Relocation reality

When an Air Force employee relocated in 1999 from a base that was closing to Robins Air Force Base in Georgia, he paid for the move himself and got no relocation benefits. A year later, when some of his former coworkers relocated to Robins, the government paid their moving expenses, offered temporary housing allowances and gave them 25 percent bonuses.

"They bought new cars, and I am still not out of debt from my move almost three years ago," the employee said.

Such is the way of relocation benefits in the federal government. Sometimes you get them. Sometimes you don't.

About a dozen readers who responded to the April 18 Pay and Benefits Watch, which compared benefits in the private sector and the federal government, said relocation benefits may exist on paper but agencies don't offer them frequently to employees.

"At least from what I have seen, the only relocation benefit authorized is for high-grade professionals (GS-13 and above) or when an employee receives a management-directed reassignment to another duty station beyond 50 miles," said an employee from the Defense Contract Management Agency.

Under federal personnel rules, agencies can pay a lump-sum relocation bonus of up to 25 percent of salary to employees who must relocate. The rules say that such bonuses can only be given to people who are taking "difficult-to-fill positions." Only current employees can receive relocation bonuses. In addition, employees must agree to stay with the agency for a specified period of time, which varies from agency to agency.

In 1998, only 1 percent of federal employees who made geographic moves received relocation bonuses, according to Office of Personnel Management statistics. Agencies paid out 403 relocation bonuses worth $3 million that year. OPM found that agencies tended to give relocation bonuses to more senior employees.

But such bonuses paint an incomplete picture of relocation incentives. Under federal travel regulations, agencies can also pay for several different kinds of relocation expenses for both new and current employees.

For new employees in the 48 contiguous United States, covered expenses are:

• Travel expenses for the employee and immediate family members.
  
• Per diem rate for the employee.
  
• Transportation and temporary storage of household goods.
• Extended storage of household goods.
  
• Transportation of a mobile home or house boat.
  
• Relocation income tax allowance.
  

Agencies can also, at their discretion, pay to move a new employee's car. The rules are different for employees who move outside the 48 contiguous United States.

For current employees, covered expenses are more extensive:

• Travel expenses for the employee and immediate family members.
  
• Per diem rate for the employee and immediate family members.
  
• Lease termination expenses and some other real estate fees.
  
• Transportation and temporary storage of household goods.
  
• Extended storage of household goods.
  
• Transportation of a mobile home or house boat.
  
• Relocation income tax allowance.
  
• Miscellaneous moving expenses, such as disconnecting or connecting utility service; cutting and fitting rugs, draperies and curtains; and transportation of pets.
  

Despite the wide range of expenses that can be covered, employees say their agencies frequently don't cover relocation expenses.

Comments from readers included:

• "Relocation expenses are available to federal employees, but most agencies do not have the funding to carry it out," a Small Business Administration employee said.
• "Relocation benefits should be consistently allowed through all agencies and for most, if not all, jobs," a Navy employee said. "Increasingly, agencies tend not to allow it, and where they do, it is often inconsistent, resulting in inequality. For example, the Solicitor's Office in the Interior Department has a policy against paying relocation benefits for attorney positions; yet I believe it almost routinely pays relocation benefits for other jobs, such as scientists."
• "The amounts authorized for relocation should be increased and/or made more flexible," the Navy employee said. "For example, the current 18,000-pound limitation for household goods movement is not enough for a regular household anymore, particularly for middle-aged people who have acquired a few things, and can't physically move furniture themselves anymore. Further, the limitation probably doesn't reflect that people are likely to have more and heavier items to move now, such as computers and related equipment."
• "Many of the vacancy announcements I read clearly state that relocation benefits are not available for the position being advertised," another Navy employee said.

Here's how much civilian agencies spent on relocation in 2001, according to the Office of Management and Budget: