FAA currently employs almost 20,000 employees to operate and manage the nation’s air traffic control system. Most of these employees (about 15,250) are air traffic control specialists, or controllers, who are responsible for controlling the takeoff, landing, and ground movement of planes and are assigned to field facilities. (NATCA represents these controllers.) In addition, about 4,500 managers, supervisors, and staff specialists within FAA’s Air Traffic Services work to oversee and administer the air traffic control program. (About 3,900 of these 4,500 managers, supervisors, and specialists work in the various field facilities around the country and the other 600 provide management, direction, and oversight, as well as overall support, of the air traffic control system at headquarters and regional locations.) For this report, we focused our analysis on these two groups in FAA’s occupational job series 2152, which we refer to as controllers and managers, respectively. In 1994, Congress directed the Secretary of Transportation to undertake a study of management, regulatory, and legislative reforms that would enable FAA to provide better air traffic control services. FAA’s resulting 1995 report to Congress stated that existing federal personnel rules and procedures limited FAA’s ability to attract and retain qualified staff at key facilities or to reassign employees in response to changing needs. The report also stated that exemption from federal personnel regulations would provide FAA with the flexibility to hire, reward, and relocate employees to better manage the air traffic control system. On November 15, 1995, Congress directed the FAA Administrator to develop and implement a new personnel management system to provide greater flexibility in the hiring, training, compensation, and location of personnel. The 1996 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act exempted FAA from most provisions of title 5 of the United States Code and other federal personnel laws. On April 1, 1996, FAA introduced a set of new personnel policies and procedures that included, among other things, personnel reforms for locating its workforce more effectively. Controllers and managers may make PCS moves for promotions,downgrades, or lateral transfers. To be eligible for promotion within the controller or manager ranks or from controller to manager, individuals may be required to make a PCS move. For example, promotion for a controller may require making a PCS move to a higher-level facility (i.e., one with higher levels of operational complexity). Promotion for a manager may require gaining greater experience with more complex and diverse air traffic operations. This may involve a PCS move to a regional office or FAA headquarters for policy and management experience. To be eligible for promotion from controller to manager, an individual may have to move to a lower-level facility where supervisory positions are available, to a regional office, or to FAA headquarters. Downgrades and lateral transfers are generally made for personal reasons but may also benefit the government. Under title 5 rules, federal agencies may elect to pay for the expenses of transportation of immediate family and of household goods and personal effects to and from the assignment location for a PCS move when it is in the interest of the federal government. According to FAA Air Traffic Services and Human Resources officials, FAA historically interpreted title 5 rules as a requirement to fully reimburse all PCS moves, since FAA considered all such moves to be in the interest of the government. As part of its personnel reform, FAA delegated the authority to determine eligibility for and the amount of PCS benefits to each line of business and provided three PCS funding options: (1) full PCS reimbursement, (2) fixed relocation payments, and (3) unfunded moves. If the move is determined to be in the interest of the government, FAA will fully reimburse the individual for costs associated with the move. According to FAA, the average agencywide PCS cost for fully reimbursed PCS moves in fiscal year 2001 was about $54,000 (based on a sample of 100 fully funded PCS moves in that fiscal year.) Under its personnel reform, FAA may offer a fixed relocation payment if it determines that the agency will derive some benefit from a move, even though the move is not in the interest of the government. For example, Air Traffic Services may offer a fixed relocation payment as a recruitment tool, when necessary, to attract enough qualified candidates for a position. If a move is not in the interest of the government and FAA does not determine that it will derive some benefit from the move, there is no basis for offering PCS funding. However, as a result of FAA’s personnel reforms, employees may choose to make unfunded moves at their own expense for personal reasons, to gain experience needed for professional advancement, or for promotion. Before 1996, when FAA’s policy did not allow unfunded moves, many vacancies went unfilled for lack of PCS funds, according to FAA’s Personnel Reform Executive Committee Task Force Report. The intent of the change in