Last updated 5 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
The federal government runs on advice and coordination. Two key mechanisms make this happen: Federal Advisory Committees (FACs) and Interagency Working Groups (IWGs).
While both shape policy and government action, they work in fundamentally different ways and offer vastly different levels of public access.
Federal Advisory Committees bring outside voices into government decision-making. Think scientists advising NASA, business leaders counseling the Commerce Department, or civil rights advocates working with federal agencies. These committees are heavily regulated under federal law to ensure transparency and balanced representation.
Interagency Working Groups work differently. They coordinate between federal agencies on complex issues that cross departmental lines—like climate change, cybersecurity, or pandemic response. These groups typically include only federal employees and operate with far less public oversight.
Federal Advisory Committees: Opening Government to Outside Expertise
What Advisory Committees Do
Federal Advisory Committees serve as a bridge between government and the public. They tap expertise from private citizens, academics, scientists, business leaders, state and local officials, and advocacy groups to inform federal decisions across virtually every area of government activity.
The Federal Communications Commission uses committees like the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council to get technical expertise on telecommunications policy. The Department of Commerce sponsors Industry Trade Advisory Committees that advise on international trade policy for specific sectors like aerospace and digital economy.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights relies on 56 State Advisory Committees—one for each state, DC, and five territories—to monitor civil rights conditions locally. These committees have influenced policy changes on issues ranging from solitary confinement in Connecticut prisons to special education policies in Kansas.
Advisory committees can go by many names—task forces, panels, commissions, working groups, boards, or councils. But their core function remains consistent: bringing external expertise to government decision-making. Their recommendations are typically advisory only, not legally binding.
The Federal Advisory Committee Act
The Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), passed in 1972, governs most advisory committees. This law sits in Chapter 10 of Title 5, United States Code and serves four main purposes.
First, FACA ensures transparency. Congress and the public must be kept informed about committee numbers, purposes, membership, activities, and costs. Second, it provides opportunities for public participation in committee deliberations. Third, it requires “fairly balanced” membership to limit special interest influence. Fourth, it ensures committees operate efficiently and cost-effectively.
The Department of Commerce emphasizes FACA’s role in ensuring public knowledge and participation in meetings where agencies get group advice. The Department of the Interior notes that FACA requires open meetings and publicly available work products.
How Advisory Committees Form
Advisory committees can be created through several mechanisms, broadly categorized as “non-discretionary” or “discretionary.”
Non-discretionary committees are mandated by higher authority. Presidential Advisory Committees are established by Executive Order. Statutory Advisory Committees are directly required by Congress.
Discretionary committees offer more flexibility. Agency heads can establish advisory committees if they determine, in consultation with the General Services Administration, that non-federal input would benefit the public interest. These face higher procedural hurdles, requiring justification for their necessity. Congress may also authorize—but not require—agencies to establish committees.
Every FACA committee needs a formal charter before it can meet or take action. This charter defines the committee’s name, mission, activities, duties, supporting agency, estimated costs, meeting frequency, and termination date. Charters must be filed with the sponsoring agency head, relevant Congressional oversight committees, GSA’s Committee Management Secretariat, and the Library of Congress.
You can find these charters in the GSA FACA Database. When Congress considers legislation to establish advisory committees, FACA requires the legislation to include clearly defined purposes, balanced membership provisions, independence assurances, funding details, and adequate staffing provisions.
Advisory committees aren’t permanent. They typically terminate two years after establishment unless renewed by the President or relevant agency head, or if Congress specifies a different duration. To continue operating, committees must refile their charters every two years.
Who Serves on Advisory Committees
A defining characteristic of FACA committees is including at least one member who isn’t a full-time or permanent part-time federal employee. These non-federal members can be private citizens, academic or industry experts, representatives of non-governmental organizations, or state, local, or tribal officials.
If a group has even one non-federal member, FACA likely applies. If all members are federal employees, it typically doesn’t—even if it’s called a “working group” and provides advice.
FACA requires “fairly balanced” membership reflecting “the points of view represented and the functions to be performed by the advisory committee.” This ensures comprehensive advice that considers diverse perspectives without undue influence from any single interest group.
Agencies have discretion in achieving this balance. They consider the committee’s mission, potential impact of recommendations, and needed perspectives from consumers, technical experts, academia, business, or people with relevant lived experience. Balance doesn’t necessarily mean numerical parity of viewpoints.
For discretionary committees, agencies must develop a Membership Balance Plan outlining how they’ll achieve balance. This plan details the process for identifying necessary viewpoints, outreach efforts including to underserved communities, and candidate selection criteria. The plan, accessible through the FACA Database, shows an agency’s strategy and commitment to achieving genuine viewpoint diversity.
FACA doesn’t rigidly define nomination and appointment processes. Specific procedures may be outlined in establishing statutes, Executive Orders, agency guidance, or Membership Balance Plans. Nominations can come from public calls in the Federal Register, Congressional recommendations, agency officials, professional societies, or the general public. Unless specified otherwise, the sponsoring agency head typically has final appointment authority.
Advisory committee members serve in different capacities. Special Government Employees are temporary federal employees serving typically no more than 130 days within 365 days. They exercise independent judgment and face federal ethics laws and conflict-of-interest requirements.
Representatives are appointed to provide specific viewpoints of non-governmental entities, industries, organizations, or recognizable groups like labor unions or environmental organizations. They generally aren’t subject to the same conflict-of-interest reviews as Special Government Employees because their role is representing particular interests.
Ex Officio Members serve by virtue of holding particular federal offices.
Transparency Under FACA
FACA includes several provisions ensuring advisory committee operations are open to public scrutiny.
Agencies must publish notice of every advisory committee meeting in the Federal Register at least 15 calendar days beforehand. This notice includes the committee name, meeting time, date, location or virtual access details, agenda summary, statement on whether any portion will be closed to the public, and Designated Federal Officer contact information.
FACA mandates open meetings. The public must be permitted to attend, appear before the committee through scheduled comment periods, and file written statements. Agencies may establish guidelines for oral presentations during meetings.
While openness is the default, FACA allows closing meetings or portions under specific circumstances governed by Government in the Sunshine Act exemptions. These include properly classified national security information, proprietary trade secrets, or personal privacy matters that would constitute unwarranted invasion if disclosed.
If a committee intends to close a meeting, it must take a formal vote and make results publicly available. However, an Administrative Conference of the United States recommendation noted that in years leading up to 2011, “the majority of committee meetings have been either partially or fully closed from public attendance.” This suggests available exemptions are used frequently, meaning FACA openness isn’t absolute.
FACA requires that records, reports, transcripts, minutes, working papers, drafts, studies, agendas, and other documents made available to or prepared for advisory committees be available for public inspection and copying, subject to Freedom of Information Act exemptions.
Detailed minutes of each meeting must be kept, including attendee lists, descriptions of matters discussed and their resolution, and copies of documents received or approved. Minutes must be certified for accuracy by the committee chair and Designated Federal Officer.
GSA guidance clarifies that FOIA Exemption 5 for pre-decisional documents is narrowly limited for advisory committees, applying mainly to privileged inter-agency or intra-agency documents prepared by an agency and shared with a committee.
Every FACA committee must have a Designated Federal Officer—a full-time or permanent part-time employee of the sponsoring agency. The DFO calls meetings, approves agendas, attends all committee and subcommittee meetings, adjourns meetings if necessary, and ensures FACA compliance including maintaining records and minutes.
GSA Oversight and the FACA Database
The General Services Administration plays a central oversight role in the FACA program government-wide. Within GSA, the Committee Management Secretariat handles all FACA-related matters.
The CMS consults with agencies on committee establishment, re-establishment, renewal, and termination. It issues government-wide guidance and regulations, provides training for agency officials, conducts annual comprehensive reviews of committee activities, costs, and benefits, and supports interagency councils focused on FACA compliance.
The GSA FACA Database serves as a key transparency tool. This publicly accessible database helps federal agencies manage approximately 1,000 advisory committees government-wide. It’s a central repository for committee charters, membership lists, meeting notices and minutes, reports, and operating cost data.
The database serves agencies managing their committees, Congress performing oversight, and the public, media, and other interested parties staying informed about committee activities and their advice to government. This centralized database for advisory committees highlights a significant difference from Interagency Working Groups, which lack such comprehensive public resources.
Advisory Committees in Action
Federal Advisory Committees advise on extensive issues critical to federal policy and public interest.
The Federal Communications Commission uses several committees like the Communications Security, Reliability and Interoperability Council, Consumer Advisory Committee, and Disability Advisory Committee to gain external expertise on communications policy and technology.
