges each agency faces.
The strategic, annual, and performance planning processes under GPRA
provide a means for agencies to ensure that their goals for
crosscutting programs complement those of other agencies; program
strategies are mutually reinforcing; and, as appropriate, common
performance measures are used and they place greater emphasis on
collaboration in agency performance management systems. Furthermore, as
we have recommended, governmentwide strategic and annual planning
approaches led by OMB could aid in improving collaboration across
agency lines.
OMB has a central role in overseeing the management of federal agencies
and has used its role to promote results-oriented management practices.
Under its PMA initiatives, OMB has highlighted an agency-specific
initiative--coordination of VA and DOD programs and systems--for
improvement. However, this is only one of a number of areas that OMB
could be focusing on to improve coordination among federal agencies.
Moreover, given the problems we have previously identified with
interagency coordination and collaboration, OMB could bring greater
agency attention to improving collaboration by creating a
governmentwide PMA initiative related to coordination and collaboration
akin to its other five governmentwide initiatives. Furthermore, OMB
does not specifically emphasize collaboration in its standards for
successful strategic human capital management. In its PART program, OMB
has also highlighted effective coordination as one of its assessment
criteria. But it does not rely on sufficient information to assess the
effectiveness of the collaboration nor has OMB offered information on
practices that could assist agencies in enhancing their capacity to
coordinate and collaborate effectively. OMB could, therefore,
complement its existing efforts by looking to the practices in this
report as additional evidence of collaboration or to help diagnose why
collaborative efforts have not produced desired results.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
We recommend that the Director of OMB continue to encourage interagency
collaboration by focusing attention on additional areas in need of
greater collaboration to achieve common outcomes and promoting the
collaboration practices identified in this report. Options for doing
this could involve:
* expanding the PMA initiatives and standards to include either an
additional governmentwide initiative focused on improving collaboration
across federal agencies or additional agency initiatives focused on
specific areas in need of improved collaboration;
* expanding the standards for the PMA's strategic management of human
capital initiative to reflect the need for agencies to hold individuals
accountable, through their performance management systems, for
coordinating and collaborating within and across organizational
boundaries in order to help the agencies achieve their mission, goals,
and outcomes; and:
* supplementing the PART guidance on interagency coordination with
information about the collaboration practices in this report.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OMB for comment.
OMB's Counsel to the Deputy Director for Management responded orally
that OMB agreed with the recommendation. We also provided relevant
sections of a draft of this report to the agencies involved in the
three collaboration efforts--VA, DOD, USDA, HHS, and the Departments of
Education and the Interior. They offered technical suggestions which we
incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Director of OMB. We will
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, this 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) 512-6543 or at steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be
found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
are listed in appendix III.
Sincerely yours,
Bernice Steinhardt:
Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
To identify key practices that can help enhance and sustain
collaboration as well as federal agency collaborative efforts that
illustrate these practices, we reviewed academic literature and prior
GAO and Congressional Research Service reports. In addition, we
interviewed experts in coordination, collaboration, partnerships, and
networks from the National Academy of Public Administration, the IBM
Center for The Business of Government, and the University of
California, Berkeley. Although achieving results may involve the
collaborative efforts of both federal and nonfederal partners, for the
purpose of this work we focused on the practices that federal agencies
can employ.
Using our literature review and interviews, we derived a set of
practices that we believe can help enhance and sustain federal agency
collaborative efforts. After examining the various approaches,
frameworks, and models that have been used to describe collaboration
practices, we derived from that material a set of practices that are
consistent with results-oriented performance management and agency
requirements under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.
Therefore, we do not consider our categorization of the practices for
collaborative efforts to be definitive and recognize that alternative
categorizations of practices could be developed and additional
practices included.
While we generally believe that the application of as many of these
practices as possible increases the likelihood of effective
collaboration, we also recognize that there is a wide range of
situations and circumstances in which agencies work together.
Consequently, in some cases the judicious adoption of even a few
practices may be sufficient for effective collaboration while in other
cases the adoption of all these practices may not be sufficient to
guarantee an effective working relationship.
