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)

                         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
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
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!

  ;'::~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
                        WASHINGTON, D.C.   £04


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.


     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.


     Travel is an essential element in carrying .ut almost
all Government programs as are communications, information

 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.


     Pursuant to the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921,
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has oversight      (the
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-
portation and traffic management.

     OMB has assigned two professional employees to the
fice of Federal Procurement Policy's travel oversight    Of-
sibility. A Federal Procurement Policy official said
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
monitored or periodically evaluated Federal agencies'

     OMB's involvement in controlling travel has been
to                                                    limited

     --developing budgetary related questions on travel
       assist agencies in conducting their own operationsto
       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

     OMB usually does not issue travel
President believes a policy needs to be policies unless the
                                         developed or more
strongly emphasized.



      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,

     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-


     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:


     "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
     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

      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.


     -- Reducing the burden of Federal reporting and

     -- 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.


     We believe that justification and review of program
travel could be made easier and more effective by use of


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.


     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


       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:
                                              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.



     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.


     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.


     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

     If we can be of further assistance, please advise us.

                              Si    Y   yours,

                             Comptroller General
                             of the United States

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).


     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.

APPENDIX I                                                                       APPENDIX I


                                       Actual           Percent      Estimate          Perceiit
              Agency                    1975           of total        1976           of total
                                  (000,000 omitted)               (000,000 om.tted)
    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
        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
    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
     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
  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


     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,

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

     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

     -- Extent of travel to high-cost areas.

     -- Duration of trips.

     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.

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-

     -- At FAA, travel was primarily for routine operational

     -- 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.


     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.

 APPENDIX I                                               APPENDIX I
                                         Percent of trips
         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-

     We were told that less than 3 percent of requests
foreign travel was disapproved by the Office. This low for
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

APPENDIX I                                                    APPENDIX I


     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
         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


     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.

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

     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

     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

                                                    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-
tions. This lack of definitions may
effective use of these subclassifications.

                                              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

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
     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.

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

     -- Inspection and evaluation tours (25 percent).

     -- Meetings (23 percent).

     -- Operational support and routine related travel (23

     -- 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
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.


     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.

     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.

APPENDIX II                                                                APPENDIX II

                                              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

June to July 1975 United      Mexico City,        18         14           32          130,000
Nations World Conference      Mexico
ot International Women's

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.

APPENDIX II                                           APPENDIX II


     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;

     -- 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

     -- 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

     -- 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

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.


     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

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.


     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

     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

     -- 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

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

     -- 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-

Appendix IV shows the frequency with which the various train-
ing occurred at FAA, State, and NIH.


     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

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.

APPENDIX III                                             APPENDIX III


                       OF TRAVEL EXPENDITURES

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

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)

                                                      APPENDIX II
                       STATE DEPARTMENT (continued)

 Object                                         Fiscal year
  sub-                                             1976
 classi-                                       expenditures
                    Description               Amount    Percent
           Education travel                      7,400      (a)
                                               238,500          .9
  2163     Other travel--local

           Family visitation travel              0          0
           Emergency visitation travel           4,000      (a)
           Motor pool expenses                 461,000      1.7
           Other                               101,100          .4

               Total                     b/$26,818,100    100.0

a/Less than 0.1 percent.
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.

APPENDIX III                                           APPENDIX III


 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

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

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.

APPENDIX    IV                                           APPENDIX IV

                          PURPOSE OF TRAVEL


                                         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
    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

APPENDIX IV                                             APPENDIX IV
                       STATE DEPARTMENT

                                          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

AFPENDIX IV                                            APPENDIX IV


                                        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

    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

 APPENDIX V                                                                                          APPENDIX V

_-        _              -   l                             ,        .                          ,,,
                                                                                         PM*. aa
                                                                                              IL     umma.          Ra,
                                                                                                       . a.
     l  --
               M.       ulsams.
                            iA.            ConIgreu of the uInitrb bsta                  A            _
                                                                                                  M llAl, TOR

                                             gII ~L.eu coY~fntL011                        _0
                                                                                                mstIbeg lM~
               EM RS. WARMlAm.       LIV
               _ _,         K,,,-    ~COMMT ON GOVERNMEUNT OERATIONS                        m._ Wn.WOR
               ''_2117                             LMna   bor w Ote        ul       "-                 "LO
                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-
                     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