The Federal Communicators Network (FCN) has released "Advancing Federal Communications," a research paper that makes the case for clear and consistent quality standards for U.S. federal government communication. The result of a grassroots, volunteer study among an interagency group of government communicators, the paper incorporates extensive primary and secondary research and includes a set of concrete recommendations for improvement.

1. i
Advancing Federal Government Communications:
The Case for Professional Standards of Practice
The Federal Communicators Network
Professional Standards Working Group
August 2016

2. i
About This Document
This report is a product of the Federal Communicators Network (FCN) Professional Standards Working
Group (PSWG). Established in 1995, FCN is a professional community of federal employees offering free
volunteer training, networking, and other developmental opportunities for federal government
communicators. For more information about FCN, visit http://fedcommnetwork.org/.
Disclaimer
FCN is a grassroots professional network of federal employees and contractors with a .gov or .mil email
address. It is not affiliated with, nor does it necessarily represent, the views of the federal government
neither as a whole nor any specific agency within the government. Along these lines, all points of view
expressed in this document are those of the authors alone. Where names of federal agencies appear,
the purpose is only to provide biographical information.
Copyright Information
This work (“Advancing Federal Government Communications: The Case for
Professional Standards of Practice”) is free of known copyright restrictions.

3. ii
Acknowledgments
The individuals listed below dedicated considerable time and expertise to the development of this
document. No endorsement by or representation of any federal agency is expressed or implied. For
more information, see the Disclaimer (page i).
2016 FCN Board
Aubrey McMahan, Geological Survey (Chair)
Ethan Alpern, Department of Energy (Vice Chair)
Tamara Blount, Department of Homeland Security
Lisa Chesnel, Department of Agriculture
John Donovan, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Moniqua Roberts, National Institutes of Health
Christine Stevenson, Department of Health and Human Services
FCN Professional Standards Working Group Steering Committee
Dannielle Blumenthal, Ph.D., Department of Veterans Affairs
Jeff Brooke, MITRE Corporation (Special Advisor)
Joseph “Cos” Coslett, Defense Information School
Dave Hebert; Geological Survey
John Verrico, Department of Homeland Security
Jackye Zimmermann, Department of Education
Writing Team
Dannielle Blumenthal, Ph.D., Department of Veterans Affairs (Principal Writer)
Jeff Brooke, MITRE (Principal Writer)
Lisa Chesnel, Department of Agriculture
Donna Ledbetter, Department of Justice
Jacque Mason, Department of Commerce
Sharon Mitri, National Institutes of Health
Saudia Muwwakkil, General Services Administration
Special thanks to Maria Acker for her feedback on draft versions of this document.
Volunteers
There are dozens of professionals who deserve recognition for their contributions to this effort: event
organizers, meeting attendees, researchers, reviewers, editors, designers and more. It is impossible to
name each one, and some prefer their anonymity. This space is dedicated to their selfless and tireless
efforts.

4. iii
Introductory Message
Effective federal communications is essential to the effective operations of the government. It has long
been recognized in statute as a critical tool to demonstrate public accountability. Yet according to the
federal communicators surveyed in February 2016 by the Federal Communicators Network (FCN),
professional standards would make a significant positive difference in the operations of this function.
A working group commissioned by the FCN compiled these research findings and more into this report.
It highlights the ways in which a lack of standardization creates challenges for federal communicators,
and offers specific suggestions that can help pave the way forward.
To support the recommendations outlined here, the FCN Leadership Team is establishing a permanent
working group to explore methods for institutionalizing communication best practices in the federal
government. This effort will parallel other successful initiatives by the federal government in the realms
of information technology, accounting and financial controls, cybersecurity, web design, and
management.
Our independent volunteer-led group of government communications professionals has a long and
proud tradition of “Reinventing Government,” ever since our establishment in 1995 by then-Vice
President Al Gore. We believe, as did the Vice President, that public service can be nimble—and not just
a noble endeavor. To that end, we will continue to pursue excellence, and facilitate best practice
training events and professional networking for our independent grassroots network of communicators.
If the United States is to remain a vital, thriving democracy, the federal government cannot afford to
demand anything less than excellence from its communicators.

