DOCUMENT RESUME 00662 - [A1051720] Travel in the Management and Operation of Federal Programs. B-193315; FPCD-77-1'. March 17, 1977. Released April 13, 19'7. 28 pp. Report to Rep. Jack Brooks, Chairman, House Committee on Government Operations; by Elmer B. Staats, Comptrol) Jr General. Issue Area: Personnel Management and Compensation (300). Contact: Federal Personnel and Compensation Div. Budget Function: General Government (150); International Ai fairs (800). Organization Concerned: Department of State; Federal Aviation Administration; General Services Administration; National Institutes of Health; Office of lanaeament and Budget. Congressional Relevance: House Committee on Government Operations. Authority: Supplemental Appropriations Act of 1976, sec. 205 (P.L. 94-157). The nature and extent of Federal travel; the reasons for the travel; and the executive branch travel Policies, practices, and procedures were reviewed. A detailed review of travel was conducted at the Federal Aviation Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and some organizations within the Department of State. Findings/Conclusions: The Federal Government spends about $2 billion each year for travel in the management and operation of Federal programs. Executive program managers have the primary responsibility for assuring the most effective use of their program budgets, including the nature and extent of trovel. The role of the Cffice of Management and Budget (ORB) in controlling travel has been limited to developing budgetary related questions on travel to assist agencies in conducting their own operations reviews, conducting a review of specific agency tranvl cases due to congressional concern, and examining amounts . travel in agency appropriation requests and apportioning funds within appropriated amounts. Recommendations: ORB and the General Services Administration should revise their guidelines to focus more specifically on each purpose of travel; require agencies to revise their reporting systems and internal review and audit approaches to follow the new guidance; and, after implementing the revised guidelines and the reporting and review systems, assess the results. (Author/SC) s ;!'- " aeneral -'" f!: 0! REPOt'T'TO TfE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERA TIONS HOUSE OF RPRESENTATIVES BY THE COMPTROLLER GENERAL so,, ;'::~f OF THE UNITED STATES F Travel In The Management And Operation Of Federal Programs Federal Aviation Administration National institutes of Health Department of State This report discusses the nature and extent of Federal travel; tBe reasons for the travel; and the executive branch travel policies, proce- dures and practices. The Federal Government spends about $2 bil- lion each year for travel in the management and operation of Federal programs. Executive program managers have the primary responsi- bility for assuring the most effective use of their program budgets, including the nature and extent of travel. The Office of Management and Budget and the General Services Administration should --revise their guidelines to focus more specifically on each purpose of travel; --require agencies to revise their re- porting systems and internal review and audit approaches to follow the new guidance; and --after implementing the revised guide- li-es and the reporting and review systems, assess results. FPCD-77-11 MARCH . 7, 1 9 77 Ut52~ ~COMPTROLLER GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES WASHINGTON, D.C. £04 B-193315 The Honorable Jack Brooks, Chaimnan Committee on Government Operatiois House of Representatives Dear Mr. Chairman: This report, prepared in response to your February 4, 1976, request, discusses the nature and extent of Federal travel; the reasons for the travel; and the executive branch travel policies, procedures, and practices. As suggested by your office, the detailed review was limited to a selected number of agencies within the executive branch: the Federal Aviation Administration, the Department of Transportation; the National Institutes of Health, Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare; and certain organiza- tions of the Department of State. We plan te make a separate review during calendar year 1977 of the management .f tempo- rary duty travel by the Department of Defense and its agen- cies. That review is being made at the request of the Senate Committee on Appropriations. PROFILE OF TRAVEL We observed that, for the three agencies, the largest part of travel was by GS-12 and higher graded employees. About 4 percent of the travel was by consultants or experts. Upper management (GS-15 and above) and consultants and ex- perts traveled most frequently to participate in conferences and/or seminars. Middle management traveled primarily for inspection meetings at agency field installations or with contractors and/or grantees. The most frequent purpose for which other agency employees (GS-ll or below and wage board employees) traveled varied at each agency. Travel to continental United States high-cost oreas and travel outside the continental United States was not large. compared with the total travel performed; it amounted to 14 and 5 percent, respectively. The duration of trips varied by agency. Appendix I describes the nature and extent of travel by these agencies. RESPONSIBILITY FOR TRAVEL Travel is an essential element in carrying .ut almost all Government programs as are communications, information B-193315 systems, office space, and other basic program support services. Executive program managers have the primary sibility for justifying and efficiently and effectively respon- their program funds. The use of these funds should using be evalu- ated in terms of the program unit costs, outputs, ness, and productivity. The decisions on the natureeffective- and ex- tent of travel is largely one of judgment and discretion the program manager--within budget limits--as to of how best to accomplish the program objectives. ROLE OF OFFICE OF MANAGFMENT &ND BUDGET Pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has oversight (the respon- sibility for Federal travel management and expenditures. Within OMB, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy has been assigned the responsibility to act on all policy matters cerning procurement and related activities, including con- trans- portation and traffic management. OMB has assigned two professional employees to the fice of Federal Procurement Policy's travel oversight Of- respon- sibility. A Federal Procurement Policy official said that CMB believed executive agencies should have considerable .hority and discretion in their conduct of travel au- and over- sight responsibilities. As a result, OMB has not actively monitored or periodically evaluated Federal agencies' travel practices. OMB's involvement in controlling travel has been to limited --developing budgetary related questions on travel assist agencies in conducting their own operationsto re- views, and -- conducting a review of specific agency travel cases due to congressional concern, and -- examining amounts for travel in agency appropriation requests and apportioning funds within appropriated amounts. OMB usually does not issue travel President believes a policy needs to be policies unless the developed or more strongly emphasized. 