The Department of Commerce sponsors numerous committees including Industry Trade Advisory Committees providing advice on international trade policy for specific sectors like aerospace equipment, digital economy, and small and minority-led businesses. It also oversees committees at the National Institute of Standards and Technology, such as the Advisory Committee on Earthquake Hazards Reduction and the Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board.
The Library of Congress serves as a repository for advisory committee documents including charters, annual reports, meeting minutes, and background papers. Examples include the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse, Space Science Advisory Committee, and President’s Board of Advisors on Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Interagency Working Groups: Government Coordinating with Itself
What Working Groups Do
Interagency Working Groups are collaborative bodies composed of officials from different federal departments and agencies. Unlike advisory committees that bring external advice into government, working groups are primarily internal mechanisms facilitating coordination among federal agencies on issues crossing agency boundaries.
Working groups are essential for planning, developing, and implementing coordinated activities. They allow public officials to communicate about emerging research, stakeholder needs, and best practices. They tackle complex, crosscutting challenges that single agencies can’t effectively address alone—climate change, national security, economic revitalization for energy communities, public health emergencies, or cybersecurity.
The Government Accountability Office defines interagency collaboration as “any joint activity that is intended to produce more public value than could be produced when the entities act alone.” These groups can be long-standing entities or formed temporarily to address specific, time-bound issues, with varying levels of formality.
How Working Groups Form
Establishing working groups is less standardized than the FACA process for advisory committees. They can be created through various mechanisms.
Executive Orders frequently establish working groups to tackle specific policy priorities or coordinate responses to pressing issues. The Interagency Security Committee, which develops security standards for federal facilities, was established by Executive Order 12977 in 1995 following the Oklahoma City bombing.
Executive Order 13055 helped establish the Interagency Working Group on U.S. Government-Sponsored International Exchanges and Training. Lists of Executive Orders can be found on archived White House websites or through presidential document collections.
Congress may also legislate working group creation, defining members, purposes, and responsibilities. The Federal Interagency Committee on Emergency Medical Services was established by Congress in 2005 to ensure coordination among federal agencies supporting EMS and 911 systems.
Agency heads or their representatives can agree to form working groups to coordinate on shared responsibilities, emerging issues, or implement specific programs. These might be formalized through Memoranda of Understanding or less formal arrangements.
The Office of Management and Budget and National Security Council often drive or facilitate formation and operation of interagency task forces and working groups to ensure alignment with presidential priorities and effective policy implementation.
Who Serves on Working Groups
A key distinguishing feature of working groups is their membership. They’re typically composed exclusively or primarily of full-time or permanent part-time federal government officers and employees from participating agencies.
The Interagency Security Committee includes senior-level executives from 66 federal departments and agencies. Federal Executive Boards are composed of federal field office agency heads and military commanders in their respective cities.
This all-federal composition has significant legal consequences. If a working group is composed wholly of federal employees, it’s generally not subject to FACA requirements, even if its purpose is providing advice or recommendations within the executive branch. FACA applicability is triggered by having at least one non-federal member offering collective advice.
The term “Working Group” can lead to public confusion because it’s sometimes used to describe FACA committees that include non-federal members and are therefore subject to FACA rules. The crucial determinant for FACA applicability isn’t the group’s name, but its membership composition and whether it’s “established or utilized” by an agency to obtain collective advice from non-federal sources.
Citizens encountering a “working group” must look deeper into its membership and purpose to understand its governing rules and transparency obligations.
Transparency Framework for Working Groups
Because working groups are typically internal governmental bodies composed of federal employees, they operate under a different transparency framework than advisory committees.
Working groups comprised entirely of federal employees fall outside FACA’s scope, so they’re not bound by FACA’s detailed requirements for open meetings, public notice in the Federal Register, “fairly balanced” membership including non-federal individuals, or formal chartering processes overseen by GSA.
While FACA’s specific transparency rules may not apply, records created or maintained by working groups are generally subject to the Freedom of Information Act. This means the public can request access to working group documents like reports, meeting summaries, or correspondence by filing FOIA requests with relevant member agencies.
FOIA contains nine exemptions permitting agencies to withhold certain information categories—classified national security matters, confidential commercial information, records whose disclosure would invade personal privacy, and certain inter-agency or intra-agency pre-decisional deliberative materials. The Office of Government Information Services at the National Archives offers resources and mediation services for FOIA requesters.
The Government in the Sunshine Act mandates that multi-member federal agencies headed by collegial bodies conduct official meetings openly. This Act generally doesn’t apply to typical working groups, as they’re not usually “agencies” headed by presidentially appointed, Senate-confirmed collegial bodies.