5. iv
Table of Contents
About This Document .................................................................................................................i
Disclaimer ...................................................................................................................................i
Copyright Information ................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................................ii
Introductory Message...............................................................................................................iii
Statement of Purpose.............................................................................................................................1
I. A Complex Environment ......................................................................................................................4
Legal Ambiguity..........................................................................................................................4
Organizational Dilemmas...........................................................................................................5
Parallel Workforces....................................................................................................................7
II. Supporting Data ..................................................................................................................................8
Secondary Evidence...................................................................................................................8
Key Findings ...............................................................................................................................9
Further Elaboration..................................................................................................................10
III. The Need for Communication Management...................................................................................12
IV. Recommendations and Next Steps..................................................................................................15
V. Conclusion.........................................................................................................................................17
References ...............................................................................................................................18
Appendix A: Quantitative Data................................................................................................20

6. 1
Statement of Purpose
The purpose of this research paper is to recommend that industry-wide best standards serve as a point
of reference for a thoughtful and proactive approach to developing a U.S. federal government
communication framework. This framework should have a body of consistent principles related to best
practices, practice guidelines, competency, and so on, while at the same time balancing autonomy and
integration needs.
There is, of course, no “one size fits all” approach to communication. Nor are the authors suggesting
there is a perfect model for the federal government; many communication management models can
work. What matters – at least for the purpose of meeting statutory requirements and implementing
adequate associated internal controls – is the aim for consistent definitions of quality across the board.
The paper began with an email sent in the fall of 2015, questioning the future of federal
communications as a profession. As a result of many months of research, in-person brainstorming
sessions, and a poll of federal communicators themselves, the authors find significant issues. All of them
result from a lack of quality standards and are associated with poor perceptions of the federal
government and its programs, as well as demoralized personnel and gaps in professional competency.
Supporting data:
1) Trust scores: Trust is a key indicator of communication effectiveness, and while the public
generally trusts federal workers as individuals, trust in the institution as a whole has dropped
progressively over the years. It is now at the lowest level ever recorded.
2) Perceptions of impenetrability: From a customer service point of view, a recent report (March)
published by the government digital service group 18F showed that Americans view the
government as a kind of impenetrable “black box.”
3) Standards gaps: There is also the matter of the gap between existing best practice standards
and performance. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit standards highlight
communication as critical to program success, and yet half of their recent studies identified
internal and stakeholder communication problems contributing to operational shortcomings (8
of 17 studies, May 1-20). Further, two of the nine factors GAO describes as necessary for
successful organizational transformation (Report GAO-03-669) are communication and
engagement. Yet agencies have no authoritative source for finding solutions to the problems
GAO finds—no repository of evidence-based practices and practitioners across government.
Consequently, agencies consume significant time and funds (contract or staff) reinventing
solutions that already exist.

7. 2
4) Lack of recognition: Communication is not considered a “mission-critical” occupation by the
Office of Personnel Management: On the 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)
Results, this listing includes only economists, auditors, human resources specialists, contract
specialists, and information technology specialists.
5) Lack of internal communication: Only about half of federal employees responding to the 2015
FEVS (51%) felt that “managers promote communication among different work units,” and less
than three-fifths (59%) said that “managers communicate the goals and priorities of the
organization.”
FCN’s own 2016 survey of 169 (self-selected) federal communicators supported the available data. A key
finding: expectations are neither clear nor consistent.
Based on best practice research conducted by the working group, the root cause for poor
communication in the federal government is the ad hoc nature of its governance (Many fields of
expertise, such as quality and software development, employ maturity models as a way to assess
capabilities. Most models employ five levels of maturity, from (1) least, which is Ad hoc, to (5) most
mature.) Put simply, there are no basic professional standards that outline requirements for
performance.
But there is no need to reinvent the wheel. Similar issues have appeared elsewhere in government in
recent decades—and they have been at least partly addressed by the inter-agency cooperation provided
by government-wide Executive Councils such as the CIO, CFO and IG Councils. However, a government-
wide Executive Council could effectively address the need for communication standards as well, just as
other councils have.
FCN recognizes the impractical nature of waiting for others to act. Therefore, the group will adopt the
recommendations of the working group, shown in the graphic below, to “kick start” the formal adoption
of a government wide communications standards body.

8. 3
Federal communication requires attention to standards government-wide. This is particularly true when
one considers that the overwhelming majority, 85%, of federal employees are located in the field. As
President Obama noted in his Presidential Proclamation for Public Service Recognition Week 2016:
“Throughout this week, we recognize the tireless efforts of the women and men who strive to
make sure ours is a government that stays true to its founding ideals. With 85 percent of
Federal Government jobs located outside of the Washington, D.C. area, our Federal workers,
together with leaders and advocates from State and local levels, play key roles in ensuring the
voices of the American people are heard.” - https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-
office/2016/04/29/presidential-proclamation-public-service-recognition-week-2016
Establishing common standards will promote trust in government and will assist communicators in
fulfilling their roles as stewards of public accountability as well as providers of essential information.
Federal Communicators Network
Recommendations for Establishing Professional Standards of Practice
Focus Area # 1: Create a Standard for Federal Communications
• Recommendation 1: Establish a framework of standards for federal communication
• Recommendation 2: Help facilitate a qualified pipeline of talent
Focus Area #2: Create an Institutional Framework for Federal Communications
• Recommendation 1: Create a permanent task force or council on federal
communications standards within the FCN
• Recommendation 2: Find a “home” for federal communications
• Recommendation 3: Draft a Recommended National Federal Communication Policy
Framework
Focus Area #3: Create a Formal Partnership for Federal Communications
• Recommendation 1: Formalize the FCN approach to partnerships
• Recommendation 2: Conduct outreach broadly and openly