To illustrate, and to also help refine these practices, we selected
three areas where federal agencies have developed ongoing
collaborations: Healthy People 2010--a long-standing effort to develop
and track public health objectives for the nation, wildland fire
management, and health resource sharing between Veterans Affairs (VA)
and the Department of Defense (DOD). We selected these areas based on
expert views and our prior work indicating that substantial
collaboration was taking place. We selected examples from among the
three collaborative efforts that, in our judgment, most clearly
illustrated and supported the practices we identified. Therefore,
agencies other than those cited for a particular practice may, or may
not, be engaged in the same practice. As the objectives of this work
were to identify practices that can help enhance and sustain such
collaboration, we did not assess whether the examples of collaboration
practices we highlighted resulted in improved performance in these
three areas.
For our review, we selected two Healthy People 2010 focus areas--
"Disability and Secondary Conditions" and "Nutrition and Overweight"--
that involve substantial collaboration among the Department of Health
and Human Services (HHS), which leads this initiative, and non-HHS
agencies. The Department of Education's National Institute on
Disability and Rehabilitation Research coleads the Disability and
Secondary Conditions focus area with HHS's Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention (CDC). While HHS's Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
and National Institutes of Health (NIH) colead the Nutrition and
Overweight focus area, with the CDC's National Center for Health
Statistics providing the majority of data for assessing progress toward
attaining the Nutrition and Overweight objectives, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) provides most of the food and consumption data.
To obtain perspectives on the practices being used by the federal
agencies involved in Healthy People 2010, we reviewed literature on
Healthy People and met with officials from the National Academy of
Public Administration and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. We
interviewed federal officials from the Office of Disease Prevention and
Health Promotion at HHS who coordinate this effort. We also interviewed
federal officials from USDA's Agriculture Research Service, Center for
Nutrition Policy and Promotion, and Food and Nutrition Service; HHS's
FDA, CDC, and NIH; and the Department of Education's National Institute
on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
We judgementally selected and interviewed officials from three state
health agencies that differed in their approaches to healthy people
initiatives--Iowa Division of Administration, Pennsylvania Bureau of
Health Planning, and the California Department of Health Services--to
obtain nonfederal perspectives on the federal collaborative efforts to
develop Healthy People 2010.
To obtain perspectives on the practices used by VA and DOD to share
health resources, we reviewed our prior reports and met with officials
from VA's Resource Sharing Office and DOD's DOD-VA Program Coordination
Office. We also spoke with VA and DOD staff and reviewed agency
documents they provided at the specific sites we visited in California,
Florida, and Kentucky covering the Air Force, Navy, and Army
respectively. In California, we visited the VA McClellan outpatient
clinic in Sacramento and the David Grant Medical Center at Travis Air
Force Base. In Florida, we visited the VA Outpatient Clinic, Naval
Hospital, and Corry Station Branch Medical Clinic--all in Pensacola. In
Kentucky, we visited the Louisville VA Medical Center, the VA Community
Based Outpatient Clinic in Standiford Field, and Ireland Army Community
Hospital in Fort Knox.
To obtain perspectives on the practices being used by the federal
agencies involved in wildland fire management, we reviewed our prior
reports and documents we obtained from these agencies. We interviewed
officials from the Office of the National Fire Plan Coordinator at the
Forest Service and the Office of Wildland Fire Coordination at the
Department of the Interior. We also visited the National Interagency
Fire Center (NIFC) at Boise, Idaho, and interviewed NIFC staff from six
federal agencies--the Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Indian
Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, and National Park Service of the
Department of the Interior; the Forest Service of USDA; and the
National Weather Service of the Department of Commerce. While at NIFC,
we also interviewed staff from Interior's Office of Aviation Services.
To obtain a perspective from stakeholders on federal interagency
collaboration, we interviewed representatives from the Western
Governors' Association and the National Association of State Foresters.
