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 report 

transmits the results of our work which are contained in Enclosure I. 

Summary 

Conference planning at the 10 departments and 2 agencies1 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),

2

 and specified that conference locations be selected on the basis of costeffectiveness. 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. 

 

1

For the purposes of this review, we will refer to these federal departments and agencies as “federal 

agencies.” 

2

41 C.F.R. Part 301-74. 

GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
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. 

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 Inspectors General 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.3

 

 

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. 

Page 2 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
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 report to the 12 agencies we analyzed for their review and 

comment. Ten agencies notified us that they did not have any comments on our 

report. 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 report 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 report. 

__________________________ 

We are sending copies of this report to the heads of the 12 agencies we reviewed and 

other interested congressional committees. In addition, this report will be available at 

no charge on GAO's Web site at 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 report. 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. 

Lorelei St. James 

Acting Director 

Physical Infrastructure 

Enclosures – 2 

Page 3 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
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 

Page 4 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
Enclosure 1 

1

Briefing to Staff

for the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

and Others

May 2010

Selected Federal Agencies’ Policies 

for Choosing Conference Locations

Page 5 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
2

Introduction

• Federal departments and agencies1 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.

1

For the purposes of this review, we will refer to federal departments and agencies as “federal agencies.”

Page 6 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
3

Background

• Federal conferences and meetings are governed by the Federal Travel 

Regulation (FTR).2

• 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.

2

41 C.F.R. Part 301-74 Conference Planning.

Page 7 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
4

Background

• 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. 

Page 8 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
5

Conference Planning Is Decentralized and 

Managed by Agency Bureaus and Components 

• According to officials at the agencies we reviewed:3

• 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.

3 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.

Page 9 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
6

Most of the Agencies We Reviewed Had Agencywide 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. 

Page 10 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
7

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.

Page 11 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
8

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.

Page 12 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
9

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

• To conduct our review, we reviewed available agencywide conference 

planning policies and interviewed officials from the 10 largest cabinetlevel 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. 

Page 13 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
10

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

• 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.4

4

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. 

Page 14 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
11

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

• 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.

Page 15 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
Enclosure 2 

Page 16 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
Page 17 GAO-10-677R Federal Conference Locations
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, 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. 
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and GAO’s Mission 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. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost Obtaining Copies of is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

GAO Reports and posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, Testimony go to 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, 

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. 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 Congressional U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Relations Washington, DC 20548 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 Public Affairs U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548