2 B-193315 ROLE OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION Reimbursement for travel expenses of civilian officers and employees of the United States and of persons employed intermittently as consultants or experts is governed by the Federal Travel Regulations issued by the General Services Administration pursuant to Executive Order 11609 of July 22, 1971. General Services Administration's Federal Travel Manage- ment Division is responsible for prescribing and regulating travel allowances. The Division consists of the Passenger and Personal Effects Branch and the Regulations and Allow- ances Branch. The Passenger and Personal Effects Branch negotiates worldwide rates ' ' services with the common carriers and makes studies of the Government's need for passenger serv- ices. The Branch also conducts training programs and deve3- ops training material for passenger traffic nanagement. The Regulations and Allowances Branch makes special sta- tistical studies on the Government-wide impact of various tranportation and relocation allowances for civilian employ- ees. The Branch develops Government-wide regulations to im- plement and administer per diem, travel, and transportation allowances. It also develops Government'-wide systems to ac- cumulate and evaluate cost and statistical data relative to expenditures for the official travel requirements of Federal executive agencies. However, General Services has not col- lected Government-wide data on the purpose of travel. As of September 1976, seven full-time professional and clerical employees were administering the Management Divi- sion's activities from a General Services Administration fa- cility in Washington, D.C. General Services does not become involved in establishing policies and procedures for deter- mining the necessity of travel, nor does it verify travel in- formation agencies submitted on travel policies and costs. General Services does not monitor and/or evaluate agency travel practices because it considers this to be OMB's re- sponsibility. RECENT EXECUTIVE BRANCH TRAVEL INITIATIVES Two recent major travel initiatives were OMB Bulletin No. 76-9 and the 1976 Presidential Management Initiatives. OMB Bulletin No. 76-9, dated December 4, 1975, included the following purpose and policy statements: 3 B-193315 "1. Purpose. This Bulletin provides guidance on the control and management of official travel, so as to reduce and minimize travel costs paid by the U.S. Government. "2. Policy. It is Administration policy chat agencies should authorize that amount of travel necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Gov- ernment effectively--but not one bit mor:--and at minimum cost. This policy is applicable not only to t.avel of Government employees, but also to travel )f contractors and other personnel whose travel expenses are directly reflected in costs paid by the Government. "The head of each agency will communicate this policy promptly throughout all operating and staff units of his agency, and place in effect a stringent and austere plan to e..iminate travel not absolutely essential and to minimize travel costs.N Specific guidelines intended to restrict travel were de- tailed in the bulletin. Agencies were requested to report to General Services by August 15, 1976, their fiscal year 1976 accomplishments and savings attributed to the bulletin's implementation. Later a provision was enacted--section 205 of the Sup- plemental Appropriations Act, 1976 (Public Law 94-157)-- which expressed the sense of the Congress that the President, through the Director of OMB, take steps to restrain the in- flationary impact of Federal travel expenditures. In re- sponse, on January 26, 1976, OMB issued supplement number 1 to Bulletin No. 76-9, providing specific reporting guide- lines instead of the more general ones in the original bul- letin. Supplement number 2 issued July 30, 1976, suggested additional methods for controlling travel and required agencies to report on their fiscal year 1977 travel costs and savings. This bulletin and its supplements expire upon submission of the required reports. The Presidential Management Initiatives of July 27, 1976, express the specific actions the President expects to be taken by each agency in the following areas: -- Decisionmaking and departmental organization. -- Evaluating current programs. 4 B-193315 -- Reducing the burden of Federal reporting and regulations. -- Contracting out and holding down overhead costs. -- Personnel management. As one step to curtail overhead cost, the President sug- gested specific steps to control travel. For example, agency heads were to personally review fiscal year 1976 re- ports of travel savings and accomplishments before submitting them to General Services in August i976 (as required by Bul- letin 76-9, as amended) to identify areas where greater im- provement could be made. By September 3, agencies were to develop and report to General Services plans to further re- duce travel costs in fiscal year !977. These plans were to include specific and challenging reduction goals and empha- size the OMB travel guidelines. General Services was not required by the bulletin to ascertain the validity of agency responses to Bulletin 76-9. General Services and other executive aqency officials indi- cated that the bulletin would not greatly affect agency travel practices. A Federal Aviation Administration official said, for example, that the bulletin contained nothing new and only reiterated practices already in effect at the agency. Subsequent to the completion of our review, OMB made available to us summary data on the results of the 1976 travel initiatives. This data indicated that object class 21 expenditures in 1976 were $204.8 million, a reduction of about 18 percent, less than those in 1975. OMB also pointed out that the President's 1977 budget estimated that fiscal year 1976 object class 21 expenditures would be $2.3 billion. Actual expenditures were only $1.7 billion, a difference of $590 million. OMB attributes this reduction to curtailment of planned travel. OMB required the agencies to estimate the dollar amount of object class 21 funds that would have been spent in the second half of fiscal year 1976 if revised travel plans had not been prepared as a result of the Bulletin 76-9. The 60 departments' and agencies' estimate is S143.6 million, or a reduction to the earlier 1976 estimate of about 6 percent. IMPROVEMENTS IN REPORTING ON TRAVEL AND MONITORING BY AGENCIES We believe that justification and review of program travel could be made easier and more effective by use of 5 B-193315 common categories for reporting travel information for each program based on the purpose of travel, such as program in- spection and evaluation, program operation, meetings, and training. We believe that the agencies should establish pol- icies and procedures for each of these types of travel, con- sistent with their missions and program objectives, and should monitor travel practices within the agency on this basis. Appendix II contains an analysis of the three agen- cies' travel practices using these categories. OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING THE MANAGEMENT OF PROGRAM TRAVEL Effective managemnent of travel requires both development of and compliance with adequate travel policies. Existing policies provide enough guidance for determining the neces- sity for and the efficiency of travel. Frogram managers, however, have not always adequately reviewed individual trips for necessity and efficiency of their programs. OMB Bulletin 7G-9 dated Pecember 4, 1975, reemphasized the desire to adhere to austere travel practices. It did not represent a major change to then existi.g policy. The bLlle- tin required the neads of all executive departments and ,tgen- cies to promptly communicate the policy guidance being empha- sized--"that agencies should authorize that amount of travel necessary to accomplish the purposes of Government effec- tively--but not one bit more--and at a minimum cost"-- throughout all operating and staff units and to place in effect a stringent and austere plan to eliminate travel not absolutely essential. Bulletin criteria used in our review: --Do not permit travel when the matter in question can be handled by mail or telephone. -- Require agencies to minimize the number of people who must travel for a single purpose; for example, never allow two or more persons to travel when one person will suffice. -- Require agencies to screen all specific travel authr - izations to limit trips, the number of individuals traveling, points to be visited, itineraries, and dc '- tions of visits