We conducted our work from May 2004 through August 2005 in offices in
the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area; Boise, Idaho; Louisville and
Fort Knox, Kentucky; Pensacola, Florida; and Sacramento and Fairfield,
California, in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Federal Collaborative Efforts We Reviewed:
Table 1: Federal Collaborative Efforts We Reviewed:
Federal collaborative effort: Healthy People 2010;
Description: The Healthy People 2010 initiative provides a
comprehensive set of national disease prevention and health promotion
objectives to be achieved over a 10-year period along with indicators
to measure progress; First issued in 1979 in Healthy People: The
Surgeon General's Report on Health Promotion and Disease Prevention,
and updated in 1990, the Healthy People 2010 initiative is the third
time that HHS has developed 10-year Healthy People objectives for the
nation; The Healthy People 2010 objectives are designed to achieve two
overarching goals--(1) increase quality and years of healthy life and
(2) eliminate health disparities. The 467 objectives are organized
around 28 focus areas, such as access to quality health services,
cancer, medical product safety, and physical activity and fitness; The
Disability and Secondary Condition focus area comprises 13 objectives
to "promote the health of people with disabilities, prevent secondary
conditions, and eliminate disparities between people with and without
disabilities in the U.S. population." This focus area was included as a
new area for Healthy People 2010; The Nutrition and Overweight focus
area comprises 18 objectives to "promote health and reduce chronic
disease associated with diet and weight." Nutrition has been included
as a focus area in the Healthy People initiative since its inception in
1979;
Key federal agencies, partners, and stakeholders: The Healthy People
initiative is led by HHS. HHS uses a broad consultation process in the
development of the objectives involving state and territorial public
health, mental health, substance abuse, and environmental agencies; and
national professional, advocacy, and business sector organizations. HHS
designated lead and colead federal agencies for each of the 28 focus
areas. Additionally each focus area has a work group comprising
representatives from both federal and nonfederal partners; CDC and the
Department of Education's National Institute on Disability and
Rehabilitation Research are the two colead agencies for the Disability
and Secondary Conditions focus area. Work group members include
representatives from the Department of Commerce and the Social Security
Administration as well as HHS agencies, such as the Administration for
Children and Families, Indian Health Service, and Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration; FDA and NIH are the two colead
agencies for the Nutrition and Overweight focus area. While the CDC's
National Center for Health Statistics provides the majority of the data
to track the achievement of objectives in this area, USDA is also a
partner in this effort. Work group members for this focus area also
include representatives from other HHS agencies--such as the
Administration on Aging, CDC, Indian Health Services, and Health
Resources and Services Administration--and the Department of Education.
Federal collaborative effort: VA and DOD health resource sharing;
Description: In 1982, Congress passed the "Sharing Act" to promote cost-
effective use of health care resources and efficient delivery of
care.[A] Specifically, Congress authorized VA medical centers and DOD
military treatment facilities to enter into sharing agreements with
each other to buy, sell, and barter medical and support services. In
2002, Congress passed additional legislation to encourage and foster
health resources sharing between VA and DOD. For example, VA and DOD
were required to establish a high-level joint committee for developing
and establishing collaborative efforts; develop a joint strategic plan;
provide start-up funds for sharing projects; and fund resource-sharing
demonstration projects.b; VA and DOD sharing activities fall into three
categories: 1. national sharing initiatives designed to lower costs and
provide better access to goods and services by purchasing nationally
rather than by individual facilities;; 2. joint-venture sharing
agreements aimed at reducing costs by pooling resources, for example to
build a new facility or jointly use an existing facility; and; 3. local
sharing agreements pertaining to inpatient and outpatient care,
ancillary services--such as diagnostic and therapeutic radiology,
dental care, and specialty care--and other support services such as
administration and management, research, education and training,
patient transportation, and laundry;
Key federal agencies, partners, and stakeholders: VA and DOD.
Federal collaborative effort: Wildland fire management;
Description: Federal fire agencies use the interagency 2001 Federal
Wildland Fire Management Policy and the National Fire Plan to manage
wildland fires.[C] The 2001 federal fire policy provides the broad
policy foundation for federal fire management programs and activities,
including those under the National Fire Plan; The 2001 federal fire
policy contains nine guiding principles for the management of wildland
fires including: firefighter and public safety is the first priority in
every fire management activity; standardization of policies and
procedures among federal agencies is an ongoing objective; and federal,
state, tribal, local, interagency, and international coordination and
cooperation are essential; The National Fire Plan comprises various
documents including--(1) a September 2000 report from the Secretaries
of Agriculture and the Interior to the President in response to the
wildland fires of 2000,[D] (2) a conference committee report
accompanying the fiscal year 2001 appropriations act,e and (3) a 10-
year comprehensive strategy and implementation plan for reducing fire
risks.f; The National Fire Plan addresses five key issues: (1)
firefighting resources and personnel, (2) rehabilitation and
restoration, (3) hazardous fuels reduction, (4) community assistance,
and (5) accountability;
Key federal agencies, partners, and stakeholders: The five federal
agencies with wildland fire responsibilities are the Forest Service at
USDA; Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Fish and
Wildlife Service, and National Park Service at the Department of the
Interior. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is also involved to
the extent that wildland fires at the urban interface may involve
buildings. Key nonfederal stakeholders include the Western Governors'
Association/National Governors Association, National Association of
State Foresters, National Association of Counties, and the Intertribal
Timber Council.
