Conclusions

Since our 1990 report on this issue, federal agencies continue to locate for  the most part in higher cost, urban areas. Eight of the 13 cabinet agencies  surveyed had no formal RDA siting policy, and there was little evidence  that agencies considered RDA’s requirements when siting new federal  facilities. Further, GSA has not developed for congressional consideration  a cost-conscious, governmentwide location policy, as we recommended in  1990. In our survey, the sites that involved relocated operations still largely  remained in urban areas, while the sites that involved newly established  operations were more evenly spread over rural and urban areas. Federal  agencies’ mission requirements, such as the need to be near clients or other  organizations, apparently have led them to select urban areas. Several government functions, such as research and development, data  processing, accounting and finance, and teleservice centers, can be located  in rural areas. Although it is not clear from the information we collected  whether any of the federal agencies that located sites in urban areas could  have located them in rural areas, one matter that is clear is that RDA has  not had the influence on federal siting practices that the Congress appears  to have intended when RDA was enacted. Many agencies had no RDA  policy, as required by the act, and many agency personnel in our survey  either did not consider RDA or did not know whether the act was used in  making their site selection decisions.
Why GAO Did This Study

Concerns have been raised that federal agencies may not have been considering locating facilities in rural areas, as required by the Rural Development Act of 1972 (RDA), despite recent advances in telecommunications technology.

What GAO Found

GAO found that, since its 1990 report (GGD-90-109) on this issue, federal agencies generally continue to be located in higher cost, urban areas. Eight of the 13 cabinet agencies surveyed had no formal RDA siting policy, and there was little evidence that agencies considered RDA's requirements when siting new federal facilities. Furthermore, GSA has not developed the cost-conscious, governmentwide location policy recommended by GAO in 1990. In GAO's survey, the sites that involved relocated operations still largely remained in urban areas, while the sites that involved newly established operations were more evenly spread over rural and urban areas. Federal agencies' mission requirements, such as the need to be near clients or other organizations, apparently have led them to select urban areas. GAO found that government functions, such as research and development, data processing, accounting and finance, and teleservice centers, can be located in rural areas. Although it is unclear from the information GAO collected whether any of the federal agencies that located sites in urban areas could have located them in rural areas, it is clear is that RDA has not had the influence on federal siting practices that Congress intended. Many agencies had no RDA policy, as required by the act, and many agency personnel in GAO's survey either did not consider RDA or did not know whether the act was used in making their site selection.