to those that aLe essenLial to the pe:- formance of agency missions. -- Direct agencies to establish procedures that will elim- inate attendance and minimize participation by employ- ees at conferences, meetings, and seminars when 6 B-193315 attendance is contingent upon travel at Government ex- pense and not directly related to the accomplishment of the agency missions. -- Direct agencies to establish procedures to screen all requests for foreign travel to drastically reduce U.S. attendance at foreign conferences to an absolute mini- mum and, where appropriate, to use U.S. personnel lo- cated at or near the conference site. We analyzed 119 trips taken by employees at the three agencies for compliance with travel policies. We inte;- viewcd the travelers and the persons responsible for alprov- ing the trips. Recocnizing that administrative judgment is involved in each travel decision, we question whether 18 trips, or 15 percent, met OMB criteria. The number of cases and tne percent of trips at each agency are as follows: Number of cases Number which may of not meet cases criteria Percent State 40 8 20 Federal Aviation Administratio 59 8 13 National Institutes of Health 20 2 10 The three major areas in which the trips did not appear to us to meet the OMB criteria are as follows: --The number of personnel traveling for a single purpose was not kept to a minimum (50 percent). -- More efficient .lteLnativ.s to accomplish the trips' purposes were not used (33 percent). -- Attendance at conferences, meetings, and seminars was not limited to those essential to the agency's mission or to employee job performance (17 percent). We feel that agency policy guidance to program managers, agency budget examiners, and internal audit and review groups should focus on these three problem areas in their efforts to improve the management of program tramvel. 7 B-193315 CONCLUSIONS OMB and General Services Administration guidance could be much more effective if it addressed each purpose of travel separately. There are important differences in the policies that should be set for the Federal Government for travel as a part of program operations, such as travel to perform pro- gram inspections and evaluations, travel to participate in meetings, -ravel to participate in training programs, and travel foL public relations activities. Guidelines that attempt to generalize across these categories seem to us to be too general for day-to-day use by program managers. We want to add a word of caution about imposing unreal- istic limitations on the use of program funds for one partic- ular purpose, such as travel. We recognize the essentiality of travel to good program management. Program managers will comply with arbitrary limits because they have to; but they are also responsible for meeting their program objectives, so they will use other means to a greater extent, such as greater use of contract evaluations rather than agency man- agers onsite evaluations, or, alternatively, programs will be mismanaged and waste will result. In many instances, the substituted activity may be less effective and efficient from the program standpoint. For example, the contract evalua- tions may not only cost more in current outlays but do not give the program managers the same insights and firs'-hand experience that can make them better intrn.ed and more effec- tive managers. We would prefer to have the agencies, OMB, ind the Congress focus on program levels and the best mix of resources needed to achieve the levels through the executive and legislative budget processes and not have them focusing on one aspect such as travel completely out of the context of program objectives. RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the Director, OMB, and the Administra- tor of General Services revise their guidelines to focus more specifically on each purpose of travel; require agencies to revise their reporting systems and internal review and audit approaches to follow the new guidance; and, after implementing the revised guidelines and the reporting and review systems, assess the performance at that time to see if any specific further action is needed by the executive branch or by the Congress to obtain improved management of travel funds made available to piogram managers. 8 B-193315 As requested by your office, we did not obtain formal comments from the departments and agencies of the executive branch. This report contains recommendations to the Direc- tor, OMB, and to the Administrator of General Services which are set forth on page 8. As you know, section 236 of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1970 requires the head of a Federal agency to submit a written statement on actions taken on our recommendations to the House Committee on Government Operations and the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs not later than 60 days after the date of the report and to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations with the agency's first request for appropriations made more than 60 days after the date of the report. We will be in touch with your office in the near future to arrange for release of the report so that the requirements of section 236 can be set in motion. If we can be of further assistance, please advise us. Si Y yours, Comptroller General of the United States 9 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I PROFILE OF TRAVEL We reviewed the management of travel funded by moneys accounted for under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) uniform object class 21. The expenses incurred under this object class are for the transportation of Government employ- ees or others for which the agencies are authorized to pay transportation costs, their per diem allowances while in au- thorized travel status, and other allowable expenses inciden- tal to their travel. Object class 21 consists of both travel away from offi- cial duty stations and local travel. Our analysis of object class 21 travel was limited to domestic and foreign temporary duty travel by permanent and temporary employees, experts, consultants, and otner personnel participating in Government- funded programs. Our analysis did not include object 21 costs associated with the permanent-change-of-duty station. In addition, we did not analyze federally funded travel by grantees and contractors. We projected information about the purpoJe, type, cost, and extent of travel from a random sample of 174 trips by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA); the Department of State; and the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). OVERVIEW OF FEDERAL TRAVEL EXPENDITURES According to the Office of Management and Budget analy- sis, the obligations for object class 21 travel for all agen- cies are as follows: Fiscal year Amount (000,000 omitted) 1975 actual $2,114 1976 estimate 2,435 1977 estimate 2,554 The General Services Administration (GSA) estimates that official Government travel by Federal employees amounts to 9.4 million staff-days each year. A lJjt of the fiscal year 1975 and 1976 obligations by major Federal agencies follows. 