Source: GAO analysis of agency documents.
[A] Veterans' Administration and Department of Defense Health Resources
Sharing and Emergency Operations Act, Pub. L. No. 97-174, 96 Stat. 70
(May 4, 1982).
[B] Bob Stump National Defense Authorization Act of 2003, Pub. L. No.
107-314, §721-22, 116 Stat. 2458, 2589-98 (Dec. 2, 2002).
[C] U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and National Association of State Foresters, Review and Update
of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (Washington, D.C.:
January 2001).
[D] U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the Environment: A
Report to the President In Response to the Wildfires of 2000
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2000).
[E] U.S. House of Representatives, Making Appropriations for the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year
Ending September 30, 2001, and for Other Purposes, Report 106-914
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2000).
[F] U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Western Governors' Association, A Collaborative Approach for Reducing
Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year
Comprehensive Strategy (Washington, D.C.: August 2001); and U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Western
Governors' Association, A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive
Strategy, Implementation Plan (Washington, D.C.: May 2002).
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Bernice Steinhardt, (202) 512-6543:
Acknowledgments:
Thomas M. Beall, Mallory B. Bulman, Elizabeth H. Curda, Patricia A.
Dalton, Bertha Dong, Martin H. De Alteriis, Janice C. Latimer, Benjamin
T. Licht, Allen C. Lomax, William A. McKelligott, Michael L. Rose, and
Lisa R. Shames made major contributions to this report. In addition,
Aditi Shah Archer, Cynthia A. Bascetta, Michael T. Blair, Jr., David P.
Bixler, Chester M. Joy, Jacqueline M. Nowicki, and Sarah E. Veale
provided key assistance.
FOOTNOTES
[1] GAO, Project SAFECOM: Key Cross-Agency Emergency Communications
Effort Requires Stronger Collaboration, GAO-04-494 (Washington, D.C.:
Apr. 16, 2004) and Homeland Security: Management of First Responder
Grant Programs and Efforts to Improve Accountability Continue to
Evolve, GAO-05-530T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 2005).
[2] For the purpose of this report we use the term "collaboration"
broadly to include interagency activities that others have variously
defined as "cooperation," "coordination," "integration," or
"networking." We have done so since there are no commonly accepted
definitions for these terms and we are unable to make definitive
distinctions between these different types of interagency activities.
The background section contains a more complete definition of
collaboration as used in this report.
[3] GAO, Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nonproliferation Programs Need
Better Integration, GAO-05-157 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 28, 2005).
[4] GAO, Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination,
GAO/GGD-00-106 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000).
[5] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). Under GPRA, federal
agencies are required to develop strategic plans, performance plans,
and performance reports that set long-term and annual goals along with
the means for accomplishing the goals and report on achieving them.
[6] For factors that enhance regional collaboration across federal,
state, and local entities see GAO, Homeland Security: Effective
Regional Coordination Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness, GAO-04-1009
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2004).
[7] In prior GAO work on wildland fire management, we defined
coordination as an activity that takes place among federal agencies and
collaboration as an activity that occurs among federal and nonfederal
partners. In this report we do not distinguish between the two terms.
For further explanation see footnote 2.
[8] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005).
[9] See E. Bardach, Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and
Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship (Washington, D.C.: Brookings
Institution, 1998).
[10] As Bardach maintains, if successfully done, occasional meetings by
which participants agree upon their respective responsibilities
increase public value. To successfully manage such agreement requires
participants working together collaboratively.
[11] U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy and Program
Review: Final Report (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 18, 1995).
[12] Pub. L. No. 97-174, 96 Stat. 70 (May 4, 1982); House Report 97-72;
Senate Report 97-137.
[13] Pub. L. No. 107-314, §721, 116 Stat. 2458, 2589-2595 (Dec. 2,
2002).
[14] GAO, Opportunities for Congressional Oversight and Improved Use of
Taxpayer Funds: Budgetary Implications of Selected GAO Work, GAO-04-649
(Washington, D.C.: May 7, 2004).
[15] GAO, VA and DOD Health Care: Resource Sharing at Selected Sites,
GAO-04-792 (Washington D.C.: July 21, 2004).
[16] We identified a series of useful practices and implementation
steps for mergers and organizational transformation that address a
number of these same areas such as leadership and culture. See GAO,
Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and
Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
[17] The VA facilities in Biloxi and New Orleans are both over 100
miles from the VA Pensacola Outpatient Clinic.