Transparency for working groups often depends on participating agency policies or the specific mandate or charter of the working group itself. Some working groups are quite transparent, proactively publishing reports, research findings, meeting schedules, or activity summaries on their own websites or through parent agencies.
The Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections aims to “create a public clearinghouse for information” and makes its reports publicly available. However, this level of proactive disclosure isn’t universally required as it is for advisory committees under FACA. Public access often relies on agency discretion or citizen-initiated FOIA requests.
The differing legal frameworks mean that working groups’ primarily internal coordinating nature, typically exempt from FACA, results in operational transparency to the public being inherently less structured and less proactively mandated than advisory committees.
Working Groups in Action
Working groups are vital for addressing complex national and global issues requiring coordinated “whole-of-government” approaches. Their effectiveness is crucial for achieving significant governmental objectives.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program coordinates work of 14 federal agencies through various working groups like the Carbon Cycle Interagency Working Group, Coasts Interagency Group, and Interagency Crosscutting Group on Climate Change and Human Health. These groups plan and implement coordinated research activities and produce key assessments like the National Climate Assessment.
The Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections, co-chaired by the Department of Agriculture and Smithsonian Institution, works to improve management, effectiveness, and impact of scientific collections owned or supported by the federal government. It publishes reports on economic and scientific value of these collections and promotes public access through resources like the Global Registry of Scientific Collections.
The Interagency Security Committee comprises representatives from 66 federal departments and agencies, establishing policies, monitoring compliance, and enhancing security and protection of federal facilities across the U.S.
USDA’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture participates in numerous working groups focused on youth, such as the Federal Inter-Agency Working Group on Youth Programs, STEM Engagement IWG, and Financial Literacy and Education Commission. These groups coordinate federal efforts and have produced resources like Youth.gov and MyMoney.gov.
The Interagency Working Group on Coal and Power Plant Communities and Economic Revitalization, established in 2021, coordinates federal assistance to U.S. communities historically reliant on coal, oil, and natural gas industries impacted by energy transitions.
The Interagency Working Group for Consistent Enforcement of Federal Labor, Employment and Immigration Laws involves agencies like the Department of Labor, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and National Labor Relations Board. It aims to identify policies promoting consistent enforcement of these laws and protecting all workers in the U.S.
The Federal Interagency Technical Working Group on Race and Ethnicity Standards, convened by OMB, reviews federal statistical standards for race and ethnicity and provides recommendations for updates to ensure they keep pace with societal changes and data needs.
The Interagency Working Group on Arts, Health, and Civic Infrastructure, convened by the National Endowment for the Arts and Department of Health and Human Services, fosters exchanges across federal agencies about arts and cultural resources to improve health, well-being, and civic infrastructure.
Government success in tackling major national issues often depends on dedicated, often unseen, work of these groups. While less directly accessible to the public than advisory committees, their performance in fostering effective interagency collaboration is critical to governmental effectiveness. GAO has identified leading practices for interagency collaboration and often reports on areas where such collaboration needs improvement.
Key Differences Between Advisory Committees and Working Groups
| Feature | Federal Advisory Committees (FACs) | Interagency Working Groups (IWGs) |
|---|---|---|
| Primary Purpose | Provide advice, recommendations, and expertise to the government from external (non-federal) sources | Facilitate coordination, policy development, and program implementation within the federal government |
| Governing Law/Framework | Primarily the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA, 5 U.S.C. Chapter 10) | No single overarching law like FACA. Formed by Executive Order, statute, agency directive, etc. |
| Typical Membership | Must include at least one non-federal member (e.g., private citizens, experts, state/local officials) | Typically composed exclusively of federal government employees from multiple agencies |
| Formation Mechanism | FACA-stipulated processes: statutory, presidential, or agency discretion with GSA consultation and chartering | Varies: Executive Order, statute, agency memoranda of understanding, informal agreements |
| Key Transparency Mandates | FACA mandates: open meetings, public notice (Federal Register), public access to records/minutes, “fairly balanced” membership | Generally not subject to FACA’s specific mandates. Transparency governed by FOIA for records, agency discretion, or specific establishing authority |
| Primary Public Access Portal | GSA FACA Database for charters, members, meetings, reports | No single central database. Information via agency websites, FOIA requests, or specific IWG publications |
| Public Participation | FACA provides explicit rights for public attendance at meetings and submission of comments | Direct public participation is rare and depends on IWG’s specific design; more often indirect via agency channels |
The legal and structural differences outlined above directly lead to significant disparities in transparency mechanisms for advisory committees and working groups, and consequently, in the ease with which the public can access information and participate.
