prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: The House of Representatives has standing rules that govern how bills and resolutions are to be taken up and considered on the floor  However, to expedite legislation receiving floor action, the House may temporarily set aside these rules for measures that are not otherwise privileged for consideration  This can be done by agreeing to a special order of business resolution (special rule) or by adopting a motion to suspend the rules and pass the underlying measure  In general, special rules enable the consideration of complex or contentious legislation, such as major appropriations or reauthorizations, while the suspension of the rules procedure is usually applied to broadly supported legislation that can be approved without floor amendments or extensive debate in the chamber  Most bills and resolutions that receive floor action in the House are called up and considered under suspension of the rules  The suspension procedure allows nonprivileged measures to be raised without a special rule, waives points of order, limits debate, and prohibits floor amendments  Motions to suspend the rules and pass the measure require a two-thirds vote, so the procedure is typically reserved for bills and resolutions that can meet a supermajority threshold  Decisions to schedule bills for consideration under suspension are generally based on how widely supported the measures are, how long Members wish to debate them, and whether they want to propose floor amendments  These decisions are not necessarily related to the subject matter of the measure  Accordingly, measures brought up under suspension cover a wide range of policy areas but most often address government operations, such as the designation of federal facilities  This report describes the suspension procedure, which is defined in clause 1 of House Rule XV, and provides an analysis of measures considered under suspension during the 114 th Congress (2015-2016)  Figures 1- 8 display statistical data, including the prevalence and form of suspension measures, sponsors of measures, committee consideration, length of floor debate, voting, and resolution of differences between the chambers  Table 1 summarizes the final legislative status of measures initially considered in the House under the suspension of the rules  Finally, Figure A-1 depicts the use of the suspension procedure from the 110 th through the 114 th Congresses (2007-2016)  The suspension of the rules procedure is established by clause 1 of House Rule XV  Bills, resolutions, House amendments to Senate bills, amendments to the Constitution, conference reports, and other types of business may be considered under suspension, even those "that would otherwise be subject to a point of order … [or have] not been reported or referred to any calendar or previously introduced " Suspension motions are in order on designated days  As Rule XV states, "the Speaker may not entertain a motion that the House suspend the rules except on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays and during the last six days of a session of Congress " Suspension measures, however, may be considered on other days by unanimous consent or under the terms of a special order of business (special rule) reported by the Committee on Rules and agreed to by the House  A motion to suspend the rules is a compound motion to suspend the House rules and pass a bill or agree to a resolution  When considering such a motion, the House is voting on the two questions simultaneously  Once recognized, the Member making the motion will say, "Mr  [or Madam] Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass___ " The House rules that are suspended under this procedure include those that "would impede an immediate vote on passage of a measure … such as ordering the previous question, third reading, recommittal, or division of the question " A measure considered under the suspension procedure is not subject to floor amendment  The motion to suspend and pass the measure, though, may provide for passage of the measure in an amended form  That is, the text to be approved may be presented in a form altered by committee amendments or by informal negotiations  Suspension measures that are passed with changes incorporated into the text are passed "as amended " There are no separate votes on the floor approving such amendments  Suspension motions are "debatable for 40 minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in opposition thereto " However, in most instances, a true opponent never claims half the time, and most speakers come to the floor to express support for the measure  Debate time is controlled by two floor managers, one from each party, who sit on a committee of jurisdiction  Each manager makes an opening statement and may yield increments of the 20 minutes they control to other Members to debate the measure  Once debate has concluded, a single vote is held on the motion to suspend the rules and pass the measure  The motion requires approval by "two-thirds of the Members voting, a quorum being present " Should the vote fall short of the two-thirds required for passage (290, if all Members vote), the measure is not permanently rejected  Before the end of the Congress, the House may consider the measure again under suspension, or the Committee on Rules may report a special rule that provides for floor consideration of the measure  As illustrated in Figure 1 , the majority of measures considered on the House floor during the 114 th Congress were called up under the suspension of the rules procedure  Sixty-two percent of all measures that received floor action were considered under suspension (743 out of the 1,200), compared to those under the terms of a special rule (14%), unanimous consent (7%), or privileged business (16%)  Figure 2 displays the form of suspension measures  Most of the measures considered under suspension during the 114 th Congress (94%) were bills  House bills made up 83% of the suspension total, Senate bills 11%  As represented in Figure 3 , most suspension measures were sponsored by members of the majority party during the 114 th Congress  House or Senate majority-party members sponsored 69% of all bills and resolutions initially considered in the House under suspension, while House majority-party members sponsored 467 (71%) of the 660 House-originated measures (designated with an H R , H Res , H Con Res  or H J Res  prefix)  Suspension is, however, the most common procedure used to consider minority-sponsored legislation in the House by a wide margin  In the 114 th Congress, 85% of the minority-sponsored measures that were considered on the House floor were raised under the suspension procedure  Members of the House or Senate minority parties sponsored 31% of all suspension measures originating in either chamber, compared to 9% of legislation subject to different procedures, including privileged business (17 measures), unanimous consent (21 measures), and special rules (one Senate bill)  Minority-party House Members sponsored 193 (29%) of the 660 House measures considered under suspension  No minority-party House Member sponsored a House-originated measure that was considered under a special rule  Most suspension measures are referred to at least one House committee before their consideration on the chamber floor  In the 114 th Congress, 710 out of the 743 suspension measures considered (96%) were previously referred to a House committee  Of the 33 measures that were considered without a referral, 31 were Senate bills that were "held at the desk," and two were House resolutions that provided concurrence to Senate amendments  Measures may be referred to multiple House committees before receiving floor action  When a bill or resolution is referred to more than one House committee, the Speaker will designate one committee as primary, meaning it is the committee exercising jurisdiction over the largest part of the measure  Generally, the chair of the committee of primary jurisdiction works with majority party leadership to determine if and when a measure should be considered under suspension  Figure 4 shows the number and percentage of measures brought up under suspension from each House committee of primary jurisdiction  The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (now Oversight and Reform) was the committee of primary jurisdiction for the plurality of measures considered under suspension in the 114 th Congress: 106, or 14%, of the total number of suspension measures considered  Many of these bills designated names for post offices or other federal properties  For most House committees, the majority of their referred measures that reached the floor were raised under the suspension procedure  In the 114 th Congress, the four exceptions were the Committee on House Administration—which had several measures considered by unanimous consent—and the Committees on Appropriations, the Budget, and Armed Services, which had at least half of their measures considered pursuant to special rules  For the other committees, suspension measures ranged from 57% to 100% of the total number of the committee's measures receiving floor action ( Figure 5 )  Since suspension motions require a two-thirds majority for passage, House committees that handle less contentious subjects tend to have more of their measures considered under the suspension procedure in comparison to other committees  In the 114 th Congress, high-suspension committees included Small Business (100% of measures receiving floor action) and Veterans' Affairs (92%)  The Small Business Committee's measures sought to authorize new business development programs  Veterans' Affairs measures included authorizations, reauthorizations, and bills designating federal facilities  While suspension measures are not subject to floor amendments, committees may recommend amendments to legislative texts during markup meetings or through informal negotiations  The motion to suspend the rules can include these proposed changes when a Member moves to suspend the rules and pass the measure "as amended " In the 114 th Congress, 396 suspension measures (53% of the total) were considered "as amended," meaning that the text to be approved differed from the measure's introduced text  Clause 2 of House Rule XIII requires that measures reported by House committees must be accompanied by a written report  Otherwise, they are not placed on a calendar of measures eligible for floor consideration  However, the written report requirement is among those rules suspended under the suspension procedure  Thus, measures may be called up on the floor under suspension of the rules even if a committee never ordered them to be reported or wrote an accompanying committee report  Instead, the motion to suspend the rules discharges the committee and moves the legislation directly to the House floor  In the 114 th Congress, 517 (70%) suspension measures were ordered to be reported by a House committee  Of this number, 398 were reported with an accompanying House committee report  Twenty measures that did not have a House report did have a Senate report, while 325 measures had no written report from either chamber (43% of the total number of suspension measures)  Pursuant to Rule XV, motions to suspend the rules are regularly in order on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays or on the last six days of a session of Congress  However, suspension motions may be considered on other days by unanimous consent or under the terms of a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules and agreed to by the House  As displayed in Figure 6 , in the 114 th Congress, the plurality of suspension measures were considered on Tuesdays (312, 42% of the total number considered), followed by Mondays (291, 39%) and Wednesdays (114, 15%)  In addition, 25 suspension measures were considered on Thursdays and one on a Friday  Of these, one was considered by unanimous consent, while 25 were called up under suspension pursuant to permission included in a special rule reported by the Rules Committee and agreed to by the full House  Such special rules included a provision stating, "It shall be in order at any time on the legislative day of ___ for the Speaker to entertain motions that the House suspend the rules as though under clause 1 of rule XV " Pursuant to Rule XV, suspension measures are "debatable for 40 minutes, one-half in favor of the motion and one-half in opposition thereto " In practice, there is rarely a true opponent to a motion to suspend the rules, and the time is divided between two floor managers, usually