9. 4
I. A Complex Environment
Legal Ambiguity
Both law and executive order clearly specify that communication is essential to the effective operations
of government. The Plain Writing Act of 2010 is directly applicable, as is The President’s Memorandum
on Transparency and Open Government of 2009. There are also requirements for effective writing
associated with the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982, better known as FMFIA, which
requires agencies to establish effective internal controls on accounting and administrative activities.
With regard to the latter, the General Accountability Office (GAO) places “information and
communication” among an agency’s primary internal controls.
There is another side to federal communication, however. It’s typically called “outreach,”
“engagement,” “public awareness,” or even “marketing.” While these activities are explicitly permitted
at times, their practice is viewed with suspicion by Congress, and thus the language around their
performance is rife with prohibitions rather than affirmative requirements. (In other words, we learn
what not to do rather than what is desired.)
Agencies experience confusion between perfectly acceptable communication activities, and those that
are questionable and even illegal. For instance, there is much ambiguity around communication
activities that more closely resemble the marketing communications practices of the private sector. The
lines have been drawn, generally speaking, in the manner that appropriated funds may not be used for
publicity (promotional activities), propaganda (manipulation of public opinion), or lobbying.
Since 1913, agencies have been prohibited from hiring “publicity experts” unless they were specifically
authorized to do so by Congress. To that effect, appropriations language always contains this clause:
“No part of any appropriation contained in this Act or transferred…shall be used, other than for
normal and recognized executive-legislative relationships, for publicity or propaganda purposes,
for the preparation, distribution, or use of any kit, pamphlet, booklet, publication, electronic
communication, radio, television, or video presentation designed to support or defeat the
enactment of legislation before the Congress or any State or local legislature or legislative body,
except in presentation to the Congress or any State or local legislature itself, or designed to
support or defeat any proposed or pending regulation, administrative action, or order issued by
the executive branch of any State or local government, except in presentation to the executive
branch of any State or local government itself.”

10. 5
However, GAO has noted the following:
“Even the casual viewer of commercial television will note that the government is heavily ‘into’
advertising, as there are many occasions when an agency has an affirmative duty to do so: for
example to recruit people into the military; to inform the public about government services
available to them; and to educate them about avoiding socially destructive behaviors, like
dropping a lit match in the woods.”
While it may seem like the line between informative, legitimate communication and propaganda is not
difficult to draw, the Congressional Research Service highlights many examples of agency activities that
generated controversy even though they may not have technically been ruled illegal. As they note,
Congress itself has experienced difficulty at times drawing the line between legitimate communications
and communications that cross the line.
“Congressional oversight of agency public communications activities…has occurred frequently
since at least the beginning of the 20th century….(but) enforcing these restrictions has been
challenging…statutory prohibitions do not well clarify licit from illicit public communications.”
In short, when does “outreach” or “education” become “propaganda?”
On a day-to-day level, it is readily apparent how the communication waters can be difficult to navigate.
At times, federal communicators answer to civil servants and at times they answer to political
employees, who may have different levels of understanding of the legal framework that defines the
communications function in their environment.
Organizational Dilemmas
Last-Minute Engagement
Federal communicators are often excluded from early planning discussions, and as a result are asked to
work on documents that they have had no say in developing. This can create difficulties down the road
when messages supporting the documents must be produced.
Related to lack of high-level planning, federal communicators frequently express that they act as
“firefighters,” responding to preventable crises and essentially serving as amiable “cogs in the wheel.”
Too often their expertise goes ignored.
Prioritization of Activities vs. Goals
Federal communicators are typically charged with a set of duties that can be broken down into
individual processes, e.g., edit a report, post a blog post, call back a customer, or send out a tweet.

