Federal organizations relocate their civilian employees to help them accomplish their many varied and unique missions. Organizations carry out their missions through a civilian workforce of nearly 2 million employees assigned to offices in locations throughout the United States, its territories and possessions, and various foreign countries. The Secretary of State determines the length of an overseas tour for Foreign Service Officers. The tour of duty overseas for Department of Defense (DOD) employees is prescribed by DOD’s Joint Travel Regulations (2 JTR). When civilian employees are authorized to relocate in the interests of the government, they are to be authorized to relocate prior to the time they actually move, and they generally have up to 2 years, and can request a third year, from the date that they report to their new location to complete the relocation and receive reimbursement for the associated costs. Therefore, the actual relocation may not take place in the fiscal year that it is authorized. Also, expenses associated with the relocation may be paid to the employee over the 2- to 3-year period. Two federal laws provide government organizations with the primary authority to pay the travel and related expenses of relocating a civilian employee: the Administrative Expenses Act of 1946, as amended, 5 U.S.C. §§ 5701-5742, and the Foreign Service Act of 1980, 22 U.S.C. 4081. GSA’s Federal Travel Regulation (FTR), 41 C.F.R., chapters 301 to 304, implements the provisions of the Administrative Expenses Act. FTR, chapter 302, governs the travel and relocation expenses of civilian employees, except those in the Foreign Service. Based on authority provided in the Foreign Service Act, travel and relocation expenses for Foreign Service Officers are prescribed by the Secretary of State in the Foreign Service Travel Regulations. These regulations are contained in volume 6 of the Foreign Affairs Manual (6 FAM). Once any civilian employee is located in a foreign area, his or her travel allowances and differentials are set by the Secretary of State in the Standardized Regulations (Government Civilians, Foreign Areas). Both the Department of State’s and GSA’s travel regulations authorize federal organizations to pay basically the same expenses for relocations within the United States. These expenses include transportation of individuals, per diem, subsistence, transportation and storage of household and personal effects, and real estate expenses. The key difference is that Foreign Service Officers are not entitled to relocation income tax allowances. Overseas, the Standard Regulations apply to both Foreign Service Officers and other civilian employees, and generally provide them with the same allowances. These allowances include living quarters allowance, temporary quarters subsistence allowance, and cost of living allowance. One difference is that Foreign Service Officers are entitled to separation travel, which is relocation to anyplace in the United States that they choose upon retirement regardless of where they are located when they retire. On the other hand, other civilian employees returning from overseas are only entitled to reimbursement for travel and relocation expenses to their home of record. Another difference is that Foreign Service Officers may be authorized rest and recuperation travel when assigned to a hardship post. In order to receive reimbursement for relocation expenses/allowances to which they are entitled, both civilian employees and Foreign Service Officers must sign a service agreement to remain with the government for 12 months after the date that they report to their new duty station, mission, or agency, unless they leave the government for reasons beyond their control and that are acceptable to the agency. An employee who violates the agreement must repay the government the amount it spent to relocate him or her. Neither FTR nor FAM specifically define the term relocation. For the purposes of this report, we define relocation as (1) the transfer, in the interest of the government, of an existing civilian employee or appointee from one office, mission, or agency to another for permanent duty; (2) the moving of a new eligible appointee from his or her actual residence in one location to his or her first office or mission in another location; (3) the return of an existing eligible civilian employee or appointee who is separated from an overseas office or mission to his or her actual residence; and (4) the return of an existing eligible career appointee on retirement from an office or mission to his or her elected residence within the United States, its territories, or possessions. Collecting exact cost information for relocation travel is difficult. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A-11, Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates and Circular No. A-34 Instructions on Budget Execution require that federal organizations record obligations and expenditures by object class according to the nature of the services or articles procured. There are no object classes dedicated solely to recording relocation travel obligations and expenditures. Rather, relocation obligations and expenditures are captured in at least four different object classes, along with obligations and expenses that are not related to relocation travel. These object classes include (1) 12.1 civilian personnel benefits; (2) 21.0 travel and transportation of persons; (3) 22.0 transportation of things; and (4) 25.7 operation and maintenance of equipment (related to storage of household goods). As a result, relocation obligations and expenditures cannot be extracted from OMB budget/object class data. Instead, relocation obligations and expenditures must be obtained from each federal organization through queries of its automated systems or examination of its travel records. As the government’s travel manager, GSA’s Office of Governmentwide Policy is responsible for establishing governmentwide civilian travel and relocation policy, updating FTR, gathering travel and relocation costs, and providing leadership to develop sound travel and relocation policy. GSA was required by the Federal Civilian Employee and Contractor Travel Expenses Act of 1985, 5 U.S.C. § 5707(c), to periodically, but at least every 2 years, submit to the Director of OMB an analysis of, among other things, estimated total agency payments for employee relocation. GSA is to survey a sampling of agencies, each of which spent more than $5 million on travel and transportation payments in the prior fiscal year. This provision was to expire with the administrator’s submission of the analysis that included fiscal year 1991. The Treasury, Postal Service and General Government Appropriations Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 103-329 (Sept. 30, 1994), reinstated this provision with no future expiration date. GSA collected the required travel information for fiscal years 1989, 1990, and 1991. However, GSA only analyzed the travel information for fiscal year 1989. GSA’s Office of Governmentwide Policy recently distributed its survey to collect travel information, including relocation travel, for fiscal year 1996. To provide the requested civilian employee relocation information, we developed and distributed a questionnaire to 120 federal organizations. We asked the organizations to report their total number of and cost for civilian employee relocations. We also asked whether they had a rotational policy that resulted in civilian employee relocations. We received responses from 119 (or 99 percent) of the 120 organizations surveyed. The Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration, which had a civilian workforce of less than 400 employees, did not provide a response. The names of the organizations that we surveyed are listed in appendix I. To develop the questionnaire and ensure its completeness, we researched FTR and OMB Circular No. A-11 to identify the allowances for relocation expenses and the object classes that federal organizations use to record relocation obligations, respectively. We drafted the questionnaire with the assistance of our staff knowledgeable in federal travel and relocation practices. We pretested the questionnaire with the following six organizations: the Bureau of the Census, Defense Educational Activity, Department of State, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marine Corps, and Office of Personnel Management. Using the pretest results, we revised the questionnaire to help ensure that our questions were interpreted correctly and that the requested relocation information was available. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the civilian employee relocation information that the federal organizations provided or assess the appropriateness of their relocations or the associated cost because of time constraints and the number of organizations surveyed. However, we reviewed each questionnaire for clarity and completeness and followed up with the organization’s contact person in those instances in which the responses were unclear or incomplete. To provide information on rotational policies that resulted in civilian employee relocations, we obtained copies of these policies from the pertinent federal organizations. We reviewed the policies to understand their purposes, their rotational requirements, and which employees were affected. Additionally, we interviewed cognizant officials to discuss the policies in greater detail, clarify specific issues, and determine current use of the policies. Appendix II contains a more detailed description of our objectives, scope, and methodology. We did our work in Washington, D.C., from June 1996 to June 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Because it was impractical for us to obtain comments from all 119 federal organizations, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of OMB and the Administrator of GSA. Their comments are discussed at the end of this letter. Most of the federal organizations that responded to our survey reported authorizing over 130,000 relocations and the other organizations reported making over 40,000 relocations during fiscal years 1991 through 1995. A small percentage of the organizations reported the majority of the relocations. Over half of the relocations authorized or made were reported by 7 percent and 9 percent of the organizations, respectively. In addition, while the total number of relocations authorized and the total number of relocations made fluctuated yearly across the organizations that reported data for all 5 fiscal years, there was moderate overall change between fiscal years 1991 and 1995. Ninety-seven federal organizations that responded