one from each party, who both favor the motion  The floor managers each control 20 minutes of debate  The managers may be their parties' sole representative for or against the motion, or they may yield increments of the 20-minute allotment to other Members  Typically, the relevant committee chairs and ranking members select the majority and minority floor managers for particular bills and resolutions  These managers may be the measure's sponsor, the chair or ranking member of the measure's committee of primary jurisdiction, or another committee member  In the 114 th Congress, the measure's sponsor served as the majority manager on 26% of the suspension measures receiving floor action  The committee chair managed 29% of the measures  The minority manager was the measure's sponsor for 11% of the measures and the committee's ranking member for 26% of the measures considered  Occasionally, floor managers controlling time on a motion to suspend the rules ceded their control to other Members during debate  In two identified cases, both the majority and minority floor managers favored the measure, and another Member claimed the time in true opposition during the initial floor consideration of the measure  In at least one other instance, the minority manager asked unanimous consent to yield managerial control to another Member  A majority floor manager makes the motion to suspend the rules by stating, "Mr  [Madam] Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill [or resolution] ____ " The Speaker [or Speaker pro tempore] responds, "Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman[woman] from [state] and the gentleman[woman] from [state] each will control twenty minutes " The majority and minority managers then, in turn, make opening statements regarding the measure using the 20 minutes each controls  If the majority and minority managers have secured additional speakers, the speakers generally alternate between the parties within the 40-minute limit  During the 114 th Congress, on a motion to suspend the rules, the average number of speakers in addition to the floor managers was fewer than two  On 83% of the measures (620) considered, there were one or two additional speakers  On 27% of the measures (199) considered, there were no additional speakers, and in 16% of the measures (120) considered, there were 3 to 12 additional speakers  Three measures had 20, 21, and 25 additional speakers, respectively  At the start of the debate period, the majority manager may request "unanimous consent that all Members may have five legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and add extraneous materials on this bill [resolution] " This request enables general leave statements to be inserted into the Congressional Record   In 29% of the suspension measures considered in the 114 th Congress, a written general leave statement appeared in the Record following in-person remarks, indicating that the remarks were submitted on the day the legislation was considered  General leave statements submitted on a day other than the day of consideration appear in the Extension of Remarks section of the Congressional Record   Suspension measures are limited to a maximum of 40 minutes of debate under Rule XV  However, if there are time gaps between speakers or procedural interruptions, such as a vote on a motion to adjourn, the time period between the start of the first speaker's remarks and the conclusion of debate may exceed 40 minutes  The statistics displayed in Figure 7 show the length of consideration of suspension measures as documented in Congress gov, not the accumulated length of statements, as kept by official timekeepers in the chamber  In the 114 th Congress, the average length of consideration on a motion to suspend the rules was 13 minutes and 10 seconds, and half of the measures considered had a debate period of 10 minutes or less  Thus, while overall debate is limited to 40 minutes under the rule, on most suspension measures, only a fraction of that time was actually expended during consideration  Seventeen measures, however, had consideration periods that exceeded 40 minutes due to procedural delays or, in the case of one measure, a request for unanimous consent to extend debate by 10 minutes to each side  House leaders generally choose measures for suspension that are likely to achieve the two-thirds majority threshold for passage  Thus, almost all suspension measures were passed by the House in the 114 th Congress  The full House approved all House resolutions (28), concurrent resolutions (12), joint resolutions (2), and Senate bills (82) that were considered under suspension  The House also passed, via motions to suspend the rules, 612 of the 619 House bills that were initially considered under suspension  Seven bills did not receive the requisite supermajority  Two of these bills were later considered and approved under the terms of a special rule  The remaining five bills did not return to the floor and therefore did not pass the House  Most suspension motions are agreed to in the House by voice vote, which is the chamber's default method of voting on most questions  In 2015 and 2016, this method of voting led to the final approval of 72% (531) of the motions to suspend the rules and pass the measures (see Figure 8 )  After the initial voice vote, Members triggered an eventual record vote (often called a roll call vote) on 212 (28%) of the suspension measures considered in the 114 th Congress  This was done by demanding the "yeas and nays," objecting to the vote "on the grounds that a quorum is not present," or, in one case, demanding a recorded vote  In most instances, the chair elected to postpone the vote to a later period, within two additional legislative days, pursuant to clause 8 of House Rule XX  Of the 212 record votes, 3 immediately followed debate on the measure  The remaining 209 votes were postponed to another time on the legislative schedule, usually later the same day  In the 114 th Congress, 205 suspension motions were adopted by record vote, and 7 motions to suspend the rules were defeated by record votes  The defeat of a motion to suspend the rules, however, does not necessarily kill the legislation  The Speaker may choose to recognize a Member at a later time to make another motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, or the House may consider the measure pursuant to a special rule reported by the Committee on Rules  Accordingly, two of the initially unsuccessful measures were later called up and passed under the terms of a special rule  Five measures were not considered again, via any House floor procedure, before the end of the 114 th Congress  Although suspension measures generally receive broad support, measures that receive the requisite two-thirds majority in the House are not guaranteed passage in the Senate  As noted in Table 1 , in the 114 th Congress, the Senate passed 197 of the 619 House bills initially considered under suspension (32%)  Additionally, the Senate agreed to 1 of the 2 House joint resolutions and 5 of the 11 House concurrent resolutions considered under suspension of the rules  Of the number of suspension measures that passed the House and Senate, 60 required a resolution of differences between the chambers  Forty-four House measures and 15 Senate bills were subject to an amendment exchange process, and on one occasion, a conference committee was used to resolve the differences between the House and Senate versions of a House bill  The Senate passed three House bills, initially approved in the House under suspension, that did not become public law because the House did not agree to the final bill text, as amended by the Senate  In those instances, the House did not reconsider the bills once the Senate returned the Senate-amended versions to the House chamber  Thus, 194 House bills were presented to the President for signature  Of the measures initially considered under suspension during the 114 th Congress, President Obama was presented with 194 House bills, 82 Senate bills, and 1 House joint resolution for signature or veto  The President vetoed H R  1777 (Presidential Allowance Modernization Act of 2016) and S  2040 (Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act)  The House chose not to attempt a veto override on H R  1777 , so the measure did not become public law  Both the Senate and House voted to override the veto of S  2040 , enabling it to become law without the President's signature ( P L  114-222 )  Thus, of the 703 law-making measures (bills and joint resolutions) initially considered under suspension of the rules, 193 House bills, 82 Senate bills, and 1 House joint resolution became public law (see Table 1 ) 


Report 2:  In one group, officials whose agencies had completed their agreements said they are essential for state VR agencies to provide services in schools  Participants in another discussion group explained that once they have a state-level agreement in place, they can discuss what services school districts need for students and then determine how to provide those services  According to state educational agency officials we interviewed, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements are similar to requirements for pre-employment transition services, and they need to coordinate with VR officials at both the state and local levels to agree on each agency’s assigned tasks and expectations  These officials said state VR and educational agencies should coordinate funding to make services available where they are needed and to complement each other’s transition efforts  Illinois’s agreement, for example, specifies that the state educational agency is responsible for providing outreach, guidance, and coordination to local educational agencies regarding the provision of pre-employment transition services  According to the agreement, Illinois’s VR agency is responsible for providing pre-employment transition services, both directly and through cooperative agreements with local educational agencies, and for providing written information to the state educational agency regarding services available to students with disabilities  Officials we interviewed with CSAVR said state VR agencies that have made progress in developing their interagency agreements with state educational agencies tend to be more successful in implementing pre-employment transition services  According to Education officials, Education provides guidance and technical assistance on interagency agreements to states as part of Education’s monitoring or when asked by states  Education officials said they provide technical assistance during periodic monitoring visits, which are currently limited to about 10 states per year from fiscal years 2017- 2021; by helping state VR agencies develop policies and procedures; and by making sure pre-employment transition services are coordinated with the state educational agency and through interagency agreements  According to Education officials, there is no statutory provision authorizing Education to identify states that have not updated their interagency agreement  Education officials said they do not collect information from state VR agencies on the status of these agreements except when they conduct monitoring visits in specific states  In addition, Education officials said that when monitoring, they may meet with state educational agency partners to help them understand the new components of pre- employment transition services in an agreement, or they may refer the state agencies to WINTAC or NTACT resources  Providing assistance during monitoring may be helpful for some states  However, given that less than half of state VR agencies we surveyed reported updating and finalizing their agreements and Education officials say they will take another three years to complete this round of monitoring, additional action by Education may be needed to raise awareness among the remaining states about the importance of these agreements to help states coordinate services to students with disabilities  Additional action could include, for example, conducting earlier state outreach or monitoring to assess state progress on finalizing the interagency agreements and offering technical assistance when appropriate  However, Education officials said there is no requirement that state educational agencies provide pre-employment transition services to meet their obligations to IDEA-eligible students with disabilities under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act  As a result, WINTAC and participants in our discussion groups explained that it can be difficult to get