1 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I FEDERAL AGENCY OBLIGATIONS IN OBJECT CLASS 21 Actual Percent Estimate Perceiit Agency 1975 of total 1976 of total (000,000 omitted) (000,000 om.tted) Departments: Agriculture $ 80 3.8 $ 97 4.0 Commerce 22 1.0 28 1.1 Health, Education, and Welfare 67 3.2 86 3.5 Housing and Urban Develop- ment 16 .8 19 .8 Interior 58 2.7 67 2.8 Justice 45 2.1 51 2.1 Labor 14 .7 21 .9 State 35 1.6 '4 1.8 Transportation 67 3.2 81 3.3 Treasury 72 3.4 95 ,.9 Defense: Military (note a) 1,379 65.2 1,538 63.2 Civilian (note b) 29 1.4 36 1.5 Total 1,884 2,163 Independent agencies: Energy Research and Develop- ment Administration 6 0.3 9 0.4 Environmental Protect )n 13 .6 14 .6 Agency General Services Administra- tion 8 .4 11 .4 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 16 .8 19 .8 Veterans Administration 65 3.1 79 3.2 Other independent agencies 81 3.8 97 4.0 Total _ 189 229 Other: Legislative branch 8 0.4 10 0.4 Judiciary branch 8 .4 11 .4 Executive Office of the President 1 ic) 1 (c) Funds appropriated to the President--summary 24 1.1 21 .9 Total 41 43 Total $2,114 100.0 $2,435 100.0 a/Includes costs related to changes of permanent duty stations of military personnel in amounts of $569 million for 1975 and $602 million for 1976, which are paid out of military personnel appropriations. b/Represents travel related to civil functions of the Department of Defense. c/Less than 0.1 percent. APPENDIX I APPENDIX I AGENCY TRAVEL FUNDS Special agency needs and missions require differences in tne nature of employee travel. To facilitate an objective analysis of travel at the Federal Aviation Administration, State, and the National Institutes of Health, the mission and travel Obligations of each agency is described below. FAn , an operating arm of the Department of Transporta- tion, primarily concerns itself with promoting and regulat- ing civil aviation to insure safe, orderly growth. To accom- plish this objective, FAA establishes safety standards and regulations, monitors adherence to regulations, processes enforcement actions, provides air navigation services for en route navigation, and operates and maintains two airports. The Department of State is the President's primary ad- viser in the formulation and execution of U.S. foreign pol- icy to promote long-range security and well-being of the United States. It determines and analyzes the factk relating to our overseas interests, makes recommendations on policy and future action, and carries out established policy. In so doing, the Department engages in continuous consultations with other countries, negotiates treaties and other agree- ments with foreign nations, speaks for the United States at more than 50 major international organizations, and repre- sents the United Statec at more than 740 international con- ferences annually. -he mission of NIH, one of the operating a'encies of tne Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, is to im- prove the health of the American people. NIH carries out its mission primarily through grants and contracts awarded to medical research and teaching institutions and through bio- medical research performed in its own facilities. Object class 21 travel funds obligated by the three agencies are shown below. Agency FY 1975 actual OY 1976 State $35,000,000 $44,000,000 estimate FAA 34,537,800 40,812,100 actual NIH 5,386,000 7,343,000 actual State cited several causes for the increase in the ex- tent of travel, including -- ircreased visits by foreign dignitaries requiring greater protective security travel, -- expanded consular staffs, 3 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I -- increased inspection and international conference travel, and -- travel delayed to fiscal year 1976 because of the travel freeze imposed during fiscal year 1975. FAA officials attributed their increase to increased per diem rates, a considerable increase in carrier fares, and the introduction of a centralized air traffic controller training program at FAA's Aeronautical Center Academy in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. They also mentioned increases in GSA auto rates, private vehicle mileage rates, and facility maintenance travel as contributing to the increased travel costs. NIH officials attributed most of the major increased travel costs to increased per Jliem and transportation fares and program and staff expansion. At FAA, State, and NIH, we examined random sample cases from a projected universe of some 95,000 trips costing $34 million to identify the following characteristics: -- Employment status and/or Civil Service Commission (CSC) grade level. -- Type of travel by employment status or CSC grade level. -- Extent of travel to high-cost areas. -- Duration of trips. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRAVELERS Most travel by the three agencies was made by GS-12 and higher graded employees. The following table summarizes the employment characteristics of the travelers. Percent of trips Employment Weighted characteristics FAA NIH State total NIH, FAA, and State employees: GS-15 and above (upper management) 6.2 37.2 30.0 13.4 GS-12 to 14 (middle management) 49.2 24.8 17.4 42.7 GS-ll and below 32.6 10.7 16.5 27.6 Consultants or experts (a) 13.2 29.2 4.2 Other Federal agency employees 9.1. 2.8 6.9 7.8 Patients 0 11.3 0 2.1 Other 2.9 (a) (a) 2.2 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of trips 72,551 17,748 5,654 95,953 a/Less than 0.05 percent. 4 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I State and NIH funded some travel by consultants and experts. Trave. by consultants and experts represents 29 percent of State trips and 13 percent of NIH trips. Examples of consultant and expert travel are: -- State-funded travel by a Presidentially appointed mem- ber of the National Commission on the Observance of International Women's Year--1975 to attend a monthly meeting that lasted about 2 days and was attended by 30 to 35 Commission members. -- NIH reimbursed a private citizen to assist its Na- tional Library of Medicine to develop a vocabulary and bibliography for the President's Council on Physical Fitness and Sports. The purpose of travel varied among employment status and/or CSC grade level groups. For example, the largest amount of travel by upper management (GS-15 and above) in each of the three agencies was for participation in confer- ences and/or seminars. The middle management group (GS-12 to 14) tended to travel for inspection meetings at agency field installations or with contractors and/or grantees. Travel purposes for the other agency employees (GS-11 and be- low and wage board employees) differed among agencies as fol- lows: -- At FAA, travel was primarily for routine operational support. -- At State, the greatest numoer of trips was for assist- ing top-level agency officials also in travel status. -- At NIH, the largest number of trips was for internal agency training. A majority of State and NIH consultant travel was for participation in conferences and/or seminars. EXTENT OF TRAVEL TO HIGH-COST AREAS WITHIN THE UNITED STATES AND OUTSIDE THE CONTINEN'AL UNITED STATES The travel performed by employees at all three agencies to continental United States (CONUS) high-cost areas and travel outside CONUS was not large, compared with the total travel performed, as illustrated below. GSA had, at the time of our review, identified Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York City, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C., as high-cost geographic areas. 5 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I Percent of trips Weighted Location FAA NIH State total CONUS--non-high-cost area 86.4 76.1 28.5 80.9 CONUS--high-cost area 10.8 23.9 26.0 14.2 Outside CONUS: Canada (a) (a) 14.2 .9 Central America (a) (a) 2.1 . All other locations 2.8 (a) 29.2 3.9 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of trips 72,551 17,748 5,654 95,953 a/Less than 0.05 percent. As indicated above, only 14 percent of all travel was to CONUS high-cost areas. Agency officials have not devel- oped special screening procedures for proposed travel to CONUS high-cost areas. About 5 percent of the travel was to areas outside CONUS. Proportionately, the largest amount of foreign travel was by State. About 45 percent of State travel was to foreign loca- tions. FAA and NIH had minimal foreign travel. Each agency has established a mechanism to scrutinize at least a portion of foreign travel. For example, State, through the Office of International Conferences, determines official participation in and administers and controls inter- national conferences. FAA assigned its Office of International Aviation Af- fairs the responsibility for reviewing each request for non- routine foreign travel and for recommending approval or dis- approval. We were told that less than 3 percent of requests foreign travel was disapproved by the Office. This low for per- centage rate was attributed to a stringent approval process at lower levels, which eliminated many requests. Agency travel records show that FAA personnel took 339 foreign trips during fiscal year 1976, of which 97 involved more than 1 FAA traveler and involved travel by 290 FAA personnel. NIH's Fogarty International Center reviews annual for- eign travel plans submitted by individual organizations and assigns to each organization a foreign travel ceiling. The organizations are then responsible for monitcring their own travel. 