[18] U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Managing the Impact of Wildfires on Communities and the
Environment: A Report to the President In Response to the Wildfires of
2000 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 2000).
[19] U.S. House of Representatives, Making Appropriations for the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year
Ending September 30, 2001, and for Other Purposes, Report 106-914
(Sept. 29, 2000).
[20] U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
and Western Governors' Association, A Collaborative Approach for
Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10
Year Comprehensive Strategy (Washington, D.C.: August 2001); and U.S.
Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture, and Western
Governors' Association, A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland
Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment: 10-Year Comprehensive
Strategy, Implementation Plan (Washington, D.C.: May 2002).
[21] U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Department of Energy, Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, and National Association of State Foresters, Review and Update
of the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Management Policy (Washington, D.C.:
January 2001).
[22] We also reported on how these changes have affected the ability of
people with disabilities to work. See GAO, SSA Disability: Program
Redesign Necessary to Encourage Return to Work, GAO/HEHS-96-62
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 24, 1996) and SSA Disability: Other Programs
May Provide Lessons for Improving Return-to-Work Efforts, GAO-01-153
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 12, 2001).
[23] The dietary guidelines have been jointly issued every 5 years
since 1980. For the most recent guidelines see U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Dietary
Guidelines for Americans 2005 (Washington, D.C.: 2005).
[24] National Institutes of Health, Clinical Guidelines on the
Identification, Evaluation, and Treatment of Overweight and Obesity in
Adults: The Evidence Report, NIH Publication No. 98-4083 (Bethesda,
Md.: September 1998).
[25] Pub. L. 107-314 and Department of Veterans Affairs and Department
of Defense, Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense
Joint Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2005 (Washington, D.C.: December
2004).
[26] The Incident Command System (ICS), the onsite management system,
provides a common organizational structure, procedures, and standards
for agencies responding to wildland fires. This ICS system has since
been adopted nationally as the National Incident Management System by
the Department of Homeland Security to be utilized for all emergencies
including terrorism, floods, and hurricanes. The ICS system has also
been adopted by other countries, such as Canada, Australia, and New
Zealand.
[27] Staffing for the Wildland Fire Leadership Council at USDA is under
the Forest Service's National Coordinator for the National Fire Plan,
while staffing at Interior is under the Office of Wildland Fire
Coordination. These two offices are also responsible for coordinating
with the other federal agencies and nonfederal partners, such as the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National
Governors Association, Intertribal Timber Council, National Association
of State Foresters, and National Association of Counties.
[28] The 30-day public comment period for the proposed midcourse review
revisions was held from August 15, 2005, through September 15, 2005,
with the final revisions to be issued in 2006. Additionally, according
to NIH officials, HHS uses a publicly available online database,
DATA2010, to monitor and report on the status of achieving the Healthy
People objectives.
[29] Smokejumpers conduct after action reviews after each mission
rather than a single review at the end of the wildland fire incident.
[30] U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of the
Interior, Interagency Strategy for the Implementation of Federal
Wildland Fire Management Policy, June 20, 2003. This policy was
approved by the departments on April 21, 2004.
[31] Note that while USDA set these percentage targets to be achieved
by 2007, Healthy People 2010 has set targets of 15 and 5 percent,
respectively, to be achieved by 2010.
[32] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).
[33] GAO, Human Capital: Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be
Significantly Strengthened to Achieve Results, GAO-04-614 (Washington,
D.C.: May 26, 2004).
[34] The One-HHS management and program objectives reflect the goals
and priorities of the Secretary of HHS for the department.
[35] GAO-04-614.
[36] GAO, Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits From Selected
Agencies' Use of Performance Agreements, GAO-01-115 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 30, 2000).
[37] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
[38] OMB, "The President's Management Agenda, Fiscal Year 2002"
(Washington, D.C.: August 2001). See also GAO, Management Reform:
Assessing the President's Management Agenda, GAO-05-574T (Washington,
D.C.: Apr. 21, 2005).
[39] Executive Performance and Accountability Regulations, 69 Fed. Reg.
45548 (July 29, 2004) (codified at 5 C.F.R. pts. 430, 1330).
[40] GAO-05-207.
[41] See GAO, Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's
Program Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO-04-
174 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004). A follow-up report, scheduled to
be issued in October 2005, examines the effects the PART
recommendations have on agency operations and program results, the
relationship between PART and GPRA, and congressional involvement in
the PART process.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