11. 6
However, these specific duties don’t necessarily correlate with a set of mission-related and strategic
communications goals, making it difficult for them to exercise judgment when challenges arise.
To illustrate this, below is a job advertisement from USAJobs.gov (accessed May 16, 2016) from the
Broadcasting Board of Governors, seeking a Director of Global Communications and Public Affairs. This
was a Senior Executive Service position:
The incumbent is responsible for developing and directing all BBG communications and external relations
strategies and activities, protecting and promoting the image and reputation of the BBG in partnership
with agency leadership, and identifying and leveraging macro trends to inform and position appropriate
agency narratives.
The vagueness associated with desired goals can tend to lead federal communicators to emphasize
methods and technique (outputs) over results (outcomes). For example, few would argue that that it is
important to check for accuracy, obtain supervisory approval, and polish spelling and grammar.
Lack of Quality Standards
When asked what constitutes “good communication,” supervisors frequently indicate something like
this: “I know it when I see it.” However, the absence of clear professional standards or outcome-based
requirements easily creates inefficiency, demoralization, and even finger-pointing.
At times communicators receive the seemingly simple imperative to “use approved language.” However,
this is frequently difficult to follow, if only because there is disagreement about who should approve
what; which information is considered “fully approved for release”; and sensitivity to controversy. The
collection of complications around these issues tends to create delays in approving documents, and thus
an overreliance on previously released wording – even if it is less than engaging.
A common industry practice to address these issues is to have a “style guide,” but individual supervisors
may or may not adhere to it. Similarly, federal law tells communicators to write plainly, but they may
find that technical experts insist that accuracy requires a dense, complex style of writing only they are
qualified to assess.
The “Digital Divide”
Further, since the federal communications function itself does not have a clear definition or set of
quality standards, artificial divisions and false hierarchies tend to arise between professionals whose
specializations or office designations differ. In particular, there is a growing “digital divide” between
communication professionals whose work intersects with technology (e.g. web developers); those with
technical skills in the area of graphic design; and those who “only” do writing. It is common nowadays to
see federal communications job descriptions written to include extensive technical requirements, in
effect, excluding those whose focus is on words.

12. 7
Parallel Workforces
Normally a work environment is divided both operationally (by organizational area) and functionally (by
type of job). Within that scheme, one might expect to find one dedicated group for each type of mission
support professional -- accountants, contracting officers, training professionals, and so on. Yet in the
case of federal communicators, multiple service providers are doing the same thing:
● Contractors
● Interagency Shared Services Providers
● Centralized Providers Within The Agency
● A Formal Communications Office
● Satellite/Sub-Agency Communications Offices
Parallel communications offices can be appropriate if there is clear overarching guidance on how
communication planning and activities should be executed based on best practices. However, it is
unclear whether federal agencies communicate the need, scope and boundaries of their communication
workforces internally to federal communicators.

13. 8
II. Supporting Data
Secondary Evidence
While there are undoubtedly many bright spots within individual agencies, overall federal
communication suffers from a lack of standardization as well as multiple environmental conflicts that
detract from the formation of clear and consistent expectations about quality. The results: competency
gaps, demoralized personnel and underperforming programs.
Here is an overview of the supporting data:
1) Trust scores: Trust is a key indicator of communication effectiveness, and while the public
generally trusts federal workers as individuals, trust in the institution as a whole has dropped
progressively over the years. It is now at the lowest level ever recorded.
2) Perceptions of impenetrability: From a customer service point of view, a recent report (March
2016) published by the government digital service group 18F showed that Americans view the
government as a kind of impenetrable “black box.” In their words: “Members of the public want
to be able to ‘see’ the process theyre undergoing when theyre interacting with federal agencies
and programs. This includes knowing when their information has been received and reviewed,
understanding all steps in the process from start to finish, and having greater overall clarity into
why the process takes as long as it does. People expect to wait, but the reasons why and the
causes for delay continue to be a mystery — and continue to erode peoples trust in the
government.”
3) Standards gaps: There is also the matter of the gap between existing best practice standards
and performance. Government Accountability Office (GAO) audit standards highlight
communication as critical to program success, and yet half of their recent studies identified
internal and stakeholder communication problems contributing to operational shortcomings (8
of 17 studies, May 1-20 2016). Further, two of the nine factors GAO describes as necessary for
successful organizational transformation (Report GAO-03-669) are communication and
engagement. Yet agencies have no authoritative source for finding solutions to the problems
GAO finds—no repository of evidence-based practices and practitioners across government.
Consequently, agencies consume significant time and funds (contract or staff) reinventing
solutions that already exist.
4) Lack of recognition: Communication is not considered a “mission-critical” occupation by the
Office of Personnel Management: On the 2015 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)
Results, this listing includes only economists, auditors, human resources specialists, contract
specialists, and information technology specialists.