state educational agencies to work with state VR agencies to update interagency agreements  Education officials said that WIOA requires state VR agencies to update these interagency agreements to include pre- employment transition services but they do not track their completion because states are not required to report when the agreements are finalized  Moreover, Education officials said they have heard from states that some reasons that interagency agreements are not specifically updated are that the agreements are written broadly enough so that they can remain in effect when there are additional changes to the law, the details of actual practices are rarely reflected in the high level of an interagency agreement, and that modifications to agreements are time- consuming and would not result in changes to the interagency coordination practice  Without an updated agreement between the state VR and educational agencies, efforts to collaborate on pre-employment transition services may be hindered  Officials with the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT) told us that some of the state agencies for which they provided in-depth technical assistance were not working closely together  Officials from two of the three state educational agencies we interviewed said they viewed pre-employment transition services as primarily the responsibility of the VR agency  State VR officials in all three of our discussion groups said they have experienced coordination challenges, including difficulty determining each agency’s responsibilities for providing pre-employment transition services, obtaining data needed to identify and provide services to students, and determining which agency will pay for which services, among other challenges  Interagency agreements can help to address these types of issues  Federal internal controls recommend that management communicate with and obtain information to identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving defined objectives, such as those that can arise from new laws and regulations  Moreover, we found in prior work that it is important to establish ways to operate across agency boundaries, with measures such as developing common terminology and fostering open lines of communication  A lack of collaboration between state VR and educational agencies increases the risk that some students will not successfully transition from school to post-school activities  In addition, our prior work has identified lack of collaboration among and between federal agencies and state and local governments as a challenge to effective grant implementation  Interagency agreements are intended to serve as a mechanism related to collaboration practices, which include defining a common outcome, establishing joint strategies, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities of each agency  By taking additional steps, such as discussing the benefits of finalizing interagency agreements, and reminding states of existing technical assistance resources pertaining to updating and finalizing interagency agreements, Education would help raise awareness about the importance of the agreements and be better positioned to help states efficiently and effectively coordinate services to students with disabilities  Most state VR agencies (63 of 74) that responded to our survey reported that additional assistance with identifying best practices would be useful to their agencies  Similarly, state VR officials in all three of our discussion groups spoke to the need for Education to develop and disseminate best practices to help states, for example, comply with program requirements  WIOA requires Education to highlight best state practices on pre-employment transition services  Best practices may also help states address the challenges they reported facing in implementing and administering pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities, such as (1) coordinating with state educational agencies, (2) using VR resources more efficiently and effectively to help states balance providing pre-employment services with the full VR program, and (3) collecting data on services provided, and (4) updating data tracking systems  Coordinating service delivery with state educational agencies  Over half (41 of 74) of state VR agencies reported in our survey that additional assistance on coordinating with state educational agencies would be useful for them  Similarly, officials from all three state educational agencies we interviewed said they would like additional assistance on interagency collaboration  Officials with NTACT told us that some of the state agencies for which they provided in-depth technical assistance were not working closely together  Officials from two of the three state educational agencies we interviewed said they viewed pre-employment transition services as primarily the responsibility of the VR agency  State VR officials in all three of our discussion groups said they have experienced coordination challenges, including difficulty determining each agency’s responsibilities for providing pre-employment transition services, obtaining data needed to identify and provide services to students, and determining which agency will pay for which services, among other challenges  An official we interviewed from the Idaho Department of Education said it would be helpful to have more clearly defined roles, obligations, and means of sharing data between the state-level agencies  In written responses to our survey, one respondent said having examples of highly successful collaborations between a state educational agency and state VR agencies would be helpful  According to Education’s guidance, a student’s transition from school to post-school activities is a shared responsibility and coordination and collaboration between the state VR and educational agencies is essential  However, according to information Education provided with the regulations, while some have sought clarification and additional guidance in this area, Education determined that decisions on agencies’ responsibilities must be made at the state level to allow states maximum flexibility allowed under the law  In the absence of more specific guidelines for how state agencies should collaborate, best practices from other states could provide helpful examples  Balancing pre-employment transition services with VR services  Several state VR agencies in both our written survey responses and in discussion groups noted that by increasing services mandated for pre-employment transition services for students, they have had to reduce VR services to adults, which has made it difficult to balance the two programs  In issuing its final regulations, Education acknowledged that reserving funds would decrease amounts available for the full VR program, resulting in a transfer of benefits from individuals historically served by VR to students with disabilities in need of transition services  According to state VR directors with the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB), agencies for the blind have had to restrict VR services while also not being able to use all of the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities because VR services cannot be paid with reserved funds  Most state VR agencies that completed our survey (50 of 74) reported that balancing pre-employment transition services with other vocational rehabilitation services was moderately difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult during federal fiscal year 2017  Collecting data  Data collection was one of the top challenges identified by state VR agencies in our survey, with 48 of 74 reporting that collecting data on the provision of pre-employment transition services was moderately difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult during fiscal year 2017  Prior to WIOA, agencies collected and reported data only on individuals who had applied and enrolled in the VR program  For pre-employment transition services, agencies now collect data on who provided and received each of the five required activities, including for individuals who have not submitted a VR application  State VR officials in two of our three discussion groups said that they have experienced challenges collecting sensitive information (such as social security numbers) for minors and collecting data on individuals for group services  Officials in one of the three discussion groups also said that these problems are particularly significant when trying to collect information on potentially eligible students for whom they do not have open VR cases  These students could include all those with an IEP and those that receive accommodations in school based on their disability, among others  Updating data tracking systems  Updating data systems was also one of the top challenges reported in our survey, and was cited as an additional administrative burden by state VR officials in our discussion groups  Specifically, 53 of 74 state VR agencies reported that it was moderately difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult to update tracking systems to collect and report financial and service data on pre-employment transition services during fiscal year 2017  According to a state VR agency official we interviewed, updating that state’s tracking system is difficult because data collected on pre-employment transition services—such as the type of service provider and how the service was provided—do not fit well into a case management system designed for the full VR program  Updating these tracking systems also created an additional administrative burden for VR agency staff, according to officials from all three discussion groups and three of the four state agencies that we interviewed  Officials in two of our three discussion groups said that they have one or more full-time staff members doing only administrative tasks or that they have had to hire additional staff to handle data tracking  Education officials said that they plan to document and share best practices with states; however, they said the agency does not have a final written plan for managing these efforts because plans are still under discussion in light of inquiries received  Education officials said they are collecting information on state VR agencies’ practices through monitoring and they are sharing this information with WINTAC—information that could be useful for sharing best practices across states—but a comprehensive summary of states’ efforts will not be available until after Education officials conduct monitoring visits of all states by the end of fiscal year 2021  In addition, in a 2015 technical assistance circular, Education recommended that state VR agencies consult with other federal, state, and local agencies to identify best practices for providing pre-employment transition services to students and youth with a variety of disabilities  Education officials also said that they are looking for opportunities, such as webinars and conferences, to share information with states  However, Education does not have set timeframes and has not detailed the specific steps and activities for fully leveraging knowledge to address common challenges, or for finalizing and disseminating best practices  By doing so, Education would be better positioned to provide best practices information to state VR agencies to better serve students with disabilities who are transitioning from high school  Pre-employment transition services are designed to help students with disabilities begin to identify career interests and move from high school to post-secondary education or employment  Using federal funding, state VR agencies reported that they have generally enhanced their services and staff capacity and begun to coordinate with state educational agencies  As a result, state VR agencies generally reported serving an increased number of students  However, most states reported they have not used all the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services or updated interagency agreements between state VR and educational agencies  Education has developed multiple forms of guidance and made presentations, either directly or through its technical assistance centers  Education officials said they plan to issue additional guidance as needed  However, without clear timeframes for the issuance of this guidance, states do not know when information will become available to help them make decisions on allowable expenditures for pre-employment transition services  As a result, opportunities may be missed to identify and serve all students who might be eligible, and unserved students could