6 APPENDIX I APPENDIX I TRIP DURATION About 25 percent of the trips lasted 2 days or less, and about 67 percent of the trips were completed within 7 days. The following table shows the percent of agency trips within certain time frames. Percent of trips Weighted Time frame FAA NIH State total 2 days or less 25.6 23.0 12.7 24.5 3 to 7 days 36.0 72.9 46.8 42.4 8 to 21 days 21.7 4.1 35.1 19.7 22 days or more 16.7 (a) 5.4 13.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of trips 72,551 17,748 5,654 95,953 a/Less than 0.05 percent. FAA and State were more likely %o have trips of longer duration. OBSERVATIONS The largest part of State, FAA, and NIH travel was by GS-12 and higher graded employees. About 4 percent of the the travel was by consultants or experts. Upper management (GS-15 and above) and consultants and experts traveled most frequently to participate in conferences and/or seminars. Middle management traveled primarily for inspection meetings at agency field installations or with contractors and/or grantees. The most frequent purpose for which othe7 agency employees (G-ll or below and wage board employees' traveled varied at each agency. Travel to CONUS high-cost areas and outside CONUS was not large, compared with the total travel performed; it amounted to 5 and 14 percent, respectively. The duration of trips varied by agency. 7 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II REPORTING ON TRAVEL As prescribed in Circular No. A-12, Uniform Classificati.n According to Objects, OMB has designated object class 21 as the accounting code for accumulating financial data for the travel and transportation of ?ersons. Within that object class, each agency develops its own subclassifications to identify meaningful categories of travel and transportation and accumulates data. Data compiled by the agencies under object class 21 is obtained from travel vouchers. An object subclassification is assigned and agency-prescribea data - the trip's nature and cost are accumulated. Although FAA's object subclassifications provide use- ful data, they do not always show the specific purpose of travel and in many cases combine travel of varying purposes. For example, subclassification 2111 represents headquarters planning, supervision, and inspection, Hand 2112 represents field facility maintenance, operation, and job performance. (See app. III.) Each subclassification could include travel for any of the following purposes: -- Attendance at seminars and conferences. -- Inspection trip to a contractor or field installation. -- Daily routine operational support work. FAA officials agreed that these two subclassifications were too broad for effectively identifying travel by purpose. They believe it was practical to modify their subclassifica- tions to provide better information on specific purposes of travel. Although the State Department has developed over 20 sub- classifications, 73 percent of the travel expenditures con- tained in appendix III are shown under subclassifications 2122, 2124, and 2151. These categories, representing per diem, subsistence and other expenses, excess baggage, and travel within the United States not otherwise classified, provide little, if any, i. :.rmation on the purpose of travel. State officials acknowledged that these subclassifications did not adequately disclose information on the nature of travel. The NIH subclassifications, established by the Depart- ment of Health, Education, and Welfare, are more descriptive in identifying specific purposes than the other two agencies' subclassifications. However, about 39 percent of the NIH fiscal year 1976 travel expenditures falls in two broad 8 APPENDIX I II APPENDIX within (212M) and categories--other domestic operations and the District of outside (212N) the contiguous 48 States under 212M and Columbia. We reviewed 12 trips categorized 11 should have been included under other 212N and found that such as: more explanatory subclassifications, -- 215A, non-Government-sponsored meetings. -- 212G, Government-sponsored meetings. -- 212T, contract review and monitoring. -- 212R, grant review and monitoring. its subclassifica- HEW has not developed definitions for to the in- contribute tions. This lack of definitions may effective use of these subclassifications. MORE MEANINGFUL CATEGORIZATIONS OF TRAVEL COSTS ARE POSSIBLE resources re- Effective management of limited travel that more mean- quires an adequate data base. To demonstrate can be accumulated, we ingful data on the purpose of travel the travel of developed a systematic approach to categorize on a case study basis, the three agencies. We then analyzed, We obtained information the records of individual trips. from travel vouchers and travel orders and from discussions On the basis with agency approving officials and travelers. trips according to of this approach, we categorized theseto determine the pur- purpose. Thus two factors were used orders pose of travel: information on travel vouchers and officials regarding and our perceptions and those of agency the cases. made in fiscal The following schedule shows the trips and their pur- year 1976 by personnel in the three agencies pose. 9 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Number of Trips tb Purpose of Travel Fiscal Year 1976 FAA, NIH, and Department of State Estimated number of trips in Percent fiscal year 1976 of Reason for travel (note a) trips Inspection and evaluation tours: At agency field installations 15,620 15.9 At contractor or grantee sites 8,600 8.7 Total 24,220 24.6 Meetings (note b) 22,680 23.1 Operational support and routine related travel 22,550 22.9 Training: Internal agency training (1 month or less) 7,690 7.8 External training sponsored by CSC, other Government agen- cies, or other source (1 month or less) 8,120 8.2 Long-term training (over 1 month) 3,060 3.1 Total 18,870 19.1 Public relations 4,770 4.8 Negotiations or regulatory oriented meetings 2,600 2.6 Patient- and escort 2,000 2.0 To accompany and assist the agency head or other top-ranking agency officials in travel status 740 .8 Protection, security 80 .1 Total c/98,510 100.0 a/Since the estimates in this report were developed from a random sample, they are subject to a measurable precision. Larger es- timated quantities and percentages are relatively more precise than smaller estimates. b/Meetings include conferences, seminars, committee meetings, symposia, and workshops. c/Difference between total t ips of 95,953 and total by purpose of 98,510 represents trips having more than one purpose. 