to our survey reported that they authorized 132,837 civilian employees to relocate at the government’s expense from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1995.However, the total number of relocations authorized is probably understated because 7 of the 97 organizations did not, for various reasons, provide this relocation information for all 5 fiscal years. Also, one organization did not report relocations authorized by one of its components for fiscal year 1991. As shown in figure 1, seven organizations accounted for 52 percent (69,072) of the reported relocations authorized. Among the seven organizations, the number of relocations authorized ranged from 17,881 by the Department of State to 5,509 by the Forest Service. (Appendix III shows the number of relocations authorized for each fiscal year reported by the federal organizations.) Because not all of the 97 federal organizations that reported relocations authorized provided relocation information for all of their components for all 5 fiscal years, we were precluded from determining the total change in relocations authorized. However, 89 organizations did provide relocation information for all 5 fiscal years. Across these organizations, total relocations authorized fluctuated yearly. In fiscal year 1991, total relocations authorized were about 25,600; they continually declined to a low of about 20,080 in fiscal year 1993. Thereafter, total relocations authorized began to increase, and in fiscal year 1995 reached about 25,370. Overall, total relocations authorized decreased less than 1 percent from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 1995. The 23 other federal organizations that responded to our survey reported that they made 40,252 civilian employee relocations from fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1995. The total number of relocations reportedly made was probably understated because 4 of the 23 organizations—including the Departments of the Army, Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which were among those that made the most relocations—did not provide complete relocation information for all 5 fiscal years. As shown in table 1, the Departments of the Army and the Navy accounted for 21,947 (about 55 percent) of the reported civilian employee relocations made. (Appendix IV shows the number of relocations made for each fiscal year reported by the federal organizations.) Nineteen federal organizations reported relocations made for all 5 fiscal years. Across these organizations, total relocations made varied yearly. Relocations made increased from 3,468 in fiscal year 1991 to 3,759 in fiscal year 1992. In fiscal year 1993, relocations made decreased to a low of 3,426. But, total relocations made increased to 3,622 in fiscal year 1994 and rose to 3,902 in fiscal year 1995. Overall, total relocations made increased about 12.5 percent from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 1995. Although relocations reportedly made increased over the 5-year period, this increase was not distributed evenly among the 19 federal organizations. Two organizations—Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) and Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)—reported the greatest changes in relocations made. DLA’s reported relocations made rose about 221 percent, from 301 civilian relocations made in fiscal year 1991 to 965 in fiscal year 1995. According to a DLA official, the number of civilian relocations made increased substantially during this period due to base realignments and closures and Defense Management Review decisions. These decisions resulted in DLA acquiring control of all DOD supply depots and supporting civilian employees. DLA consolidated these depots, reducing the number from 31 to 23 and relocated employees from closing depots to gaining depots. DLA also consolidated its 9 contract management districts into 2 districts, which led to additional civilian relocations. TVA’s reported relocations made decreased by 52 percent, from 1,026 in fiscal year 1991 to 490 in fiscal year 1995. TVA did not provide an explanation for this decrease. The changes in the number of relocations made reported by DLA and TVA generally offset each other. Collectively, the 17 remaining organizations displayed about a 14-percent overall increase in relocations made during this period. Most of the federal organizations that responded to our survey reported obligating over $3 billion for relocations and the other organizations reported expending over $350 million for relocations during fiscal years 1991 through 1995. Again, a small percentage of the organizations reported the majority of the costs. Over half of the total relocation obligations were reported by 8 percent of the organizations, and 70 percent of the total relocation expenditures were reported by 13 percent of the organizations. Across the organizations that provided data for all 5 fiscal years, total relocation obligations and total relocation expenditures varied yearly. When adjusted for inflation, there was a noticeable increase in the total reported relocation obligations and a larger increase in total relocation expenditures. However, the majority of the increase in total relocation expenditures was due to one organization. Ninety-seven federal organizations reported that they obligated about $3.4 billion for