continue to face difficulties preparing for a future of meaningful post-secondary education or employment  In addition, agreements between state VR and educational agencies can help facilitate the effective coordination of and financial responsibility for services  Finally, WIOA requires Education to highlight best state practices for implementing pre-employment transition services  Developing a written plan with specific timeframes would help Education provide states with information on best practices, such as balancing service delivery between pre-employment transition services and other VR services and collecting data that other states may have successfully addressed  We are making the following three recommendations to Education: The Secretary of Education should establish timeframes for providing states with additional information on allowable expenditures of funds reserved for pre-employment transition services  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Education should take additional steps to provide states assistance on updating and finalizing their interagency agreements with state educational agencies to include pre-employment transition services  These steps could include, for example, accelerating their efforts to discuss the benefits of finalizing interagency agreements, and reminding states of existing technical assistance resources pertaining to updating and finalizing interagency agreements  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Education should develop a written plan with specific timeframes and activities for identifying and disseminating best practices that address, as appropriate, implementation challenges for pre- employment transition services, such as those identified in this report  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment  Education’s written comments are reproduced in appendix III  Education also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into our report where appropriate  Education concurred with recommendation 1 and disagreed with recommendations 2 and 3 in the draft report  With regard to recommendation 1, Education stated that it agreed and will establish projected timeframes for providing states with additional information on allowable expenditures for the provision of pre- employment transition services  Education also stated that it intends to provide states with additional information in at least two forums before the end of calendar year 2018 and to review and analyze previous guidance provided to states on allowable expenditures  With regard to the draft report’s recommendation 2, which called for Education to identify states that have not updated and finalized their interagency agreements to include pre-employment transition services, Education stated that it disagreed, in large part, because there is no statutory provision authorizing the agency to identify such states  However, Education is taking some steps as part of its ongoing monitoring of the VR program to provide assistance to states that have not updated their interagency agreements, which is consistent with the intention of our recommendation, but more could be done  Education stated that it will continue to offer and provide technical assistance if it becomes known through the onsite monitoring of the VR program or through other means that states have not updated their interagency agreements between VR agencies and state educational agencies  It also noted that the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and its Office of Special Education Programs will provide information related to sources of technical assistance, as appropriate, to VR agencies and state educational agencies  While these steps may be helpful, given the number of states that have not updated and finalized their agreements and the length of time Education officials say they will take to complete this round of monitoring where Education asks state VR agencies about these agreements, additional action by Education may be needed to help states more efficiently and effectively coordinate services to students with disabilities  Education also wrote that while the Rehabilitation Act requires an interagency agreement, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not contain a parallel requirement for state and local educational agencies with respect to the provision of pre-employment transition services or the incorporation of such discussion into the interagency agreement  In light of these differing requirements, as we state in our report, stakeholders with whom we spoke indicated it can be difficult to get state educational agencies to work with state VR agencies to update interagency agreements  Therefore, it is all the more important for Education to take additional action to engage with VR agencies regarding interagency agreements and to work closely with VR agencies as Education becomes aware of states that have not updated their agreements  Education suggested a modified recommendation that removed reference to Education identifying states that have not updated and finalized their agreements  We modified the recommendation and the report to address Education’s concerns about its authority to identify states  By taking additional steps, such as discussing the benefits of finalizing interagency agreements, and reminding states of existing technical assistance resources pertaining to updating and finalizing interagency agreements, Education would help raise awareness about the importance of the interagency agreements and be better positioned to help states efficiently and effectively coordinate services to students with disabilities  With regard to recommendation 3, Education stated that it disagreed because it is premature to develop a timeline for the dissemination of best practices  Education stated that the identification of “best” practices, meaning those that are clearly supported by a body of evidence derived from valid and reliable research findings, is still emerging as states implement the requirements  Education suggested a modified recommendation that included planning for the dissemination of best practices identified by states as they become available  Education stated in its comments that as RSA identifies best practices through its monitoring and technical assistance activities, it will, in collaboration with its Office of Special Education Programs, consider when and how best to disseminate this information to state VR and educational agencies  With regard to including specific timeframes and activities in a written plan, by detailing the specific steps Education is taking and plans to take along with the amount of time it expects them to take, Education would be better positioned to complete those steps in a timely manner and meet the statutory requirement that Education highlight best state practices and support state agencies  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Education  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Elizabeth H  Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  The objectives of this report are to examine (1) the steps states have reported taking to implement pre-employment transition services, and (2) the implementation challenges, if any, states reported facing, and how the Department of Education (Education) has addressed them  To address these objectives, we reviewed federal laws and regulations, and Education’s guidance and technical assistance documents, including circulars, policy directives, and transition guides  We also reviewed expenditure data reported by state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to Education for fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the most recent full years of data available  To assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed Education officials about their collection of the data and their opinion of the data’s quality, completeness, and accuracy  We also electronically tested the data for any obvious errors  We determined that the data were reliable for the purposes of our review  We interviewed representatives from the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) and the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind  In addition, we interviewed officials from Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Office of Special Education Programs, and the Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center and National Technical Assistance Center on Transition—two technical assistance centers funded by Education  To address both of the objectives, we conducted a survey of all 79 state VR agencies from October through December 2017  Seventy-four of the 79 agencies (94 percent) responded  The survey questionnaire included open-ended and closed-ended questions about agencies’ efforts to train staff, update interagency agreements, expand services to students with disabilities, and other issues  We took steps to minimize the potential errors that may be introduced by the practical difficulties of conducting any survey  Because we selected the entire population of VR agencies for our survey, our estimates are not subject to sampling error  We conducted pretests of the draft questionnaire with three agencies in the population and made revisions to reduce the possibility of measurement error from differences in how questions were interpreted and the sources of information available to respondents  We reviewed state officials’ submitted survey responses and conducted follow-up, as necessary, to determine that their responses were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report  A second independent analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses we performed to minimize the likelihood of errors in data processing  We made multiple follow-up attempts during the survey with agencies that had not yet responded  The five agencies that did not respond had smaller values, on average, on three characteristics related to size, than those that did respond  The nonrespondents tended to be smaller than respondent agencies  The sums totals for each of these three characteristics across the five nonresponding agencies comprised less than 1 percent of the totals for the population, suggesting a lower possibility of material error in our results from nonresponse  For more in-depth information on both of the objectives, we conducted interviews and held discussion groups  We conducted interviews with officials in Idaho, Illinois, and Maryland  For each state, we interviewed state VR officials and state educational agency officials  We selected these states for variety using the following criteria: size of the special education population (large, medium, and small); state agency organization, for example, whether the VR agency was organized under the state’s educational or other department; and whether the state had a second agency for serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired  We convened three discussion groups with state VR agency directors or their designated officials, with a total of 39 participants from 29 separate agencies (10 to 12 agencies represented per discussion group)  These discussion groups took place during a conference of state VR directors in November 2017 in Greenville, South Carolina  To select participants, we worked with the conference organizer, CSAVR, to send invitations for our discussion groups to all conference attendees  We additionally included a question in our survey asking respondents whether they would like to participate in discussion groups at the conference, and contacted those who responded affirmatively via phone and email  We moderated each discussion to keep participants focused on the specified issues within discussion timeframes  To assess Education’s efforts to address state VR agencies’ challenges in providing pre-employment transition services, we applied standards for internal control in the federal government  Specifically, we applied principle 15 related to communicating with external parties  In addition, regarding Education’s assistance to state VR agencies’ efforts to update interagency agreements with state educational agencies, we also applied key considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms that we have previously identified  We conducted this performance audit from February 2017 to September 2018 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  Elizabeth H  Curda, (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao gov  In addition to the contact named above, Sara Schibanoff Kelly (Assistant Director), Paul Schearf (Analyst-In-Charge), Matthew Rabe, and Paul Wright made key contributions to this report  Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Kristy Kennedy, Sheila R  McCoy, Thomas James, Jessica Orr, Sam Portnow, Carl Ramirez, Monica Savoy, Kate Van Gelder, Adam Wendel, and James Whitcomb  Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: States and Local Areas Report Progress in Meeting Youth Program Requirements  GAO-18-475  Washington, D C : June 15, 2018  Supplemental Security Income: SSA Could Strengthen Its Efforts to Encourage Employment for Transition-Age Youth  GAO-17-485  Washington, D C : May 17, 2017  Youth with Autism: Federal Agencies Should Take Additional Action to Support Transition-Age Youth  GAO-17-352  Washington, D C : May 4, 2017  Youth with Autism: Roundtable Views of Services Needed During the Transition into Adulthood  GAO-17-109  Washington, D C : October 18, 2016  Students with Disabilities: Better Federal Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School  GAO-12-594  Washington, D C : July 12, 2012 