10 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Our categorizations of travel by purpose for each of the three individual agencies is shown in appendix IV. Most of the travel fell into the following four major categories: -- Inspection and evaluation tours (25 percent). -- Meetings (23 percent). -- Operational support and routine related travel (23 percent). -- Training (19 oercent). Each of these is discussed below. Inspection and evaluation tours Travel for inspection and evaluation of agency field in- stallations and of contractor or grantee sites accounted for about 16 percent and 9 percent, respectively, of all the travel in our sample. Travel to agency field installations is Performed to maintain open communications with the agency field personnel and to acquire information on the installation's progress. The majority of this travel was performed by FAA and State personnel, whereas NIHI had limited involvement because it has few field installations. For example, an FAA program manager made several trips from Washington, D.C., to Atlantic City, New Jersey, to insure that the FAA field installation provid- ing technical support on a project was performing work in accordance with the requirements. NIH was the major user of travel funds for grantee and contractor inspection tours. Twenty-five percent of NIH travel was for such tours. Visits are made by NIH staff to the site of prospective and current grantees or contractors to --assure adequate review of proposals or --monitor the progress of ongoing grants and contracts. For example, a GS-14 Health Scientist Administrator, at a cost of $120, along with two other NIH employees and two consultants, traveled from Washington to New York City to review a proposed grant. Because written responses from the principal investigator to questions raised by NIH were un- clear, the traveler visited the investigator to clear up un- certainties about the grant proposal. A GS-15 pharmacolo- gist traveled from Washington to Louisiana, at a cost of 11 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II $248, to conduct a site visit of an ongoing contract. A lack of scientific management and supervision on this contract caused a need for this review visit. NIH criteria for authorizing travel for project visits are not standardized among the individual institutes. For example, in reviewing contract proposals, one institute re- quires a site visit when a contract renewal exceeds a speci- fied dollar amount, whereas another institute normally han- dles such renewals without visiting the site. Another example of policy differences among institutes involves monitoring the progress of ongoing contracts. One NIH institute requires visits to large contractors at least every 2 years. Another institute sets a goal to visit each contractor once a year and schedules supplemental visits as problems arise in the scientific management of the contract. A third institute attempts to visit small contractors once a year and larger ones twice a year. In these examples, the NIH institutes did not clearly delineate the difference be- tween a large and small contractor. Meetings About 23 percent of the travelers attended meetings, in- cluding seminars, conferences, committee meetings, symposia, and workshops. State and NIH expended a large amount of their travel funds (47 percent and 60 percent, respectively, on attending meetings. FAA expenditures were limited to 11 percent in this area. State As a part of conference travel, State representatives engage in continuous consultations with other nations, speak for the United States at major international organizations, and represent the United States at international conferences to promote the long-range security and well being of the United States. Toward these ends, State Department confer- ence travelers in our sample accounted for 46 percent of all State travelers. The State Department, through the Office of Interna- tional Conferences, determines official U.S. participation in conferences, congresses, and commissions, including the delegation's size and composition. The Office of Interna- tional Conferences provided the following information regard- ing the size of the U.S. delegation to certain international conferences that fell within our sample. 12 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Number Number of other of U.S. Total Estimated Conference State Government U.S. costs title Location personnel personnel personnel (note a) Sept. to Oct. 1975 Economic Geneva, 1 1 2 $ 1,100 Commission for Europe Com- Switzerland mittee on Water Problems Nov. 1975 organization for Paris, 1 6 7 19,600 Economic Cooperation and France Development June to July 1975 United Mexico City, 18 14 32 130,000 Nations World Conference Mexico ot International Women's Year 30th Session of United New York 52 7 59 380,000 Nations General Assembly City a/The travel cos, for each person varies because of duration of each trip. Although these multilateral conferences are an essential means of conducting international relations, Secretaries of State, as far back as 1961, have called for reducing the size of U.S. delegations to international conferences and meetings. The Secretary of State in 1976, for example, observed that many of the U.S. delegations are too large and unwieldy to accomplish their missions efficiently. A recent Bureau of International Organization Affairs analysis of delegations to 221 conferences held between March 1 and June 30, 1976, reveals that, from a total of 1,068 proposed delegates and advisers, the Bureau managed to "whittle that total down by 75 so that 993 individuals were eventually accredited." The Bureau does nct consider this to be a satis- factory result by a;y means. It has the authority necessary to accomplish reductions in conference size, but the diffi- culty is making the policies work better in a situation in which other Federal agencies and offices within State are deeply involved and high-level intervention is commonplace. The Office of International Conferences coordinates travel to international conferences only for which an offi- cial U.S. delegation is to be sent. Participation by State employees in all other international conferences is coordi- nated through the sponsoring bureau. According to State officials, attendance at domestic conferences sponsored by State is informally coordinated through the Conferences and Seminars Division of the Bureau of Public Affairs. 13 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II NIH NIH supports staff attendance at scientific and profes- sional seminars and conferences to enable N!H scientists to -- remain current in their fields of expertise; -- be aware of other relevant, ongoing research projects; -- exchange information with other scientists; -- disseminate information about NIH and its programs; and -- identify areas for future research initiatives. NIH officials believe that participants derive benefits from both the formal presentations at these meetings and the in- formal discussions with other scientists. Of those NIH travelers that attended meetings, 50 percent participated as panel members or workshop moderators, 17 percent presented papers or were major speakers, and 33 percent were observers. NIH organizations have relied on informal policies to manage attendance at seminars and conferences. For example, individual institutes informally allow their professional staff to attend at least one scientific meeting a year. This meeting is supposed to be the one most relevant to the indi- vidual's work. Attendance at more than one meeting may be supported, depending on the traveler's position in the orga- nization, type of appointment (temporary versus permanent), and degree of participation in the meeting (observer versus speaker or presenter of a paper). Examples of such meetings follow. -- A GS-15 Health Scientist Administrator, at a cost of $242 went from Washington, D.C., to Green Bay, Wiscon- sin, along with six employees from other NIH organiza- tions to attend a meeting of the Association of American Indian Physicians, Inc., in July 1975. The travel cost for all seven employees was $1,938. The meeting was to explore clinical diseases of the Ameri- can Indian. The traveler in our sample attended to observe the direction that research had taken and en- courage more Indians to become involved in minority research. -- A GS-15 Medical Research Officer, at a cost of $159, went from Washington, D.C., to New York City to pre- sent a paper to the Fifth Annual Meeting of the 14 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II Society for Neuroscience. Because the cognizant NIH Institute considers the annual meeting to be "the professional meeting in the field," 46 personnel, at a cost of $10,939, were