Selected Federal Agencies' Policies for Choosing Conference Locations
Gao ID: GAO-10-677R June 10, 2010Press accounts in 2009 indicated that some federal agencies had issued directives to their staff discouraging them from choosing certain locations for conferences. This was because of the perception by some that the locations were resort areas and would not be the best use of taxpayers' money. Noting that government travel for meetings, conferences, and seminars is an important source of economic activity for many communities throughout the United States, Congress asked us to review agencies' policies for selecting conference locations, in view of these concerns.
Conference planning at the 10 departments and 2 agencies we reviewed is a decentralized activity that is typically performed at the bureau or component level, below the agencywide level. Budgetary considerations largely influence the agencies' conference location selections. For example, officials from most of the agencies we reviewed explained that after identifying locations that meet the requirements of a particular conference, such as the capacity for large numbers of attendees, the comparative cost of locations was the key criterion used for selecting a conference location. Eight of the 12 agencies that we reviewed had developed agencywide policies for conference planning; these policies were consistent with the governmentwide policy on conference planning in the Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), and specified that conference locations be selected on the basis of cost-effectiveness. The other 4 agencies either allowed bureaus and components to develop their own policies, were in the process of developing agencywide policies, or conducted agency level review and approval of conferences that were proposed at the bureau or component level. While cost-effectiveness is the principal criterion and the selection of resort locations is not prohibited among the agencywide policies we reviewed, three agencies had policies that mentioned resort locations. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) policies currently state that the selection of resort locations for conferences and meetings is discouraged and should be minimized. USDA officials said they are in the process of revising their regulations to clarify and strengthen conference and training location selection. Similarly, the Department of Health and Human Services policies state that meeting sponsors should not hold meetings at resort areas unless that area is the location best suited for the purpose of the meeting in terms of program needs and cost factors. The Department of Justice (DOJ) policies require additional justification for conferences and meetings held in resort locations. DOJ officials said that, consistent with FTR and DOJ policies, they will continue to follow this policy to ensure that conference locations provide the best value for the government. One of the 12 agencies we reviewed, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), reported moving a conference from a resort area to another location in 2009 to avoid potential negative perceptions associated with holding a government conference in a resort location. However, VA officials said managers recognize that resort locations may, in some cases, offer more cost-effective alternatives to other locations and rely on cost comparisons to determine conference locations.
GAO-10-677R, Selected Federal Agencies' Policies for Choosing Conference Locations
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-677R
entitled 'Selected Federal Agencies' Policies for Choosing Conference
Locations' which was released on June 10, 2010.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
GAO-10-677R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 10, 2010:
Congressional Requesters:
Subject: Selected Federal Agencies' Policies for Choosing Conference
Locations:
Press accounts in 2009 indicated that some federal agencies had issued
directives to their staff discouraging them from choosing certain
locations for conferences. This was because of the perception by some
that the locations were resort areas and would not be the best use of
taxpayers' money. Noting that government travel for meetings,
conferences, and seminars is an important source of economic activity
for many communities throughout the United States, you asked us to
review agencies' policies for selecting conference locations, in view
of these concerns. This letter transmits the results of our work which
are contained in Enclosure I.
Summary:
Conference planning at the 10 departments and 2 agencies[Footnote 1]
we reviewed is a decentralized activity that is typically performed at
the bureau or component level, below the agencywide level. Budgetary
considerations largely influence the agencies' conference location
selections. For example, officials from most of the agencies we
reviewed explained that after identifying locations that meet the
requirements of a particular conference, such as the capacity for
large numbers of attendees, the comparative cost of locations was the
key criterion used for selecting a conference location. Eight of the
12 agencies that we reviewed had developed agencywide policies for
conference planning; these policies were consistent with the
governmentwide policy on conference planning in the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR)[Footnote 2], and specified that conference locations
be selected on the basis of cost-effectiveness. The other 4 agencies
either allowed bureaus and components to develop their own policies,
were in the process of developing agencywide policies, or conducted
agency level review and approval of conferences that were proposed at
the bureau or component level. While cost-effectiveness is the
principal criterion and the selection of resort locations is not
prohibited among the agencywide policies we reviewed, three agencies
had policies that mentioned resort locations. The Department of
Agriculture (USDA) policies currently state that the selection of
resort locations for conferences and meetings is discouraged and
should be minimized. USDA officials said they are in the process of
revising their regulations to clarify and strengthen conference and
training location selection. Similarly, the Department of Health and
Human Service policies state that meeting sponsors should not hold
meetings at resort areas unless that area is the location best suited
for the purpose of the meeting in terms of program needs and cost
factors. The Department of Justice (DOJ) policies require additional
justification for conferences and meetings held in resort locations.
DOJ officials said that, consistent with FTR and DOJ policies, they
will continue to follow this policy to ensure that conference
locations provide the best value for the government. One of the 12
agencies we reviewed, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA),
reported moving a conference from a resort area to another location in
2009 to avoid potential negative perceptions associated with holding a
government conference in a resort location. However, VA officials said
managers recognize that resort locations may, in some cases, offer
more cost-effective alternatives to other locations and rely on cost
comparisons to determine conference locations.
Scope and Methodology:
We reviewed available agencywide conference planning policies and
interviewed officials from the 10 largest cabinet-level departments in
terms of employees, and two agencies--the General Services
Administration and the Social Security Administration. The 10 largest
cabinet level agencies include the departments of Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,
Interior, Justice, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. We
selected the Social Security Administration because it is the largest
independent agency in terms of employees and we selected the General
Services Administration because it promulgates the FTR, the
governmentwide travel policy. We analyzed the extent to which the
agencywide conference planning policies of the 8 agencies that had
such policies were consistent with the FTR.
We contacted the Inspector Generals from the agencies to identify any
work they had done relating to conference planning, and we contacted
GAO's FraudNet and determined that no complaints had been filed
relating to this issue. We also identified the Interagency Travel
Management Committee as the only governmentwide group knowledgeable
about agency travel policies. We administered a questionnaire to the
175 federal travel managers associated with this group as part of our
effort to determine if unwritten, informal directives or guidance
relating to the choice of location had been issued to agency
conference planners. All of the 22 travel managers who responded to
our questionnaire indicated that they were not aware of any unwritten,
informal directives or guidance relating to the choice of conference
locations at their agency.[Footnote 3]
We considered, but did not conduct, case studies of individual
conferences because the only practical methodology of selecting
conferences would not have enabled generalizable results.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to May 2010, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this letter to the 12 agencies we analyzed for
their review and comment. Ten agencies notified us that they did not
have any comments on our letter. One agency, the Department of
Veterans Affairs, provided written comments that are reproduced in
Enclosure II. The Department of Veterans Affairs did not agree or
disagree with our letter but noted that in some cases cost analysis
may show that a resort location can offer a better value than other
locations for conferences. One agency, the Department of Defense, did
not provide us with comments in time for the issuance of this letter.
We are sending copies of this letter to the heads of the 12 agencies
we reviewed and other interested congressional committees. In
addition, this letter will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff has any questions concerning our results, please
contact me at (214) 777-5719 or stjamesl@gao.gov. Contact points for
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this letter. Principal contributors to this
project were Maria D. Edelstein, Assistant Director; Lindsay M. Bach;
Lisa G. Shibata; H. Brandon Haller; Colin Fallon; and Kathleen A.
Gilhooly.
Signed by:
Lorelei St. James:
Acting Director:
Physical Infrastructure:
Enclosures - 2:
List of Requesters:
The Honorable John L. Mica:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Shelley Berkley:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Corrine Brown:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Lincoln Diaz-Balart:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Alan Grayson:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Dean Heller:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Suzanne Kosmas:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Bill Posey:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Dina Titus:
House of Representatives:
Enclosure 1:
Briefing to Staff for the House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure and Others:
May 2010:
Selected Federal Agencies' Policies for Choosing Conference Locations:
Introduction:
Federal departments and agencies[Footnote 4] convene conferences and
meetings in various locations to share information and further their
missions.
Government travel for meetings, conferences, and seminars is an
important source of economic activity for many communities throughout
the United States.
Press accounts in 2009 indicated that some federal agencies issued
directives discouraging certain locations for conferences because of a
perception by some that they were resort areas and would not be the
best use of taxpayers' money.
This briefing addresses how select federal agencies plan conferences
and, in particular, select sites for them.
Background:
Federal conferences and meetings are governed by the Federal Travel
Regulation (FTR).[Footnote 5]
The FTR requires agencies to use a cost-effective approach when
planning conferences. For example, the FTR requires agencies to
minimize all conference costs by:
* conducting cost comparisons of the size, scope, and location of
conferences;
* considering alternatives to conferences such as teleconferencing;
and;
* maximizing the use of government-owned or government-provided
conference facilities.
The FTR also requires federal agencies to develop internal policies
that ensure FTR standards are met, but does not specify at what level
these should be developed: the agencywide level or below the
agencywide level by internal bureaus or other components.
The FTR also requires agencies to consider all direct and indirect
costs, such as the:
* per diem expenses of the federal employees attending the conference,
including:
- lodging costs and;
- travel costs;
* cost of rooms and equipment for official business; and;
* cost of employees' time at the conference and en route travel.
When planning a conference, the goal, according to the FTR, is to
select a location that ensures conference expenditures result in the
greatest cost advantage to the government while also satisfying
mission needs for the conference.
Conference Planning Is Decentralized and Managed by Agency Bureaus and
Components:
According to officials at the agencies we reviewed:[Footnote 6]
* Conference planning is a highly decentralized activity that is
typically performed at the bureau or component level, below the
agencywide level.
* Conference location selection is largely driven by budgetary
considerations.
- After identifying locations that meet the requirements of a
particular conference, such as the capacity for large numbers of
attendees, officials from most of the agencies we reviewed said the
comparative cost of locations, as part of the overall cost of the
conference, was the key criterion for selecting conference locations.