ground_truth: Suspension of the rules is the most commonly used procedure to call up measures on the floor of the House of Representatives. As the name suggests, the procedure allows the House to suspend its standing and statutory rules in order to consider broadly supported legislation in an expedited manner. More specifically, the House temporarily sets aside its rules that govern the raising and consideration of measures and assumes a new set of constraints particular to the suspension procedure. The suspension of the rules procedure has several parliamentary advantages: (1) it allows nonprivileged measures to be raised on the House floor without the need for a special rule, (2) it enables the consideration of measures that would otherwise be subject to a point of order, and (3) it streamlines floor action by limiting debate and prohibiting floor amendments. Given these features, as well as the required two-thirds supermajority vote for passage, suspension motions are generally used to process less controversial legislation. In the 114th Congress (2015-2016), measures considered under suspension made up 62% of the bills and resolutions that received floor action in the House (743 out of 1,200 measures). The majority of suspension measures were House bills (83%), followed by Senate bills (11%) and House resolutions (4%). The measures covered a variety of policy areas but most often addressed government operations, such as the designation of federal facilities or amending administrative policies. Most measures that are considered in the House under the suspension procedure are sponsored by a House or Senate majority party member. However, suspension is the most common House procedure used to consider minority-party-sponsored legislation regardless of whether the legislation originated in the House or Senate. In 2015 and 2016, minority-party members sponsored 31% of suspension measures, compared to 9% of legislation subject to different procedures, including privileged business (17 measures), unanimous consent (21 measures), and under the terms of a special rule (one Senate bill). Most suspension measures are referred to at least one House committee before their consideration on the floor. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (now called the Committee on Oversight and Reform) was the committee of primary jurisdiction for the plurality of suspension measures considered in the 114th Congress. Additional committees—such as Energy and Commerce, Homeland Security, Natural Resources, Foreign Affairs, and Veterans' Affairs—also served as the primary committee for a large number of suspension measures. Suspension motions are debatable for up to 40 minutes. In most cases, only a fraction of that debate time is actually used. In the 114th Congress, the average amount of time spent considering a motion to suspend the rules was 13 minutes and 10 seconds. The House adopted nearly every suspension motion considered in 2015 and 2016. Approval by the House, however, did not guarantee final approval in the 114th Congress. The Senate passed or agreed to 40% of the bills, joint resolutions, and concurrent resolutions initially considered in the House under suspension of the rules, and 276 measures were signed into law. This report briefly describes the suspension of the rules procedure, which is defined in House Rule XV, and provides an analysis of measures considered under this procedure during the 114th Congress. Figures and one table display statistics on the use of the procedure, including the prevalence and form of suspension measures, sponsorship of measures by party, committee consideration, length of debate, voting, resolution of differences between the chambers, and the final status of legislation. In addition, an Appendix illustrates trends in the use of the suspension procedure from the 110th to the 114th Congress (2007-2016).

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2: Global defense posture is an enabler of U S  defense activities and military operations overseas and is a central means of defining and communicating U S  strategic interests to allies, partners, and adversaries  It is driven by a hierarchy of national-level and DOD-specific guidance, which includes the National Defense Strategy and the National Military Strategy  Under DOD Instruction 3000 12, global defense posture includes three elements: Forces: forward stationed or rotationally deployed forces, U S  military capabilities, equipment, and units (assigned or allocated)  Footprint: networks of U S  foreign and overseas locations, infrastructure, facilities, land, and prepositioned equipment  Agreements: treaties and access, transit, support, and status- protection agreements and arrangements with allies and partners that set the terms regarding the U S  military’s presence within the territory of the host country  EUCOM is one of six geographic combatant commands and is responsible for missions in all of Europe, large portions of Asia, parts of the Middle East, and the Arctic and Atlantic Oceans (see figure 1)  EUCOM evaluates the adequacy of posture in Europe to support relevant plans and achieve military objectives  EUCOM shares responsibility with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Office of the Secretary of Defense for U S  military relations with allies and partners in Europe and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO)  The number of U S  military sites located in EUCOM’s area of responsibility and the number of military personnel assigned to Europe have decreased substantially since the end of the Cold War, and two heavy combat brigades had been deactivated by the end of fiscal year 2014  As of May 2016, EUCOM supported one airborne infantry brigade and one Stryker brigade, as well as approximately 62,000 military personnel across approximately 250 sites  Since 2009, we have reported on issues related to DOD’s efforts to estimate and report on the total cost of its global defense posture  In 2009, we identified weaknesses in DOD’s approach for adjusting its global defense posture and recommended, among other things, that DOD issue guidance for estimating total costs for global defense posture and modify its annual report to Congress to include the total cost to complete each planned posture initiative  In February 2011, we reported that EUCOM lacked comprehensive cost data in a key posture planning document and that therefore decision makers lacked critical information that they needed to make fully informed posture decisions  We recommended that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff revise the Joint Staff’s posture planning guidance to include direction on how the combatant commands should analyze costs and benefits when considering changes to posture and to require that posture plans include comprehensive cost estimates  DOD agreed with the recommendations in both reports and subsequently took steps to implement them  In June 2012, we reported that DOD did not fully understand the cost implications of two posture initiatives in Europe—including its decision to return two heavy brigades from Europe to the United States—and that key posture planning documents did not completely and consistently include cost data  We recommended that DOD fully estimate the cost implications of these two initiatives, clarify components’ roles and responsibilities for estimating costs, and develop a standard reporting format for cost data  DOD generally agreed with our recommendations and has taken steps to implement two of them  Following the President’s June 2014 announcement of ERI, EUCOM identified five lines of effort that it would pursue under ERI, as described in table 1  Three of ERI’s lines of effort are expected to enhance DOD’s posture in Europe  For example, DOD is using ERI to increase the forces present in Europe by rotating an armored brigade combat team and elements of a combat aviation brigade to Europe every nine months  DOD also plans to enhance its footprint in Europe by using ERI funding to make infrastructure improvements and establish locations for prepositioned equipment  Finally, in order to implement ERI’s lines of effort and support U S  activities, DOD is partnering with the State Department to negotiate host nation agreements that, among other things, establish protections for U S  military personnel and provide DOD the authority to improve host nation installations and infrastructure  DOD is also supporting additional exercises and training to improve interoperability with partner countries while providing them with the capability and capacity to defend themselves, but these efforts are not expected to affect DOD’s long-term posture in Europe  Since 2014, DOD has expanded ERI’s objectives, increased its funding, and planned enhancements to posture in Europe  In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, ERI’s objective was to provide short-term reassurance to allies, and the initiative had little funding for long-term enhancements to posture  DOD focused its efforts on bolstering the security and capacity of NATO allies and partners by funding training, conducting exercises, and temporarily rotating Army and Air Force units to Eastern Europe  In fiscal year 2017, DOD expanded ERI’s objectives to include deterring Russian aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible combined force should deterrence fail  Recognizing that ERI’s expanded objectives would require DOD to alter its posture in Europe, DOD has requested increased ERI funding  DOD will have requested approximately $4 5 billion in ERI funding for posture enhancements through the end of fiscal year 2017; about $3 2 billion of this was requested for use in fiscal years 2017  During the time of our review, EUCOM had identified a need for additional funding over the next several years for additional posture enhancements in Europe  Specific details about EUCOM’s future posture plans and funding requirements were omitted because they are classified  DOD has requested increased funding to support planned enhancements to all three posture elements—forces, footprint, and agreements—in Europe: Force deployments to Eastern Europe: In fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the Army deployed armored brigade combat teams to Eastern Europe to provide short-term reassurance to allies and partners, which DOD officials said included Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, among other countries  These short-duration deployments were intermittent and focused on demonstrating U S  commitment to allies and partners  Additionally, the Air Force deployed air units on 4- month rotations to help protect allies’ and partners’ air space  In the fiscal year 2017 budget justification materials provided to Congress, as ERI’s objectives expanded, DOD requested funding to retain Air Force fighter units in Europe  It also began deploying a rotational armored brigade combat team so that one such brigade would be present in Europe at all times (see figure 2)  The first deployment, in January 2017, included approximately 4,000 personnel, 90 Abrams tanks, 90 Bradley Infantry fighting vehicles, and 112 supporting vehicles  Additionally, DOD began procuring and prepositioning equipment for two planned armored brigades in Europe, one of which will include modernized tanks, as an additional deterrent  According to Army officials, these force enhancements in Europe give the Army the ability to quickly deploy a substantial ground force in the event of a conflict  As of April 2017, DOD was still evaluating force enhancements in Europe as part of its