policy was to (1) improve employee morale by allowing willing employees to relocate and (2) allow FAA to relocate more employees without increasing the PCS budget. In February 2000, FAA signed a memorandum of understanding with NATCA that allowed FAA to offer controllers unfunded PCS moves to higher-level facilities. These moves to higher-level facilities are considered promotions because controllers’ pay increases with the level of the facility. FAA’s policies on eligibility for PCS reimbursement, created as a result of FAA’s 1996 personnel reform and implemented for air traffic controllers in the agency’s February 2000 memorandum of understanding with NATCA, do not differentiate between air traffic controllers and managers. However, the amount of the fixed relocation payment that Air Traffic Services may offer controllers and managers for PCS moves does differ. The February 2000 memorandum of understanding established a fixed relocation payment of $27,000 for controllers as a result of negotiations between FAA management and NATCA. This amount is set for all fixed relocation payments provided to controllers. Conversely, the amounts of fixed relocation payments for air traffic control managers are determined on a case-by-case basis up to a maximum of $25,000. The average PCS fixed relocation payment for managers’ moves between field offices during fiscal years 1999 through 2001 (based on FAA estimates) was about $19,500. Air traffic controllers were less likely than air traffic managers to receive funding for their moving expenses when moving between facilities. According to Air Traffic Services data, controllers and managers made 1,466 and 173 PCS moves, respectively, between field facilities from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001; these moves comprise 78 percent of all 2,107 Air Traffic PCS moves. About half of those moves (864) were for promotions. As shown in figure 1, 84 percent of controllers’ PCS moves between field facilities for promotions (651 of 774) were unfunded during fiscal years 1999 through 2001, while 62 percent of managers’ PCS moves for promotions (56 of 90) were unfunded. Similarly, controllers were less likely than managers to receive funding for lateral moves. From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001, controllers and managers made 291 PCS moves for lateral assignment between field facilities. As shown in figure 2, 94 percent of controllers’ lateral moves (236 of 250) were unfunded, compared with 66 percent of managers’ lateral moves (27 of 41). Data were not available on the type of funding alternatives used for other PCS moves (from headquarters to the field, for example, and from regional offices to headquarters). However, data on whether any type of funding was provided for these other moves indicated that 91 percent of those by controllers were unfunded during fiscal years 1999 through 2001 (250 of 275), compared with 53 percent of those by managers (102 of 193). According to the February 2000 memorandum of understanding between FAA and NATCA, 65 percent of PCS funding is to be allocated to controllers and 35 percent to the rest of air traffic staff. Thus, while they account for 77 percent of the combined workforce, controllers get a smaller proportion—65 percent—of air traffic PCS funding. FAA officials said that this resulted in a higher percentage of managers who received funding for PCS moves. Although managers were more likely than controllers to receive funding for PCS moves for promotion in the field, they were less likely to make PCS moves between field locations for promotions. From fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2001, about 2 percent of the total population of managers (4,490) made promotional moves between field facilities, compared with about 5 percent of the controller workforce (15,248). Lateral and downgrade moves between field facilities during the same period accounted for less than 3 percent of managers’ and controllers’ respective workforces. For other PCS moves (between headquarters, regional offices, and field facilities), managers (4 percent) were more likely to make moves than controllers (2 percent). Although FAA officials said that PCS costs have decreased and FAA’s ability to quickly fill vacant controller positions has improved since the new PCS policies took effect, they did not have the data to determine to what extent the annual decreases or improvement in the agency’s ability to fill vacancies in field facilities are attributable to the new PCS policies implemented in 1998. For example, from fiscal year 1997, Air Traffic Services’ PCS costs decreased from $31.8 million to $17.5 million in fiscal year 1998 (see fig. 3). FAA has attributed these decreases to reductions in its budget rather than to the new PCS policies providing fixed relocation payments for PCS moves and allowing staff to pay for their own moves. However, officials noted that they lacked data to support this determination. FAA officials also said that the new PCS policies have improved their ability to fill controller vacancies in field facilities, but again, they lacked data to support their views.