sent to present papers, par- ticipate in seminars, or benefit from the exchange of information. Some individual institutes have informal policies that limit attendance of their personnel at seminars and confer- ences. There is no central group at NIH responsible for coordinating attendance among the institutes or within dif- ferent components of one organization. FAA Official attendance by FAA personnel at meetings and con- ventions is encouraged when it contributes to the agency's mission. However, FAA policy states that attendance is to be at a level that is adequate but not excessive. Agency policy also requires that the office which approves attendance at outside national and interregional meetings be responsible for establishing and maintaining a central record of all such approvals to provide information on the number of meetings, attendees, costs, or similar information. Our review of four associate administrator's offices and one regional office re- vealed that only two headquarters groups maintained the re- quired central record of attendance at outside meetings. We analyzed the central records on attendance at meetings at the two headquarters groups that maintained them to deter- mine the nature of employee involvement in the meetings. We found that, of 45 travelers, 27 (60 percent) had attended the meetings primarily as observers. Because of FAA's decentral- ized nature, responsibility for maintaining conference and seminar records is delegated to the FAA regional offices and to service directors at headquarters. Operational support and routine related travel The travel for operational support and routine related travel accounted for 23 percent of the trips. These trips were for day-to-day technical program activities not class- ified under other categories. FAA had the majority of this travel; for example: --A GS-15 FAA employee went from Washington, D.C., to Memphis, Tennessee, to test an FAA-developed air traffic control test on some Department of Defense air traffic control trainees. The test was to be used as 15 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II a mechanism for effectively evaluating applicants for air traffic control positions. -- An FAA engineer went from his residence in Georgia to Cocoa Beach, Florida, for about 1 month to supervise the construction of a microwave transmitter unit. Training Travel for training accounted for 19 percent of the travel. As shown in appendix IV, FAA was responsible for a majority of these trips, whereas State and NIH had little travel for training. FAA's centralized training program concept is the primary cause for increased travel costs for training. FAA's mission requires a work force of highly trained, skilled technicians for its predominately technical work pro- grams which FAA believes are not available from outside the agency. Consequently, FAA conducted internal training pro- grams at cost of $71.6 million in fiscal year 1976 at the FAA Academ, the Transportation Safety Institute, and the Management Training School to develop and improve employees' knowledge and skills, performance, and attitude. FAA supple- mehts this centralized training with on-the-job experience and external long-term training. The FAA Academy, located at Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, de- velops and conducts resident training courses, provides tech- nical support to field training and certification programs, and arranges portions of the external agency training pro- gram. Examples of training-related travel from our sample follow. -- An FAA GS-ll Program Analyst was sent from Washington, D.C., to the FAA Academy for a 2-week nonmandatory Air Traffic Control indoctrination course at a travel cost of about $460. The course provides executives, supervisors, and administrators with a general under- standing of the Air Traffic Control system. --An FAA WG-11 maintenance mechanic was sent from Wash- ington, D.C., to the FAA Academy for a 5-week non- mandatory course entitled "Electrical Principles" at a cost of over $1,200. This course is for personnel preparing for entry into training programs concerning maintenance of electro-mechanical equipment. The Management Training School, located at Lawton, Okla- homa, is FAA's centralized source for developing and con- ducting supervisory and managerial training for FAA person- nel. It develops supervisory and/or managlerial training 16 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II materials, evaluates student accomplishments during training, and provides advisory service to help eliminate management de- ficiencies through personal development. For example, a Jan- itor General Foreman Assistant (Wage Board-3) attended a 3-week Supervisory Initial Course at a travel cost of almost $300. This training, mandatory for all first-line supervi- sors, includes instruction on FAA organization, supervisory responsibilities, functions of management, personnel prac- tices and procedures, human relations and motivation, commu- nications, and public relations. The Transportation Safety Institute, located in Oklahoma City, conducts safety and security courses and seminars for various Department of Transportation organizations. FAA also participates in long-term educational and fel- lowship programs; pays the traveler's salary, per diem, travel expenses, tuition, books, and related expenses; and handles all administrative details relating to personnel mat- ters of the training program. For example: --An FAA GS-13 program evaluation specialist under FPA sponsorship attended a 9-month training program, Edu- cation for Public Management, at the University of Southern California at an estimated travel cost of about $9,100. The program is designed to serve the training and development needs of individuals who are at midcareer and have been identified by the agency as having the potential to assume increased responsibil- ity in the overall direction of agency programs and policies. -- Another FAA long-term training trip involved a GS-16 division chief to attend a 9-month midcareer program at Princeton University; travel costs were $7,750. The program involved public and international affairs for midcareer officials who have demonstrated un- usual potential to assume broad executive responsibil- ities. Appendix IV shows the frequency with which the various train- ing occurred at FAA, State, and NIH. OBSERVATIONS NIH, State, and FAA develop and maintain records de- scribing the cost and nature of travel, but we believe the subclassifications used as a basis for data accumulation do not provide the information needed for effective management. For example, those specific purposes that will isolate the potential for better distribution of travel moneys within 17 APPENDIX II APPENDIX II each agency would be a meaningful refinement. There is no centralized mechanism within the agencies for systematically coordinating travel to meetings, nor are there formalized agency procedures to limit attendance. Better data can and should be accumulated through an im- proved reporting system. The reporting system could provide a sound basis for determining the areas needing additional management action to accomplish specified missions and to control travel. It would also serve as a means of showing the Congress that the travel is being properly managed and that funds are being allocated to the highest priority pro- gram needs. We believe also that closer attention to agency participation in meetings would result in fewer attendees and reduced travel costs. 