fiscal year 2018 budget submission  Specific details were omitted because they are classified  New locations and improvements to infrastructure: Since ERI was announced in 2014, DOD has established new enduring locations in Europe  An enduring location is designated by DOD and is a geographic site that DOD expects to access and use to support U S  security interests for the foreseeable future  During our review, DOD had not yet determined whether additional enduring locations would be needed to support ERI  In addition to establishing new enduring locations, DOD plans to improve installations and infrastructure  From fiscal years 2015 through 2017, DOD requested funding in its budget justification submissions to Congress for major military construction projects in nine European countries and to improve support infrastructure—such as roads, railheads, and airbasing—at these locations  Major military construction projects are those projects specified in National Defense Authorization Acts  During the time of our review, DOD was considering addition improvements to existing infrastructure, specific details of which are classified  According to DOD and State Department officials, DOD is also working with U S  allies and partners to determine what infrastructure improvements to roads, railroads, and bridges need to occur outside enduring locations to allow rapid response to a conflict  New host nation agreements: Since ERI was announced, DOD and the State Department have completed host nation agreements with six European nations in support of ERI efforts: Romania, Bulgaria, and Poland, implementing previous agreements, in order to facilitate U S  construction on installations and areas in the host country (June and July 2015 and June 2016)  Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, providing an overarching framework for protections for U S  personnel and U S  access to installations in host nations (January 2017)  DOD is using a separate process instead of its established posture planning process to plan for ERI’s posture initiatives because of the emergent nature of ERI requirements and their having been funded through the OCO budget  DOD has established global defense posture management and base budget development processes that plan for posture initiatives and collectively support the department’s efforts to establish priorities, evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy and policy  As a result of its not using its established processes, DOD is not prioritizing posture initiatives funded under ERI against posture initiatives funded through its base budget, estimating these initiatives’ long-term sustainment costs, or communicating their future costs to Congress  DOD is planning ERI posture initiatives outside of its established processes and is funding these enduring initiatives—including rotational deployments and infrastructure projects—out of its OCO budget  We have previously identified risks associated with DOD’s practice of completing construction projects outside of its established processes  For example, in September 2016 we reported that DOD had not issued implementing guidance to establish a formal process for reevaluating ongoing contingency construction projects when missions change and that as a result DOD risked completing unnecessary construction projects  We also found that DOD lacked visibility into the amount of funding it was spending on operations and maintenance-funded construction projects in U S  Central Command and that this increased financial risk and duplication risk for the department  Like U S  Central Command, EUCOM is using DOD’s OCO budget to fund construction projects and is planning those projects outside of its established processes  Based on our analysis, DOD plans to spend approximately $503 million from fiscal year 2015 through the end of fiscal year 2017 on ERI-related construction projects—about $279 million for major military construction projects and $224 million for minor military construction and facilities maintenance and repair projects (hereafter, minor construction and repair), as shown in table 2  DOD has established global defense posture management and base budget development processes that plan for posture initiatives and collectively support the department’s efforts to establish priorities, evaluate resource requirements, and develop strategy and policy  According to DOD Instruction 3000 12, DOD’s global defense posture processes apply to DOD forces, footprint, and agreements that support joint and combined global operations and plans in foreign countries  According to the instruction, DOD’s components use these processes to address planning for global defense posture, resource requirements, and policy development, among other things  Further, it states that these processes are overseen by an executive council that provides recommendations, inputs, and expertise on global defense posture to key national strategy products  DOD’s Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution Process serves as the annual resource allocation process for DOD and is intended to enable DOD to align resources to prioritized capabilities; balance necessary warfighting capabilities with risk, affordability, and effectiveness; and provide mechanisms for making and implementing fiscally sound decisions in support of the national security strategy and the national defense strategy  DOD is using a separate and evolving process to plan ERI’s posture initiatives—rather than following its established processes—because ERI is being funded through DOD’s OCO budget  According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, the department has recognized that the short-term planning process used to develop DOD’s OCO budget can create problems when it is used to plan for enduring initiatives  As a result, DOD has developed a separate process to plan for ERI  As part of the fiscal year 2018 planning process, EUCOM provided a prioritized list of potential requirements and an estimate of its annual costs by appropriation account to the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation  According to officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, DOD completed its review and provided recommendations to DOD’s senior leaders for approval in October 2016 and final decisions were made within DOD in April 2017  The specific criteria by which DOD assessed EUCOM’s potential requirements are classified  DOD is requesting funds for ERI’s posture initiatives as part of its OCO budget, which is generally intended to be short-term funding for ongoing contingency operations  In February 2009, the Office of Management and Budget, in collaboration with DOD, issued criteria to assist in determining whether funding properly belonged in DOD’s base budget or in its OCO budget  These criteria were updated in September 2010 and currently indicate that funding requests should be for specific geographic areas where combat or direct combat support operations occur (such as Iraq and Afghanistan)  Further, budget items must meet other criteria  For example, OCO funding requests may be for constructing facilities and infrastructure in the theater of operations in direct support of combat operations  In these cases, the level of construction should be the minimum needed to meet operational requirements, and construction completed at enduring locations must be tied to surge operations or major changes in operational requirements  In January 2017, we reported that DOD did not apply the OCO criteria to ERI prior to deciding to budget for its requirements using its OCO budget  We recommended that DOD, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, reevaluate and revise the criteria for determining what can be included in OCO budget requests  DOD concurred with our recommendation and noted that it plans to propose revised OCO criteria  As of May 2017, the department has not implemented our recommendation  DOD’s planning for ERI’s posture initiatives does not establish priorities for ERI initiatives relative to those in the base budget, estimate long-term sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, or communicate future ERI costs to Congress  When planning ERI’s posture initiatives, DOD establishes priorities among ERI’s initiatives but does not review posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to those funded in the military services’ base budgets  DOD’s posture management process is intended to establish priorities among global posture elements and is overseen by a Global Posture Executive Council  According to DOD Instruction 3000 12, the Executive Council is responsible for reviewing, prioritizing, and endorsing across the combatant commands key posture elements such as military construction projects and international agreements  The Executive Council’s endorsements inform the military services’ budget deliberations  For the fiscal year 2017 ERI budget, EUCOM requested funding for several posture initiatives, including the continuous, rotational deployment of an armored brigade combat team and the establishment of prepositioned equipment in Europe  Officials representing the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said that as part of its planning process for ERI the Deputy’s Management Action Group evaluated and prioritized posture initiatives funded under ERI  However, DOD could not provide documentation that it had established priorities relative to posture initiatives funded through the base budget  Further, the Global Posture Executive Council did not review or prioritize posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to posture initiatives funded through DOD’s base budget  Similarly, as DOD prepared the fiscal year 2018 ERI budget request, the Global Posture Executive Council did not prioritize EUCOM’s proposed ERI posture initiatives relative to initiatives funded through DOD’s base budget  More detailed information about these proposals, and their potential funding requirements, are classified  According to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Joint Staff, DOD did not prioritize posture initiatives funded under ERI against base-budget funded posture initiatives, because ERI is funded through DOD’s OCO budget—which does not directly affect the services’ base budgets  However, because it does not prioritize ERI initiatives against other initiatives funded through the base budget, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of initiatives funded under ERI and may begin investing in projects that it would not support in the absence of funding from DOD’s OCO budget  For example, Army officials noted that if funding were to become unavailable in DOD’s OCO budget, the Army is unsure how initiatives funded under ERI would rank in importance relative to other posture initiatives funded in its base budget  Consequently, the Army would be forced to make critical—and potentially costly—decisions quickly and without a clear idea of which posture initiatives were most important to the department  In planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, EUCOM and the military services have not fully estimated the long-term sustainment costs of ERI’s posture initiatives to establish prepositioned equipment and construct new facilities  DOD’s global defense posture guidance indicates that, when evaluating potential changes to posture, the combatant commands should work with the military services to estimate the full cost of planned posture initiatives, including sustainment costs  DOD’s guidance on economic analysis also notes the importance of understanding both the size and timing of costs  Finally, our prior work has demonstrated that comprehensive cost estimates of current and future resource requirements are critical to making funding decisions and assessing program affordability  DOD leadership emphasized throughout the fiscal year 2018 budget review process that the services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their respective base budgets, but DOD did not direct the services and EUCOM to estimate these costs as they would have under their established processes  Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said that DOD leadership emphasized that the military services would need to fund all future sustainment costs for ERI projects from their base budgets  Based on DOD’s approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs, we determined that ERI sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment and construction could be substantial  Army and Air Force officials said that they were working to identify and