employee relocation expenses for fiscal years 1991 through 1995. Fourteen of the 97 organizations did not provide information for all 5 fiscal years, which probably resulted in an understatement of the funds reported obligated. Also, nine organizations did not provide obligations for certain relocation expense categories, and one organization did not provide fiscal year 1994 relocation obligations for its regional offices. As shown in figure 2, eight organizations accounted for over 53 percent (about $1.8 billion) of the total reported obligations for employee relocation expenses. (Each federal organization’s reported relocation obligations are located in appendix V.) From fiscal year 1991 through fiscal year 1995, the total reported relocation obligations fluctuated yearly across the 83 federal organizations that provided relocation obligations for all 5 fiscal years. In constant 1995 dollars, total relocation obligations continually decreased from $652.1 billion in fiscal year 1991 to $546.9 billion in fiscal year 1993. But, total relocation obligations increased in fiscal year 1994 and rose to $759.6 billion in fiscal year 1995. Overall, total relocation obligations increased about 16 percent from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 1995. This increase was not greatly influenced by one organization or a small group of organizations. The 23 other federal organizations reported that for fiscal years 1991 through 1995 they expended over $362.8 million to relocate their civilian employees. Reported relocation expenditures were probably understated because one organization did not report fiscal year 1992 relocation expenditures for one of its components. In addition, 2 of the 23 organizations did not provide expenditures for all expense categories. As shown in table 2, the Departments of Energy and the Navy and the U.S. Information Agency accounted for over $254 million (70 percent) of the total reported expenditures to relocate civilian employees during this period. (Appendix VI shows the reported relocation expenditures for each fiscal year by federal organization.) Annually, total reported relocation expenditures increased across the 22 federal organizations that provided relocation expenditures for all 5 fiscal years and included each of their components. In constant 1995 dollars, total relocation expenditures increased from $45.7 million in fiscal year 1991 to $46 million in fiscal year 1992. In fiscal year 1993, total relocation expenditures increased to $50.3 million; in fiscal year 1994, increased to $81 million; and in fiscal year 1995, rose to $86 million. Overall, total relocation expenditures increased about 88 percent from fiscal year 1991 to fiscal year 1995. The Navy accounted for this increase because its reported relocation expenditures more than quadrupled during this period. Navy’s relocation expenditures reportedly rose about 367 percent, from $11 million in fiscal year 1991 to $51.4 million in fiscal year 1995, in constant 1995 dollars. According to a Navy official, expenditures for civilian relocations increased substantially during this period due to the increase in the number of relocations caused by base realignment and closure decisions. During this period Navy closed or began closing and realigning 114 bases. Excluding the Navy from the total expenditures, the 21 remaining organizations’ total reported relocation expenditures decreased by less than 1 percent, from $34.7 million in fiscal year 1991 to $34.6 million in fiscal year 1995. Fifteen federal organizations reported that they had rotational policies that required some of their civilian employees to relocate on a prescribed schedule. Nine of the 15 organizations reported that they had these policies because they assign their civilian employees to overseas locations and must comply with federal regulations or a treaty that limits such employees’ tours of duty. The six remaining organizations reported that they had these policies either to (1) maintain the safety and security of their civilian employees who may be assigned to dangerous/hazardous locations, (2) maintain their civilian employees’ objectivity when inspecting or auditing specific locations, or (3) enhance the job-related knowledge and experiences of their civilian employees, regardless of where they are assigned. In addition, the 15 federal organizations estimated the annual percentage of their civilian employee relocations that were due to their rotational policies. Among these organizations, their estimated annual percentages ranged from 100 to less than 1. Using the organizations’ estimated percentages, we calculated the estimated impact these policies had on the number of civilian employee relocations authorized and made by the 15 organizations. Specifically, we multiplied each organization’s percentage by either its reported number of relocations authorized or made. As shown in table 3, 11 organizations’ (including some Navy components’) rotational policies led to an estimated 24,671 civilian employees being authorized to relocate during fiscal years 1991 through 1995. These relocations authorized—triggered by rotational policies—accounted for about 18.6 percent of the total reported relocations authorized. As shown in table 4, five federal organizations’ (including some Navy components’) rotational policies resulted in an estimated 