14. 9
Lack of internal communication: Only about half of federal employees responding to the 2015
FEVS (51%) felt that “managers promote communication among different work units,” and less
than three-fifths (59%) said that “managers communicate the goals and priorities of the
organization.”
A Key Finding
In February 2016, the working group conducted what we believe to be the first-ever survey of federal
communicators by federal communicators. The 169 respondents, representing a wide spectrum of
communications roles, highlighted a number of gaps in professional practice. The survey covered a great
deal of ground. One key finding was that communicators severely lack a clear set of professional
standards to follow at the interagency level—although most clearly know what to do in their own jobs.
In between, the availability of clear standards, expectations, metrics, tools and other standards varies.
FCN 2016 Survey - How Clear and Consistent are Expectations of Federal Communicators?
(% Agreeing “A Great Deal” or “Somewhat”)
Note that for all tables displayed, percentages are rounded. “Agree” means agree either “a great deal”
or “somewhat.” The total number of responses to the survey was 169, but responses per question vary.
These percentages are based on the number of responses per question. See
https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-BL2FH28W/ for the full survey results online.
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Individual performance expectations are clear
Individual performance expectations reflect proper
roles
Political appointees have different expectations
Communicators have useful tools & standards
Metrics used to assess & guide work
Career paths clear
Roles & expectations generally consistent across gov

15. 10
Further Elaboration
The responses below indicate strong agreement, as evidenced by choosing “a great deal” as the
response choice. They are provided to clarify some of the areas where communicators indicated more
extreme feelings about a response choice.
Lack of Standards
• 1% agreed “a great deal” that “communication professionals’ roles and expectations are
generally consistent across government.”
• 10% agreed “a great deal” that “communication offices use metrics to assess and guide our
work.”
• 18% agreed “a great deal” that “individual performance expectations for communication
professionals are clear.”
• About 8%, or less than 1 in 10, agreed “a great deal” that “career paths for communication
professionals are clear.”
Contradictory Expectations
• 11% agreed “a great deal” that they “have a voice in important agency decisions,” while 53%
called it “critically important” that communicators transition to “a more proactive role (such as
planning and having a voice in key agency decisions).”
• 29% agreed “a great deal” that their customers “expect you to innovate with new approaches to
communication and engagement,” but 40% agreed to the same extent that federal agencies are
“risk-averse about trying new ways to communicate” and 67% agreed strongly that
“government processes make it difficult to take advantage of new technologies.”
Lack of Awareness
• Given a forced choice between “communication products” and “influencing stakeholders” as the
purpose of their jobs, respondents were divided, with 43% choosing the first and 57% the
second. Several provided comments to the effect that “it is a combination of the two.” One
simply stated: “I don’t know.”
• A few alluded to their customers’ ignorance about what communication is, and thus an inability
to know what to ask for in the first place: “Not being communicators themselves, they do not
necessarily understand how the communications office has a role in influencing stakeholders.”
• Some commenters referred to the perception that communication is simply not an important
function at their agency. There were those who thought their customers saw it as “a necessary
evil” or “’nice to have’ but not an essential function.”
• Another comment referred to unrealistic expectations on the part of customers who bring the
communicators in too late to have an impact, but expect them to deliver significant results
anyway: “Most people see the ultimate purpose of communication is to create a miracle
because it’s often the final thought despite repeated efforts to educate the(m) otherwise.”

16. 11
• Communication is primarily a reactive function, with 61% of respondents doing their jobs
primarily on the basis of customer requests for work, as opposed to communicators directing
the function by proactively engaging in planning.
• Even when communicators respond to requirements, the customer may not know what is
wanted. One respondent noted: “We are 90% reactive to customer requests, but we don’t
produce a product until we sit the customer down to get an understanding of what they want to
accomplish. This usually changes their request and results in more planning.” Added another:
“Hard to steer a ship that lost its rudder.”
Apart from the survey, FCN held five meetings to brainstorm the important theme areas for federal
communicators and how a shared effort to express these might best be articulated.