incorporate these costs into future base budget submissions  DOD officials said that we correctly applied DOD’s approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual costs may be lower than the estimated costs, because the military services may not fully fund sustainment  Additionally, officials said that EUCOM is trying to negotiate burden sharing agreements with host nations; however, it is unclear whether these negotiations will be successful or how any resulting agreements would affect DOD’s future costs  Without comprehensive estimates of the sustainment costs for the prepositioned equipment and major military construction projects in Europe, DOD decision makers have been limited in their ability to evaluate the affordability of these initiatives  Further, in the absence of these estimates, the services have been limited in their ability to plan for costs in future budgets, because they have an incomplete understanding of the magnitude of those costs and of when they are likely to be incurred  The funding plan that DOD submits to Congress for ERI does not contain information about ERI’s future costs  This is in contrast to the way DOD submits its funding plan for its base budget, where DOD provides Congress with cost projections over a 5-year period, by appropriation, leaving Congress with a better understanding of how and when to allocate resources  In reviewing the fiscal year 2018 ERI request, the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation assessed future costs associated with posture initiatives funded under ERI  We previously reported that DOD was not developing enduring requirements funded through its OCO budget as part of its budget and programming process  Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation told us that DOD has not been required to provide estimates for future OCO costs for ERI to Congress previously  An official from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) told us that DOD does not plan to provide these future costs to Congress along with its fiscal year 2018 ERI budget submission  Additionally, in preparing its posture requirements, EUCOM did not identify assumptions regarding host nation and NATO burden sharing  For example, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy said that DOD has submitted a request to the NATO Security Investment Programmé for $200 million in funding to build a facility in Poland to store Army equipment  Officials told us that, as a result, this construction project was identified as a lesser priority in EUCOM’s fiscal year 2018 request for funding  A senior Army officer told us that completion of a facility in Poland was critical to its plans in Europe  Officials from the U S  Mission to NATO told us that as of July 2016 NATO had approved funding to complete preliminary architectural and engineering design for this project  Officials expect additional funding will be made available in July 2017 to complete final design and site preparation and the full cost of the project will be approved in early 2019  However, these officials noted that additional funding beyond what has been approved by NATO may be required to meet U S -specific requirements  Similarly, EUCOM officials said that they are working to identify opportunities to defray future costs through host nation contributions, but it is unclear how much funding—if any—host nations will provide moving forward  Congress has expressed interest in knowing the future costs of enduring activities being funded through DOD’s OCO budget  The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report accompanying a bill for DOD’s fiscal year 2015 appropriations stated that the committee does not have an understanding of enduring activities funded by the OCO budget  The committee further noted that there is a potential for risk in continuing to fund non-contingency-related activities through the OCO budget  Both GAO’s and other federal standards emphasize that agencies should provide complete and reliable information on the costs of programs externally, so that decision makers can make informed decisions when allocating resources  DOD has not provided Congress projections of future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI because it is reviewing those requirements outside of its budget and programming processes, and DOD officials said that the department is not required to provide this information  As a result, DOD is limiting congressional visibility into the resources needed to achieve ERI’s objectives  If DOD does not provide Congress with projections of the future costs of posture initiatives funded under ERI and information on its assumptions pertaining to host nation support and burden sharing, it will continue to impede congressional visibility into the resources that are needed to fully implement these initiatives  Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the subsequent threat of further aggression led DOD to establish and later expand ERI’s objectives and enhance posture in Europe to support a new U S  strategy toward Russia  DOD has requested funding for these enhancements using its OCO budget; however, the processes DOD uses to develop its OCO budget were not designed to plan for and fund long-term, enduring initiatives such as ERI  By following a separate planning process when funding ERI with OCO, DOD is taking on risk by not reviewing and prioritizing ERI posture plans against other posture initiatives, estimating the costs for sustaining ERI initiatives, and providing Congress with estimates of ERI’s future costs  DOD risks making decisions that lack a strategic vision in comparison to other DOD priorities and may fund initiatives that cannot be sustained over the long term  Furthermore, Congress is likely to face challenges in assessing DOD’s estimated costs for ERI and the affordability of initiatives funded under ERI over the long term  To better ensure that DOD can target resources to its most critical initiatives and establish priorities across its base budget and overseas contingency operations budget, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense prioritize posture initiatives under ERI relative to those funded in its base budget as part of its established posture-planning processes  (Recommendation 1) To better enable decision makers to evaluate the full long-term costs of posture initiatives under ERI, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct EUCOM and the military services to develop estimates for the sustainment costs of prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects under ERI and ensure that the services plan for these long-term costs in future budgets  (Recommendation 2) To support congressional decision making, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense provide to Congress, along with the department’s annual budget submission, estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI and other enduring costs that include assumptions such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of the classified report to DOD for review and comment  DOD partially concurred with all three of our recommendations, and we have reproduced DOD’s comments on the classified report in appendix II  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation to use its established posture-planning processes to prioritize ERI’s posture initiatives relative to those funded in DOD’s base budget  In its comments, DOD stated that it will continue to prioritize the negotiation of international agreements supporting ERI through the Global Posture Executive Council, and that an on-going Strategic Review will inform ERI and guide both EUCOM and the services in their program planning efforts  These are positive steps  DOD also stated it will adjudicate its ERI-funded force requirements through its global force management process, adding that it will continue to resource OCO funds for ERI requirements until there is a sufficient increase in DOD’s base budget to do so  However, we continue to believe, as noted in our report, that DOD could improve its planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, whether or not they are funded through OCO, by using DOD’s established posture planning processes  Although DOD’s global force management process directly affects overseas military posture in the near term, this process is not designed to evaluate long-term posture priorities  If DOD does not prioritize the forces and infrastructure projects funded under ERI against those funded using the military services’ base budgets, it will continue to lack an understanding of the relative importance of the posture initiatives funded under ERI  Without such an understanding, DOD increases the risk that the services will need to make critical and potentially costly decisions without a clear idea of which posture initiatives are most critical to the department  DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation that EUCOM and the military services develop estimates for future sustainment costs and plan for these costs in future budgets  In its comments, DOD stated that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD’s annual program and budget review process  DOD also commented that without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds  However, as we noted in our report, neither the Army nor the Air Force has fully estimated these potentially significant future costs, nor had either service incorporated them into their future budgets  Using OCO funds would mark a departure from DOD leadership’s emphasis that the services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their respective base budgets  Additionally, not developing robust estimates for sustaining these initiatives could increase long-term fiscal risk for the department if DOD shifts more ERI-associated enduring costs into its OCO budget  In the absence of robust cost estimates and deliberate planning to address those costs in future budgets, DOD will continue to be limited in its ability to evaluate the affordability of posture initiatives funded under ERI, and the military services may not plan adequate funding to sustain posture investments in Europe  DOD partially concurred with our third recommendation, to provide Congress with estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI and information on any underlying assumptions, such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing  In its comments, DOD stated that it does not currently prepare a formal 5-year Future Years Defense Program for OCO-related costs  Moreover, DOD commented that it factors in host nation support and burden sharing when preparing budget estimates for Congress  However, DOD does not state whether it will begin to provide Congress future estimates and any underlying assumptions with its budget submission  It is critical that DOD increase congressional visibility into ERI’s future costs and its underlying assumptions to facilitate congressional oversight and reasonably ensure that initiatives can be sustained over the long-term  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander, U S  European Command  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in Appendix III  The Army and Air Force identified approximately $224 million in unspecified minor military construction and facilities maintenance and repair projects (hereafter, minor construction and repair) that were programmed or obligated for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) in fiscal years 2015 through 2017  This includes $157 million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Army and nearly $67 million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Air Force  According to U S  European Command officials, Navy and Marine Corps construction projects funded under ERI were either major military construction or exercise-related construction projects  The tables below do not include Navy and Marine Corps exercise-related construction projects  Using the data provided by the military services, we compiled the programmed and obligated funding for these minor construction and repair projects by fiscal year, country, location, and project name in tables 3 and 4  The information in these tables was provided by U S  Army Europe and U S  Air Force Europe in response to our request for a list of minor military construction and repair projects  The data provided did not identify the appropriations used for each project  Accordingly, we have not conducted a review to examine whether funds were appropriately used for a given project  In addition to the contact named above, Kevin O’Neill, Assistant Director; Alex Winograd, Analyst-in-Charge; Scott Bruckner, Adrianne Cline, Martin De Alteriis, Joanne Landesman, Jennifer Leotta, Carol Petersen, Michael Shaughnessy, and Jena Sinkfield all made key contributions to this report 