2,792 civilian employees being relocated during the same 5-year period. These relocations made—triggered by rotational policies—accounted for about 6.9 percent of the total relocations made that were reported by the organizations we surveyed. On June 5, 1997, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of OMB and the Administrator of GSA. On June 11, 1997, GSA officials, including the Acting Director, Travel & Transportation Management Policy Division, provided oral comments. In general, GSA officials characterized the report as a useful resource that will assist them in fulfilling GSA’s legislative requirement to biannually survey agencies and report on, among other things, the estimated cost of civilian employee relocations. GSA officials also provided updated information on the status of GSA’s biannual survey and technical comments. On June 11, 1997, OMB staff within the Justice and GSA Branch provided their views on the draft report, which were technical in nature and involved clarification issues. GSA’s and OMB’s technical comments were incorporated in the report where appropriate. Copies of this report will be sent to the Ranking Minority Members of your Committees; the Administrator of the General Services Administration; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; all federal organizations included in this report; and other interested parties. Copies will also be made available to others upon request. If you have any questions concerning this report, please call me on (202) 512-4232 or Gerald P. Barnes, Assistant Director, on (202) 512-4228. Major contributors are listed in appendix VII. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Cooperative, State, Research, Education & Extension Service Food Safety and Inspection Service Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration Office of the Chief Financial Officer Office of the Inspector General National Institute of Standards and Technology National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Telecommunications and Information Administration (continued) Administration for Children and Families Agency for Health Care Policy & Research Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Health Resources & Services Administration Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (continued) Offices, boards, and divisions National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Research and Special Programs Administration Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Bureau of Engraving and Printing Bureau of the Public Debt Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Office of the Comptroller of the Currency Departmental Offices and Office of the Inspector General Department of Housing and Urban Development (continued) As agreed, our objectives were to provide information for the executive branch departments and largest independent agencies on (1) the total number of civilian employees who were relocated at the federal government’s expense, (2) the total cost of these relocations to the government, and (3) the agencies that had rotational policies requiring their civilian employees to relocate. To provide the requested relocation information, we developed and distributed a questionnaire to the 14 executive branch departments and the 18 largest independent agencies. Relocation travel at most of the 14 executive branch departments is decentralized, and subordinate agencies/bureaus/administrations controlled their own relocations. Thus, we requested that a separate questionnaire be completed by each federal organization that had control over its relocations. As a result, the questionnaire was distributed to a total of 120 federal organizations.These federal organizations employed about 1.9 million civilian employees, representing 96 percent of the federal civilian workforce as of September 1995. We received responses from 119 of the 120 federal organizations. The Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration, which had a workforce of less than 400 employees, did not provide a response. Appendix I lists the federal organizations we surveyed. To develop the questionnaire and ensure its completeness, we researched FTR and OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates, to identify the allowances for relocation expenses and the object classes that federal organizations are to use in reporting relocation obligations. We drafted the questionnaire with the assistance of our staff knowledgeable of federal travel and relocation practices. We pretested the questionnaire with six federal organizations: the Bureau of the Census, Defense Educational Activity, Department of State, Drug Enforcement Administration, U.S. Marine Corps, and the Office of Personnel Management. Using the pretest results, we revised the questionnaire to help ensure that our questions were interpreted correctly and that the requested relocation information was available. Federal organizations are not required to track or keep relocation information in any specific way. During pretesting, we found that organizations maintained relocation travel information at different organizational levels and used different categories to track the information. Organizations had to go through varying levels of effort to provide the information that we requested. Some organizations had centralized automated