FACA establishes a proactive transparency regime for advisory committees, with mandated public disclosures and access points. In contrast, working groups, if composed solely of federal employees and thus not subject to FACA, largely fall under a reactive transparency model relying on FOIA requests initiated by the public or a discretionary one dependent on participating agencies choosing to share information.
This means citizens need different strategies and expectations when seeking information about these two types of governmental bodies.
How to Find Information and Participate
Finding Information on Federal Advisory Committees
Several resources are available for the public to learn about advisory committees.
The GSA FACA Database is the most comprehensive and primary public resource. Users can search for committees by agency, committee name, or keywords. The database typically contains committee charters, membership lists with affiliations, meeting schedules and notices including whether meetings are open, closed, or virtual, meeting minutes, final reports, and sometimes operating cost information.
The Federal Register is the official daily publication for rules, proposed rules, and notices of federal agencies and organizations, plus executive orders and other presidential documents. It’s the official source for advisory committee meeting notices, notices of committee establishment or renewal, and calls for member nominations.
Federal agencies that sponsor or support advisory committees often provide information on their own websites. Many departments have dedicated FACA pages listing their committees and relevant documents. The Department of Commerce and Department of the Interior maintain such pages.
The Library of Congress receives and makes available for public inspection copies of advisory committee records including charters, annual reports, and meeting minutes as mandated by FACA.
The National Archives and Records Administration provides guidance on federal record disposition, including those of advisory committees. Permanent records of terminated committees may be transferred to NARA for preservation and access.
Participating with Federal Advisory Committees
FACA provides several avenues for public participation.
Most advisory committee meetings are open to the public, whether held in person or virtually. Details about meeting times, locations or virtual access links, and agendas can be found in the FACA Database or through Federal Register notices.
The public generally has the right to file written statements with advisory committees at any time, or in response to specific requests for input.
Many committees, in accordance with agency guidelines, allocate portions of their open meetings for public oral comments. Procedures for signing up to speak are usually included in meeting notices.
Individuals with relevant expertise or representing affected interests can apply or be nominated for committee membership. Agencies often publish calls for nominations in the Federal Register or on their websites, outlining required qualifications and application processes.
Accessing Information on Interagency Working Groups
Accessing information about working groups is often more challenging due to their internal nature and lack of a centralized public database like the FACA Database.
The most direct way to find information is often through the website of the lead agency or key participating agencies involved in a specific working group. Some working groups maintain their own websites or have dedicated pages on agency sites where they may post reports, mission statements, member agencies, or activity summaries.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program lists its various interagency groups, and the Interagency Working Group on Scientific Collections has a detailed site.
For records and documents not proactively disclosed by working groups or their member agencies, the public can file FOIA requests. These requests should be directed to specific agencies believed to hold the records. Information on filing FOIA requests is available at FOIA.gov. The Office of Government Information Services at NARA provides dispute resolution services for FOIA requesters and agencies.
Congress, through its committees, or the Government Accountability Office may investigate and publish reports discussing activities, effectiveness, and outcomes of specific working groups, particularly those dealing with significant national issues or large expenditures.
If a working group was formally established by Executive Order or Act of Congress, these founding documents are publicly available and can provide information on the group’s purpose, mandate, and sometimes membership structure. These can be found through government publishing resources like GovInfo.gov.
General Government Transparency Resources
Beyond these specific avenues for advisory committees and working groups, citizens can engage with broader government processes.
Regulations.gov is the federal government’s central portal for the public to find, review, and submit comments on proposed federal regulations and related documents. While distinct from advisory committee processes, it’s a primary channel for public input into formal rulemaking.
Most federal agencies have their own FOIA offices and often provide online portals for submitting and tracking FOIA requests directly to that agency.
The pathways for public engagement and information access differ significantly based on whether a group is an advisory committee subject to FACA’s structured, proactive transparency requirements, or a working group, where access often depends more on agency discretion for proactive disclosure or requires citizen-initiated FOIA requests for reactive access.
Understanding these distinctions helps citizens navigate the complex landscape of federal advisory and coordinating bodies, enabling more effective civic engagement with government decision-making processes.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.