Most of the Agencies We Reviewed Had Agency-wide Policies for
Conference Planning:
In our review of the agencies' policies, we found that:
* Although the FTR does not require federal agencies to develop
agencywide policies, 8 of the 12 agencies had developed such policies
for conference planning.
* The other 4 agencies either allowed bureaus and components to
develop their own policies, were in the process of developing
agencywide policies, or conducted agency level review and approval of
conferences that were proposed at the bureau or component level.
* For the 8 agencies with agencywide policies, we found that their
policies were consistent with the FTR by specifying that conference
locations are to be selected on the basis of cost-effectiveness.
Conference Planning Generally Aligned with Federal Travel Regulations:
While cost-effectiveness is the principal criterion and the selection
of resort locations is not prohibited,
* USDA policies currently state that the selection of resort locations
for conferences and meetings is discouraged and should be minimized.
USDA officials said they are in the process of revising their
regulations to clarify and strengthen conference and training location
selection.
* HHS policies state that meeting sponsors should not hold meetings at
resort areas unless that area is the location best suited for the
purpose of the meeting in terms of program needs and cost factors.
* DOJ policies require additional justification for conferences and
meetings held in resort locations. DOJ officials said that, consistent
with FTR and DOJ policies, they will continue to follow this policy to
ensure that conference locations provide the best value for the
government.
One Agency Reported Moving a Conference:
Only one of the 12 agencies we contacted, the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA), reported moving a conference from a resort location to
another location to avoid potential negative perceptions associated
with holding government conferences in resort locations.
* VA officials said the specific conference was moved from Las Vegas
to Indianapolis in 2009.
* However, VA officials said managers recognize that resort locations
may, in some cases, offer more cost-effective alternatives to other
locations and rely on cost comparisons to determine conference
locations.
Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
To conduct our review, we reviewed available agencywide conference
planning policies and interviewed officials from the 10 largest
cabinet-level departments in terms of employees, and two agencies”the
General Services Administration and the Social Security Administration.
* The 10 largest cabinet-level departments were: Agriculture,
Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security,
Interior, Justice, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs. We
selected the Social Security Administration because it is the largest
independent agency and the General Services Administration because it
is responsible for promulgating the Federal Travel Regulation.
We analyzed the extent to which the agencywide conference planning
policies of the 8 agencies that had such policies were consistent with
the FTR.
We also identified the Interagency Travel Management Committee as the
only governmentwide group knowledgeable about agency travel policies.
* We administered a questionnaire to the 175 federal travel managers
associated with this group as part of our effort to determine if
unwritten, informal directives or guidance relating to the choice of
location had been issued to agency conference planners.
* All of the 22 travel managers who responded to our questionnaire
indicated that they were not aware of any unwritten, informal
directives or guidance relating to the choice of conference locations
at their agency.[Footnote 7]
We contacted the Inspector General from the agencies to identify any
work they had done relating to conference planning.
We contacted GAO's FraudNet and determined that no complaints had been
filed relating to this issue.
We considered, but did not conduct, case studies of individual
conferences because the only practical methodology of selecting
conferences would not have enabled generalizable results.
We conducted this performance audit from August 2009 to May 2010, in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of Enclosure 1]
Enclosure 2:
Department of Veterans Affairs:
Office of the Secretary:
May 21, 2010:
Ms. Lorelei St. James:
Acting Director:
Physical Infrastructure:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. St. James:
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has reviewed the Government
Accountability Office's (GAO) draft report, Selected Federal Agencies'
Policies for Choosing Conference Locations (GAO-10-677R).
The enclosure provides a comment to the draft report. VA appreciates
the opportunity to comment on your draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
John R. Gingrich:
Chief of Staff:
Enclosure:
[End of letter]
Enclosure:
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Comments to Government
Accountability Office (GAO) Statement of Facts Federal Conference
Locations (Job Code 542164):
VA Comment:
VA relies on cost comparisons to determine conference locations and
select locations based on a number of cost effectiveness factors such
as travel costs/airfare, room rates, facility fees, off season
pricing, etc. VA managers also realize that in some cases analysis of
these factors may show that a resort location is a better value.
[End of Enclosure 2]
Footnotes:
[1] For the purposes of this review, we will refer to these federal
departments and agencies as "federal agencies."
[2] 41 C.F.R. § 301-74.
[3] Because of a low response rate (13 percent), we could not use the
results of the questionnaire to characterize the extent to which the
travel managers had received unwritten rules or directives that
applied to conference location planning.
[4] For the purposes of this review, we will refer to federal
departments and agencies as "federal agencies."
[5] 41 C.F.R. Part 301-74 Conference Planning.
[6] We conducted our review at the 10 largest cabinet-level agencies,
the General Services Administration, and the Social Security
Administration. See slide 9 for a list of these agencies.
[7] Because the response rate was so low (13 percent), we could not
use the results to characterize the extent to which travel managers
had received unwritten rules or directives that applied to conference
location planning.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