18 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III FISCAL YEAR 1976 AGENCY CLASSIFICATIONS OF TRAVEL EXPENDITURES FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Object Fiscal year sub- 1976 classi- expenditures fication Description Amount Percent 2111 Headquarters planning, super- vision, and inspection $ 5,712,200 16.4 2112 Field facility maintenance, operation, and job perform- ance 12,515,400 35.9 2113 Transfer to official station 1,431,400 4.1 2114 Biennial vacation leave 314,700 .9 2120 Training travel--FAA training programs 10,273,500 29.4 2124 Training travel--other Fed- eral programs 294,800 .8 2125 Training travel--non-Federal programs 689,200 2.0 2132 Rental of automobiles 2,921,000 8.4 2141 Reimbursement for use of pri- vately owned vehicle and air- craft 0 0 2191 Not otherwise classified 726,600 2.1 Total $34,878,800 100.0 19 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III STATE DEPARTMENT Object Fiscal year sub- 1976 classi- expenditures fication Description Amount Percent 2111 Air fares $ 445,900 1.6 2112 Ship fares 3,400 (a) 2113 Other fares and mileage 197,500 .7 2121 Excess baggage 131,200 .5 2122 Per diem, subsistence, and other expenses 3,295,300 12.3 2124 Accompanied pouches (excess baggage) 2,254,000 8.4 2131 Per diem for student assigned to the Foreign Service Insti- tute 121,200 .5 2151 Travel within the United States, not otherwise classi- fied 14,206,900 53.0 2152 Consultation and inspection travel foreign countries 2,671,700 10.0 2153 Regional conferences 127,700 .5 2154 Consultation travel to the United States 3)4,700 1.1 2155 Post-to-post details 426,900 1.6 2156 Field travel 74,500 .3 2157 Medical travel 4,100 (a) 2158 Travel by specialized personnel 452,900 1.7 2159 Security travel 1,284,500 4.8 2161 Rest and recuperation travel 3,700 (a) 20 APPENDIX II APPENDIX III STATE DEPARTMENT (continued) Object Fiscal year sub- 1976 classi- expenditures Description Amount Percent fication Education travel 7,400 (a) 2162 238,500 .9 2163 Other travel--local Family visitation travel 0 0 2164 Emergency visitation travel 4,000 (a) 2165 Motor pool expenses 461,000 1.7 2188 Other 101,100 .4 Total b/$26,818,100 100.0 a/Less than 0.1 percent. for b/Does not include object class 21 travel expenditures expend- employee permanent change of station and all travel tures made by State Department bureaus overseas. 21 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Object Fiscal year sub- 1976 classi- expenditures fication Description Amount Percent 2111 Transportation and per diem of employees and family-- domestic and civilian $ 31,500 0.4 2112 Transportation and per diem of employees and family--do- mestic and commissioned 35,100 .5 2113 Round trip to seek permanent residence quarters--domestic and civilian 1,000 (a) 2115 Resettlement--refugees 0 0 2119 Transportation and per diem of employees and family-- foreign, all 145,300 2.2 212A Patients and escorts 1,030,000 15.7 212B GSA motor-pool passenger ve- hicles 200 (a) 212C Commercial car rentals (in- cluding those under GSA con- tract) 10,800 .2 212F Advisory committees 424,800 6.5 212G Conferences--Government- sponsored 201,600 3.1 212H Conferences--non-Government- sponsored 53,000 .8 212M Other domestic operations-- within contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia 2,468,200 3 .6 212N Other domestic operations-- outside contiguous 48 States and the District of Columbia 70,700 1.1 22 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (continued) Object Fiscal year sub 1976 classi expenditures fication Description Amount Percent 212R Grant review and monitoring 147,000 2.2 212T Contract review and monitor- ing--domestic 268,800 4.1 212W Contract review and monitor- ing foreign 20,200 0.3 212Z Foreign program operations 313,400 4.8 2121 Service area--Social Security Administration 300 (a) 2122 Supervisory and administrative 20,000 .3 2123 Local (metropolitan area of duty station) 55,800 .8 2124 Consultants 93,300 1.4 2125 Witnesses and appellants (b) (a) 214A Government-sponsored training 35,300 .5 2141 Non-Government-sponsored train- ing 99,800 1.5 215A Non-Government-sponsored meet- ings domestic 781,200 11.9 215F Non-Government-sponsored meet- ings--international 250,000 3.8 2151 Intergovernmental sponsored meetings--domestic 10,000 .2 2156 Intergovernmental sponsored meetings--international 3,500 .1 23 APPENDIX III APPENDIX III NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH (continued) Object Fiscal year sub- 1976 classi- expenditures fication Description Amount Percent 2161 Temporary duty--home leave 2,300 (a) Total c/$6 572,900 100.0 a/Less than 0.1 percent. b/Less than $50 was included; dropped due to rounding. c/Does not add due to rounding. 24 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV PURPOSE OF TRAVEL FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Estimated number of trips in Purpose of travel FY 1976 Percent Inspection and evaluation tours: At agency field installa- tions 14,740 20.3 At contractor or grantee sites 3,080 4.2 Total 17,820 24.5 Meetings 9,620 13.3 Operational support and routine related travel 22,240 30.7 Training: Internal agency training (i month or less) 5,950 9.2 External training (1 month or less) 7,640 10.5 Long-term training (over 1 month) 3,060 4.2 Total 16,650 22.9 ( Public relations 4,150 5.7 Negotiations and/or regulatory- oriented meetings 2,080 2.9 Total 72,560 100.0 25 APPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV STATE DEPARTMENT Estimated number of trips in Purpose of travel FY 1976 Percent Inspection and evaluation tours: At agency field installations 880 15.3 At contractor or grantee sites 330 5.8 Total 1,210 21.1 Meetings 2,850 49.8 Internal agency training (1 month or less) 40 .8 Public relations 620 10.8 Negotiatigns and/or regulatory- oriented meetings 180 3.2 To accompany and assist the agency head or other top ranking agency officials in travel status 740 12.9 Protection, security 80 1.4 'otal 5,720 100.0 26 AFPENDIX IV APPENDIX IV NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH Estimated number of trips in Purpose of travel FY 1976 Percent Inspection and evaluation tours at contractor or grantee sites 5,190 25.6 Meetings 10,210 50.5 Operational support and routine related travel 310 1.5 Training: Internal agency training (1 month or less) 1,690 8.4 External training (1 month or less) 490 2.4 Total 2,180 10.8 Negotiations and/or regulatory- oriented meetings 340 1.7 Patient and escort 2,000 9.9 Total 20,230 100.0 27 APPENDIX V APPENDIX V _- _ - l , . ,,, PM*. aa IL umma. Ra, . a. ---- , l -- ___ M. ulsams. =llL iA. ConIgreu of the uInitrb bsta A _ M llAl, TOR - .R gII ~L.eu coY~fntL011 _0 mstIbeg lM~ ICI___ ,,,, ROOM EM RS. WARMlAm. LIV _ _, K,,,- ~COMMT ON GOVERNMEUNT OERATIONS m._ Wn.WOR m. a. 't-.-"" ''_2117 LMna bor w Ote ul "- "LO Vn. m ,. ------------ P.. u w..-- ,L February 4, 1976 .lm .iuian. A. _ OL_. B-193315 The Honorable Elmer B. Staats Comptroller General of the United States Washington, D. C. Dear Elmer: I am respectfully requesting the General Accounting conduct a study for the Cammittee on Government OperationsOffice to of official travel by the Executive Branch. The overwhelming Importance of bringing Federal spending irnder control is causing both Congress and the Executive to take a closer look at many programs to be sure they are operating efficiently. But government travel is something that is rarely examined on a govermuent-wide basis, although I am sure the total amount of money being spent on it is enormous. It would be interesting to know Just what that total is, 4own by departments and agencies, if possible. Itwould then broken if the GAO could take a close look at two or three particularlybetravel- helpful prone agencies to determine what the guidelines for travel are and wietUer they are being followed. A recent bulletin by the Office of Managrment and Budget (76-9, issued December 4, 1975) lists nine travel guidelines that are about to be put Into effect. It would be Interesting to know how they compare to the practices agencies have been following. I would appreciate your prompt attention to this request, so that any wasteful practices now in effect can be halted. aI ncerely, k Brooks hairman 28
Travel in the Management and Operation of Federal Programs
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1977-03-17.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)