Non-FACA advisory groups are generally less  formal than those established under and subject to the requirements of  FACA. The Absence of Specific Assessment Steps and Readily Available Information on Non-FACA Groups Hinders Efforts to Assess Duplication Risk

		DOT and DOE Informally Assess Advisory Groups for Duplication

The approach used by DOT and DOE to assess duplication amongst  advisory groups is often informal, and agency officials are not always  clear about what steps should be taken to ensure the assessment of  existing advisory groups is consistently made. GSA relies on federal  agencies to follow the FACA requirement to check for duplication prior to  filing a charter to establish a new, or renew an existing, FACA advisory  group under agency authority. Both DOT and DOE agency officials faced some challenges identifying  and collecting basic information for non-FACA advisory groups—including  agency points of contact and brief group descriptions—and the process  was, at points, time consuming or cumbersome for them. Specifically, advisory  groups can inform agencies about topics of importance to the agency’s  mission, consolidate input from multiple sources, and provide input at a  relatively low cost. To further review the usefulness of advisory groups, we conducted case  studies on five DOT and DOE FACA and non-FACA advisory groups and  identified several practices that helped enhance the usefulness of some  of these advisory groups and, in some cases, also helped avoid  duplication (see table 1 below). Practices identified as influencing the usefulness  of some advisory groups include (1) securing clear agency commitment,  (2) finding a balance between responsiveness to the agency and  independence, (3) leveraging resources through collaboration with similar  groups, and (4) evaluating the group’s usefulness to identify future  directions for the group or actions to improve its usefulness. DOE officials also assisted with the development of  agendas for meetings, which can be highly interactive. However, neither agency’s guidance includes specific  steps for assessing duplication, resulting in an informal process that is not  always comprehensive. DOT and DOE are only  two among many federal government agencies that widely use advisory  groups, however, these actions could be a good first step in facilitating  coordination and sharing of information of advisory groups  governmentwide. DOT and DOE agreed to consider the  recommendations. To assess the extent to which DOT’s and DOE’s assessment process  helps to ensure advisory groups efforts are not duplicative, and to  determine what challenges may exist in assessing duplication, we  narrowed the scope of our review and assessed the potential for  duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among 47 of the 88 FACA and  non-FACA advisory groups identified as active within fiscal year 2010. From these 47 advisory groups, we then selected those groups that focus  on common issues or topic areas in these broad areas for further analysis  to better understand whether in fact the groups’ efforts were potentially  duplicative and interviewed agency officials in the following offices:
DOT: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) officials within the Office  of the Deputy Administrator; Air Traffic Organization; Office of Aviation  Safety; and Office of Policy, International Affairs and Environment that  were involved in five FACA and four non-FACA advisory groups that  were identified as potentially duplicative, overlapping or fragmented;  and
DOE: Office of the Secretary; Office of Science; Office of Health,  Safety and Security; and Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable  Energy officials that were involved in three FACA and five non-FACA  advisory groups that were identified as potentially duplicative,  overlapping, or fragmented. To review the usefulness of DOT and DOE advisory groups in assisting  their respective agencies in carrying out their mission, and to identify  practices to enhance their usefulness or help avoid duplication, we  conducted in-depth case studies on three FACA and two non-FACA  advisory groups. In addition, we developed criteria to understand the extent to which  advisory groups provided input on topics of importance to their respective  agencies’ missions and to describe the advice producing activities of  advisory groups, such as whether the advisory group held meetings and  produced reports and recommendations and if the groups’ objectives  were documented and were related to the agency’s strategic goals or  mission. We also gathered information on a  selection of FACA and non-FACA advisory groups by reviewing  information from the FACA database, advisory group charters and  websites, relevant agency strategic planning documents, and interviewing  agency officials for both FACA and non-FACA advisory groups.
Why GAO Did This Study

Advisory groupsthose established under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and other groups not subject to the actcan play an important role in the development of policy and government regulations. There are more than 1,000 FACA advisory groups and an unknown number of non-FACA advisory groups governmentwide. Non-FACA groups include intergovernmental groups. Section 21 of Pub. L. No. 111-139 requires GAO to conduct routine investigations to identify programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives with duplicative goals and activities. In that context, GAO reviewed (1) the extent to which the Department of Transportations (DOT) and Department of Energys (DOE) assessment process helps ensure advisory group efforts are not duplicative and what challenges, if any, exist in assessing potential duplication, and (2) to what extent DOT and DOE advisory groups are useful in assisting their respective agencies in carrying out their missions and how the groups usefulness could be enhanced. GAO selected DOT and DOE for review based on knowledge of these agencies advisory groups. GAO interviewed agency officials; reviewed advisory group documentation; and conducted case studies of five advisory groups.

What GAO Found

Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and Department of Transportation (DOT) and Department of Energy (DOE) guidance require officials to check for duplication prior to filing a charter to establish a new or renew an existing FACA advisory group. However, GAO found that DOT and DOEs processes for assessing duplication are often informal, and neither agency has specific steps identified for making such an assessment. Using an informal approach without specific steps makes it more likely that agency assessments for duplication will be inconsistent or incomplete. In addition, while basic information about the 15 DOT and 21 DOE fiscal year 2010 FACA advisory groups is publicly available in the FACA database, including designated points of contact and the objectives of the groups, no such information is readily available for non-FACA advisory groups. This limits the agencies ability to fully assess the universe of advisory groups for particular topic areas. DOT and DOE officials faced some challenges identifying and collecting information for the 19 DOT and 33 DOE non-FACA advisory groups GAO reviewed, relying on various sources and Internet searches to gather basic information, since neither agency maintains an inventory of its non-FACA advisory groups and their activities. In addition, advisory groups often address complex and highly technical issues that span across agencies. For example, one advisory group GAO identified focused on experimental and theoretical research in nuclear physics. Agency officials familiar with these types of technical topic areas and other potential stakeholders covering these same topics are best positioned to assess the potential for unnecessary duplication and would be even better positioned to do so if the departments develop specific assessment steps and enhance the visibility of non-FACA advisory groups.
DOT and DOE advisory groups can be effective tools for agencies to gather input on topics of interest by informing agency leaders about issues of importance to the agencies missions, consolidating input from multiple sources, and providing input at a relatively low cost. To further review the usefulness of advisory groups, GAO conducted case studies on five DOT and DOE FACA and non-FACA advisory groups and identified several practices that could enhance the usefulness of these advisory groups and, in some cases, also help avoid duplication. These practices include the following:
securing clear agency commitment,
finding a balance between responsiveness to the agency and independence,
leveraging resources through collaboration with similar groups, and
evaluating the groups usefulness to identify future directions for the group or actions to improve its usefulness.
The practices identified can help agencies leverage the advice produced by advisory groups to more efficiently and effectively address topics of importance to the agencies. For example, DOE officials from a FACA advisory group stated that coordination with officials involved in related groups helps to ensure sharing of useful information and that efforts are complementary rather than duplicative.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that DOT and DOE document specific steps to assess potential duplication among FACA and non-FACA advisory groups and develop and make public basic information identifying non-FACA advisory groups to further inform periodic assessments. DOT and DOE agreed to consider the recommendations.