17. 12
III. The Need for Communication Management
Based on best practice research conducted by the working group, we conclude that the root cause for
poor communication in the federal government is the ad hoc nature of its governance. Many fields of
expertise, such as quality and software development, employ maturity models as a way to assess
capabilities. (Most models employ five levels of maturity, from (1) least, which is Ad hoc, to (5) most
mature.) Put simply, there are no basic professional standards that outline requirements for
performance.
For the most part, the same problems were faced by other domains in government in recent decades—
problems that have been partly addressed by the inter-agency cooperation provided by government-
wide Executive Councils such as the CIO, CFO and IG Councils. FCN would like to address this issue but its
lack of a formal designation constrains further progress. However, a government-wide Executive
Council could effectively address the need for standards, just as other councils have. Absent this,
communication professionals are stuck “reinventing the wheel” – a costly activity that limits
performance on basic, rather than advanced, practices.
In serving as a vital function faced with contradictory demands and competing priorities, federal
communications is no different than any other requiring a proactive approach to management. Briefly,
this means assigning clear roles and responsibilities to communication professionals at various levels of
the enterprise in the context of managing the function across the organization. All initiatives, programs,
processes, and personnel engaged in communication are integrated to collaborate, cooperate, and
coalesce to complete the agency mission.
Additionally, rather than being stovepiped throughout the organization, communication is viewed from
this perspective as a single “job” from the top level of the organization. Accordingly, it is assigned a
senior officer, reporting directly to the head of the agency.
A communication management strategy would establish that communication is a singular profession
regardless of the environment within which it is practiced for the purposes of managing communication
across the federal government. It would also create certain expectations about the communication
function, regardless of at which agency one practices this function. For example, a typical expectation
would be that there exists a chief communication officer whose position level is equivalent to that of the
chief information officer or chief financial officer.
Other developed nations, such as Canada and the United Kingdom, have already established
government-wide communication bodies with a similar intent. The U.K. government publishes an annual
Communication Plan that explicitly sets forth the communication framework through which the
government operates. As an example of a best practice, see its professional communications standards,
published online May 17, 2016. (See graphic on page 10.)

18. 13
UK Government Communication Service (GCS) Professional Standards
Skills: The GCS competency framework sets the standard for individual proficiency, by grade.
Communicators should demonstrate their ability to frame campaigns using insight, apply creative
ideas, and swiftly implement and assess the impact of their work. The framework is used in
appraisals, professional development and recruitment.
Working model: All GCS communications teams should adapt to meet the needs of a fast-changing
audience environment by following the Modern Communications Operating Model principles and
demonstrating their skills in the full range of disciplines: strategic communication planning; strategic
engagement; internal communications; and media and campaigns; engagement; internal
communications; and media and campaigns.
Campaigns: The implementation of effective campaigns is at the heart of our work. For rigorous and
systematic campaign development, GCS staff follow the OASIS campaigns framework, and make
selective use of other GCS campaign planning tools where required.
Evaluation: GCS professionals use the GCS Evaluation Framework for every campaign, to improve
performance and to take responsibility for the outputs, outtakes and outcomes of their work. Teams
should summarize and exhibit these results in an evaluation hub.
Digital: The GCS digital vision is that government communicators should be confident in using digital
technology and methods to: gain insight into audiences; develop the best ideas; implement plans;
and provide maximum impact.
Staff engagement: A modern internal communications function acts as a strategic partner to enable
change and support engagement. GCS standards are set out in Internal Communications Excellence,
including the Standard Operating Model and the Job Description Principles for internal
communicators.
Leadership: The GCS aims to develop confident, inspiring and empowering leaders. GCS staff should
exemplify the Civil Service Leadership Statement in their work.
Ethics: GCS professionals will seek to achieve the highest standards of behavior, as well as
professional practice and leadership. This means, at minimum, they will abide by the Civil Service
Code and observe its values of integrity, honesty, impartiality and objectivity. They will also uphold
and actively promote the Civil Service diversity and inclusion policies and the GCS Diversity and
Inclusion Strategy.
Professional Development: As communications develops, all communicators should continually
work to improve their skills, completing and sharing with their colleagues at least four pieces of
professional development each year. They should pay particular attention to the conclusions of the
Future of Public Service Communication report which says that communicators must master the
skills of social marketing, content creation, building alliances and handling data. Directors of
Communications and Heads of Communications are accountable to the Executive Director for
Government Communications for their departments’ and ALBs’ adherence to these standards. They
will obtain regular feedback from senior stakeholders to assess client satisfaction with
Department/ALB and government communications. This will assist the GCS in its work to assess the
adoption and impact of these standards and to keep them under review.

19. 14
As one reviews comparative information, it is key to remember there is neither a “one size fits all”
approach to communication, nor are the authors suggesting there is a perfect model for the federal
government.
Rather, the point of sharing such information is to recommend that industry-wide best standards serve
as a point of reference for a thoughtful and proactive approach to developing a U.S. federal government
communication framework. This framework should have a body of consistent principles related to best
practices, practice guidelines, competency, and so on, while at the same time balancing autonomy and
integration needs.
In the end, many communication management models can work. What matters – at least for the
purpose of meeting statutory requirements and implementing adequate associated internal controls – is
that the government thoughtfully and proactively engages in developing one communication
management model and using it consistently over time.