systems that required them to write special programs to extract the information. Some of the organizations with automated systems had to retrieve the earlier years of information from archives and then run special programs to extract the information we requested. Other organizations did not have centralized systems or reporting requirements for this type of information and had to query a number of local offices, which in turn had to go through automated or paper records to obtain the information. We also know of at least one organization that had to go through paper records and manually tabulate the number and cost of its relocations. The organizations generally took from 1 to 3 months to complete the questionnaire. Since federal organizations maintained relocation information at different levels and used different categories for tracking purposes, our questionnaire was carefully designed to collect the best and most complete information possible from each federal organization on its number and cost of relocations. The questionnaire allowed organizations to report their relocation information based on the categories they used. As a result, for the number of relocations, 97 organizations reported relocations that they authorized and the other 23 organizations reported the relocations that they made. Similarly, the cost of relocations were reported by 97 organizations using obligations, while the other 23 organizations reported expenditures. To help the organizations report complete cost data, we developed a list of the expense categories related to relocation travel. We developed this list based on our research of FTR and discussions with knowledgeable officials in several federal organizations. Our survey asked the federal organizations to include costs incurred in all of these expense categories and to indicate if there were categories of expenses for which they could not provide cost data. While federal organizations are not required to track or keep relocation data in a specific way, they are required to maintain travel records for 6 years that contain information on reimbursements for individuals. Based on your request for relocation information over the last several years, our questionnaire was designed to collect relocation information for fiscal years 1990 through 1995. However, at the time we sent the questionnaires to the federal organizations, they were required to have data for fiscal years 1991 through 1996, and many organizations could not provide the data for 1990. Therefore, our report presents information for fiscal years 1991 through 1995. Although most federal organizations were able to provide the requested information for fiscal years 1991 through 1995, the total numbers and costs of relocations are understated in three respects. First, 15 organizations were not able to provide any information for 1 or more years for one or two of the four reporting categories. Second, 10 federal organizations reported that they could not provide any cost information for one or more of the expense categories. Lastly, 6 organizations said that the information they reported did not include data from all components for at least 1 year. Federal organizations’ reasons for not being able to provide the requested information included (1) records were inaccessible due to asbestos contamination; (2) records were incomplete due to office or base closures or realignments; (3) records had been sent to off-site storage; (4) accounting systems had changed during the period; and (5) the inability to separate relocation related travel expenses from other travel expenses. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the relocation information that the federal organizations provided because of time constraints and the number of federal organizations surveyed. However, we reviewed each questionnaire for clarity and completeness and followed up with the federal organization’s contact personnel in those instances in which the response(s) was unclear or incomplete. To provide information on rotational policies that resulted in civilian employee relocations, we obtained copies of these policies from the pertinent federal organizations. We reviewed the policies to understand their purposes, their rotational requirements, and which employees were affected. Additionally, we interviewed cognizant officials to discuss the policies in greater detail, clarify specific issues, and determine current use of the policies. We did our work in Washington, D.C., from June 1996 to June 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We did not request comments on this report from the heads of the 119 federal organizations that responded to our survey because it was impractical. We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of OMB and the Administrator of GSA. GSA provided oral comments, which are discussed in this report. In addition, GSA and OMB provided technical comments, which are incorporated in the report where appropriate. Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service Cooperative, State, Research, Education, and Extension Service (continued) Department of Health and Human Services Agency for Health Care Policy & Research Health Resources & Services Administration Substance Abuse & Mental Health Services Administration Administration for Children and Families Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (continued) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Federal Law Enforcement Training Center Office of the Comptroller of the Currency(continued) UA: data were not available. Fiscal year 1991 does not include data from Europe. Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Table notes on next page) Not all components of NOAA reported for each fiscal year, most notably, the National Weather Service. According to an Army Official, relocations made reported for fiscal year 1991 are underreported. Fiscal year 1992 data were not available from the Bonneville Power Administration. Information reported on a calendar-year basis. Obligations reported by fiscal year (nominal dollars) (continued) Obligations reported by fiscal year (nominal dollars) (continued) Obligations reported by fiscal year (nominal dollars) (continued) Obligations reported by fiscal year (nominal dollars) (continued) Obligations reported by fiscal year (nominal dollars) (continued) Obligations reported by fiscal year (nominal dollars) (Table notes on next page) UA: data were not available. Obligations reported do not include nontemporary storage of household goods expenses. Obligations reported for fiscal years 1994 and 1995 do not include enroute travel expense. Obligations reported do not include overseas renewal agreement expenses. Questionnaire was sent to multiple installations for completion but not all installations were able to report obligations for all categories of expenses. Obligations for fiscal year 1994 do not include regional data. Obligations reported for fiscal years 1991 to 1995 do not include relocation service contract expenses. Obligations reported do not include miscellaneous moving expenses. Obligations reported do not include transportation and storage of household goods, mobile homes, and vehicle expenses. Expenditures reported by fiscal year (nominal dollars) (continued) Expenditures reported by fiscal year (nominal dollars) Fiscal year 1992 data were not available from the Bonneville Power Administration. Expenditures reported do not include overseas renewal agreement expenses. Information reported on a calendar-year basis. Expenditures reported do not include enroute travel expenses. Gerald P. Barnes, Assistant Director Maria Edelstein, Evaluator-in-Charge Shirley Bates, Evaluator Martin DeAlteriis, Social Science Analyst Stuart Kaufman, Social Science Analyst Hazel Bailey, Evaluator (Communications Analyst) Robert Heitzman, Senior Attorney The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Summary: Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the number of civilian employees relocated during fiscal years (FY) 1991 and 1995 and the associated costs of these relocations, focusing on: (1) the total number of civilian employees who were relocated at the federal government's expense; (2) the total cost of these relocations to the government; (3) the agencies that had rotational policies requiring their civilian employees to relocate; and (4) trends for the number and cost of civilian employee relocations during this period. GAO noted that, for FY 1991 through 1995: (1) 97 federal organizations reported authorizing about 132,800 relocations, and 23 other organizations reported making about 40,200 relocations; (2) a small number of organizations accounted for the bulk of the relocations authorized or made; (3) while the total numbers of relocations authorized and made fluctuated yearly across the organizations that provided data for all 5 fiscal years, there was moderate change in these totals between FY 1991 and 1995; (4) across the organizations that provided data for all 5 fiscal years, the total number of relocations authorized decreased by less than 1 percent (89 organizations) and the total number of relocations made increased by about 12.5 percent (19 organizations) from FY 1991 to 1995; (5) 97 federal organizations reported obligating about $3.4 billion for relocations, and 23 other organizations reported expending about $363 million for relocations; (6) a small number of organizations accounted for the bulk of the relocation obligations or expenditures; (7) across the organizations that provided data for all 5 fiscal years, total relocation obligations varied and total relocation expenditures increased yearly; (8) there was noticeable change in these totals between FY 1991 and 1995; (9) in constant 1995 dollars, total relocation obligations increased about 16 percent (83 organizations) and total relocation expenditures increased about 88 percent (22 organizations) from FY 1991 to 1995; (10) for the 22 organizations, this increase was due to the Department of the Navy's expenditures; (11) excluding the Navy's expenditures, the 21 remaining organizations' total expenditures decreased by less than 1 percent during the period; (12) 15 federal organizations reported that they had mandatory rotational policies requiring some of their employees to rotate on a prescribed schedule; (13) most of these organizations attributed their policies to federal regulations that limit overseas tours of duty; and (14) based on data provided by these 15 organizations, GAO estimated that these rotational policies accounted for about 19 percent of the total relocations reported as authorized and about 7 percent of the total relocations reported as made during this period.