20. 15
IV. Recommendations and Next Steps
This section provides a detailed view into the recommendations and next steps envisioned by the FCN
based on the findings in this research paper.
Theme 1: Standardization
Recommendation 1: Establish a framework of standards for federal communication
• Action 1: Develop a customizable federal communication management model
• Action 2: Develop performance management standards that are both activity- and outcome-
based
• Action 3: Draft competency standards at the entry, midlevel, and senior executive level
Recommendation 2: Help facilitate a qualified pipeline of talent
• Action 1: Develop a recommended general federal communications curriculum at the B.A., M.A.,
and non-credit certification levels
• Action 2: Define the major specialization tracks associated with federal communications and
establish associated curricular recommendations for educational modules associated with those
specializations
• Action 3: Explore partnerships with appropriate educational providers, including academic
institutions and federal government-supported entities
• Action 4: Leverage opportunities to improve the image of federal communications in support of
talent recruitment efforts
Standards
Establish framework
of standards
Facilitate qualified
talent pipeline
Location
FCN permanent task
force/council
Executive Branch
recognition/home
National Federal
Communication
Policy Framework
Partnerships
Formalize FCN
approach to
partnerships
Conduct outreach
broadly and openly

21. 16
Theme 2: Institutionalization
Recommendation 1: Create a permanent task force or council on federal communications standards
within the FCN
• Action 1: Name the task force
• Action 2: Solicit members from within and outside of FCN
• Action 3: Establish a governance structure for the task force or council
Recommendation 2: Find a “home” for federal communications
• Action 1: Explore options for housing communication oversight within a federal agency
• Action 2: Explore cross-agency options for communication oversight
• Action 3: Explore non-agency options for federal communication oversight, including
partnership and hybrid options
Recommendation 3: Draft a Recommended National Federal Communication Policy Framework
• Action 1: Assemble team of FCN members, other volunteers and partners
• Action 2: Conduct primary and secondary research, including interviews with representatives of
federal agencies and subject matter experts, to craft contents of policy framework
• Action 3: Draft a national policy framework to be used as an informal, unofficial resource for
federal communicators (similar to the FCN Communicators Guide [2000])
Theme 3: Partnership
Recommendation 1: Formalize the FCN Approach to Partnerships
• Action 1: Update the FCN charter to further clarify its interest in and authority to partner
broadly and qualifications for eligible partners, and its nonpromotional nature
• Action 2: Establish a Partnership Committee within the permanent FCN Working Group to meet
formally with potential partners
• Action 3: Communicate on the FCN website the policy regarding partnerships and list of FCN
partners
Recommendation 2: Conduct Outreach Broadly and Openly
• Action 1: Host events to introduce FCN members to current and potential partners, with a focus
on establishing standards as recommended above
• Action 2: Communicate broadly to share FCN research findings and encourage related efforts on
an open networking basis

22. 17
V. Conclusion
Despite today’s atmosphere of “information overload,” federally issued words still matter. And they
must be more than true and transparent. For hundreds of millions of people in the United States, as well
as those looking at us from other nations, depend on our words. Employees, members of Congress,
partners, journalists and government watchdog groups, researchers – both formal and informal, and of
course the general public – all are acutely aware of the import of even the smallest turn of a phrase.
In short, federal communication must be compelling, convincing, consistent, and clear – to engage the
public’s trust and guide it toward the products and services to which it is entitled.
Given the urgency of the need, FCN will attend to the priorities vital to federal communications at this
time. However, such initiative can only go so far. It is the hope of this working group that the findings
offered here will eventually be institutionalized formally within the government.
Like all public servants, federal communicators are acutely aware of the responsibility they hold.
Regardless of circumstance, they will continue to serve – doing the best they can, with the tools they
have. The FCN will continue to support them along the way.

23. 18
References
5 U.S.C. 54, “Employment of Publicity Experts; Restrictions”
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2011-title5/pdf/USCODE-2011-title5-partIII-subpartB-chap31-
subchapI-sec3107.pdf
18 U.S.C. 1913, “Lobbying with Appropriated Moneys”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1913
18F, “Transparency Within Government Helps Build Public Trust” (2016)
https://18f.gsa.gov/2016/03/07/the-need-for-transparency-in-government/
Center for Plain Language, “Federal Plain Language Report Card” (2015)
http://centerforplainlanguage.org/report-cards/
Congressional Research Service, “Advertising by The Federal Government: An Overview” (2014)
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41681.pdf
Congressional Research Service, “Congressional Oversight of Agency Public Communications” (2012)
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42406.pdf
Congressional Research Service, “Public Relations and Propaganda: Restrictions on Executive Agency
Activities” (2005)
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32750.pdf
Federal Communicators Network – February 2016 Survey Results (2016)
https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-BL2FH28W/
Office of Personnel Management - Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (2015)
https://www.fedview.opm.gov/2015FILES/2015_FEVS_Gwide_Final_Report.PDF
The Plain Writing Act (2010)
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-111publ274/pdf/PLAW-111publ274.pdf
The President’s Memorandum on Transparency and Open Government (2009)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-12.pdf
The Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act (1982)
https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/financial_fmfia1982

24. 19
United States Government Accountability Office, "Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government" (2014)
http://www.gao.gov/assets/670/665712.pdf
Partnership for Public Service, “2013 Best Places to Work in the Federal Government® Analysis: Effective
Leadership Communication” (2014)
http://ourpublicservice.org/publications/viewcontentdetails.php?id=351
Pew Research Center for U.S. Politics and Policy, “Trust in Government: 1958-2015” (2015)
https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/GCS-Professional-page_interactive-FINAL-
17-MAY.pdf
Principles of Federal Appropriations Law, Third Edition (2004)
http://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/3rdeditionvol1.pdf
Transparency International “Corruption Perceptions Index 2015” (2016)
http://www.transparency.org/cpi2015#results-table
UK Government Communications Plan 2015/2016 (2015)
https://communication.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/government-comms-plan/
UK Government Communication Service (GCS) Professional Standards (2016)
https://gcs.civilservice.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/GCS-Professional-page_interactive-FINAL-
17-MAY.pdf

25. 20
Appendix A: Quantitative Data
To support the development of its report on federal communications, the FCN PSWG determined it
necessary to use current, primary research data if possible. FCN Special Advisor Jeff Brooke volunteered
to create the survey.
Key points about the survey methodology:
• On February 15, 2016, FCN distributed the survey instrument to approximately 2,000
communicators via listserv. These included FCN members (~900 participants) and members of
the GSA’s Social Media Community of Practice (~ 1000).
• The survey remained open through February 25, 2016.
• In all, the survey generated 169 responses. (The number of respondents to each specific
question varied.)
• Screenshots depicting the results appear below; they are also available online at
https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-BL2FH28W/. (For privacy reasons, written
comments are not included.)
The survey results are not elaborated upon here. Rather, the authors wish to make the raw data
available in case others desire to study or analyze it further.

26. 21
Question 1: “What do most of your customers see as the ultimate purpose of the
communication function in your agency?”
(N=162, 19 comments)
Question 2: “Other Expectations”
Note: This question contained three sub-questions; see text below.
(N=167/168, 6 comments)

27. 22
Question 3: “Which is the main driver of your work?”
(N=164, 13 comments)
Question 4: “Resources”
Note: This question contained four sub-questions; see text below.
(N=151-152, 8 comments)

28. 23
Question 5: “Professional Standards for Government Communicators”
Note: This question contained eight sub-questions; see text below.
(N=152-153, 10 comments)

29. 24
Question 6: “Environment”
Note: This question contained five sub-questions; see text below.
(N=152-153, 7 comments)

30. 25
Question 7: “Reviewing the major themes we’ve covered in this survey, how important is it
for your agency to make improvements in each?”
Note: This question contained five sub-questions; see text below.
(N=148, 0 comments)

31. 26
Question 8: “Which of the following is your primary role? (If you have several roles, add
others to the comment box).”
(N=150, 0 comments)

32. 27
Appendix B: Qualitative Data
In the fall of 2015, an email was circulated to the FCN listserv that called attention to the need for
federal communicators to examine the state of the profession. The email generated sufficient interest
that FCN members organized a meeting several weeks later to discuss. Between November 2015 and
May 2016, five meetings were held to organize a research project addressing the issues raised in the
email. The meetings were open to all interested parties; about 25 federal communicators attended
each. (Note: attendees varied with each meeting.)
Here is an overview of the timeline.
• October 23, 2015 – initial email, “Federal Communication and the Future”; several days later,
open-edit collaboration document shared with the FCN community
• November 9, 2015 – initial meeting to define the problem and brainstorm approaches to it
• December 8, 2015 – brainstorming session to further elaborate on the issues to be addressed
• January 19, 2016 – “strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats” (SWOT) exercise
• (February 15 – 25, 2016 – survey distributed to FCN members and members of the GSA’s Social
Media Community of Practice)
• February 26, 2016 – meeting to review survey findings and discuss problems and solutions
• May 10, 2016 – meeting (closed-door, no notes) to discuss draft of working paper