Report 2:  In one group, officials whose agencies had completed their agreements said they are essential for state VR agencies to provide services in schools  Participants in another discussion group explained that once they have a state-level agreement in place, they can discuss what services school districts need for students and then determine how to provide those services  According to state educational agency officials we interviewed, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirements are similar to requirements for pre-employment transition services, and they need to coordinate with VR officials at both the state and local levels to agree on each agency’s assigned tasks and expectations  These officials said state VR and educational agencies should coordinate funding to make services available where they are needed and to complement each other’s transition efforts  Illinois’s agreement, for example, specifies that the state educational agency is responsible for providing outreach, guidance, and coordination to local educational agencies regarding the provision of pre-employment transition services  According to the agreement, Illinois’s VR agency is responsible for providing pre-employment transition services, both directly and through cooperative agreements with local educational agencies, and for providing written information to the state educational agency regarding services available to students with disabilities  Officials we interviewed with CSAVR said state VR agencies that have made progress in developing their interagency agreements with state educational agencies tend to be more successful in implementing pre-employment transition services  According to Education officials, Education provides guidance and technical assistance on interagency agreements to states as part of Education’s monitoring or when asked by states  Education officials said they provide technical assistance during periodic monitoring visits, which are currently limited to about 10 states per year from fiscal years 2017- 2021; by helping state VR agencies develop policies and procedures; and by making sure pre-employment transition services are coordinated with the state educational agency and through interagency agreements  According to Education officials, there is no statutory provision authorizing Education to identify states that have not updated their interagency agreement  Education officials said they do not collect information from state VR agencies on the status of these agreements except when they conduct monitoring visits in specific states  In addition, Education officials said that when monitoring, they may meet with state educational agency partners to help them understand the new components of pre- employment transition services in an agreement, or they may refer the state agencies to WINTAC or NTACT resources  Providing assistance during monitoring may be helpful for some states  However, given that less than half of state VR agencies we surveyed reported updating and finalizing their agreements and Education officials say they will take another three years to complete this round of monitoring, additional action by Education may be needed to raise awareness among the remaining states about the importance of these agreements to help states coordinate services to students with disabilities  Additional action could include, for example, conducting earlier state outreach or monitoring to assess state progress on finalizing the interagency agreements and offering technical assistance when appropriate  However, Education officials said there is no requirement that state educational agencies provide pre-employment transition services to meet their obligations to IDEA-eligible students with disabilities under part B of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act  As a result, WINTAC and participants in our discussion groups explained that it can be difficult to get state educational agencies to work with state VR agencies to update interagency agreements  Education officials said that WIOA requires state VR agencies to update these interagency agreements to include pre- employment transition services but they do not track their completion because states are not required to report when the agreements are finalized  Moreover, Education officials said they have heard from states that some reasons that interagency agreements are not specifically updated are that the agreements are written broadly enough so that they can remain in effect when there are additional changes to the law, the details of actual practices are rarely reflected in the high level of an interagency agreement, and that modifications to agreements are time- consuming and would not result in changes to the interagency coordination practice  Without an updated agreement between the state VR and educational agencies, efforts to collaborate on pre-employment transition services may be hindered  Officials with the National Technical Assistance Center on Transition (NTACT) told us that some of the state agencies for which they provided in-depth technical assistance were not working closely together  Officials from two of the three state educational agencies we interviewed said they viewed pre-employment transition services as primarily the responsibility of the VR agency  State VR officials in all three of our discussion groups said they have experienced coordination challenges, including difficulty determining each agency’s responsibilities for providing pre-employment transition services, obtaining data needed to identify and provide services to students, and determining which agency will pay for which services, among other challenges  Interagency agreements can help to address these types of issues  Federal internal controls recommend that management communicate with and obtain information to identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving defined objectives, such as those that can arise from new laws and regulations  Moreover, we found in prior work that it is important to establish ways to operate across agency boundaries, with measures such as developing common terminology and fostering open lines of communication  A lack of collaboration between state VR and educational agencies increases the risk that some students will not successfully transition from school to post-school activities  In addition, our prior work has identified lack of collaboration among and between federal agencies and state and local governments as a challenge to effective grant implementation  Interagency agreements are intended to serve as a mechanism related to collaboration practices, which include defining a common outcome, establishing joint strategies, and agreeing on roles and responsibilities of each agency  By taking additional steps, such as discussing the benefits of finalizing interagency agreements, and reminding states of existing technical assistance resources pertaining to updating and finalizing interagency agreements, Education would help raise awareness about the importance of the agreements and be better positioned to help states efficiently and effectively coordinate services to students with disabilities  Most state VR agencies (63 of 74) that responded to our survey reported that additional assistance with identifying best practices would be useful to their agencies  Similarly, state VR officials in all three of our discussion groups spoke to the need for Education to develop and disseminate best practices to help states, for example, comply with program requirements  WIOA requires Education to highlight best state practices on pre-employment transition services  Best practices may also help states address the challenges they reported facing in implementing and administering pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities, such as (1) coordinating with state educational agencies, (2) using VR resources more efficiently and effectively to help states balance providing pre-employment services with the full VR program, and (3) collecting data on services provided, and (4) updating data tracking systems  Coordinating service delivery with state educational agencies  Over half (41 of 74) of state VR agencies reported in our survey that additional assistance on coordinating with state educational agencies would be useful for them  Similarly, officials from all three state educational agencies we interviewed said they would like additional assistance on interagency collaboration  Officials with NTACT told us that some of the state agencies for which they provided in-depth technical assistance were not working closely together  Officials from two of the three state educational agencies we interviewed said they viewed pre-employment transition services as primarily the responsibility of the VR agency  State VR officials in all three of our discussion groups said they have experienced coordination challenges, including difficulty determining each agency’s responsibilities for providing pre-employment transition services, obtaining data needed to identify and provide services to students, and determining which agency will pay for which services, among other challenges  An official we interviewed from the Idaho Department of Education said it would be helpful to have more clearly defined roles, obligations, and means of sharing data between the state-level agencies  In written responses to our survey, one respondent said having examples of highly successful collaborations between a state educational agency and state VR agencies would be helpful  According to Education’s guidance, a student’s transition from school to post-school activities is a shared responsibility and coordination and collaboration between the state VR and educational agencies is essential  However, according to information Education provided with the regulations, while some have sought clarification and additional guidance in this area, Education determined that decisions on agencies’ responsibilities must be made at the state level to allow states maximum flexibility allowed under the law  In the absence of more specific guidelines for how state agencies should collaborate, best practices from other states could provide helpful examples  Balancing pre-employment transition services with VR services  Several state VR agencies in both our written survey responses and in discussion groups noted that by increasing services mandated for pre-employment transition services for students, they have had to reduce VR services to adults, which has made it difficult to balance the two programs  In issuing its final regulations, Education acknowledged that reserving funds would decrease amounts available for the full VR program, resulting in a transfer of benefits from individuals historically served by VR to students with disabilities in need of transition services  According to state VR directors with the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind (NCSAB), agencies for the blind have had to restrict VR services while also not being able to use all of the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services for students with disabilities because VR services cannot be paid with reserved funds  Most state VR agencies that completed our survey (50 of 74) reported that balancing pre-employment transition services with other vocational rehabilitation services was moderately difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult during federal fiscal year 2017  Collecting data  Data collection was one of the top challenges identified by state VR agencies in our survey, with 48 of 74 reporting that collecting data on the provision of pre-employment transition services was moderately difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult during fiscal year 2017  Prior to WIOA, agencies collected and reported data only on individuals who had applied and enrolled in the VR program  For pre-employment transition services, agencies now collect data on who provided and received each of the five required activities, including for individuals who have not submitted a VR application  State VR officials in two of our three discussion groups said that they have experienced challenges collecting sensitive information (such as social security numbers) for minors and collecting data on individuals for group services  Officials in one of the three discussion groups also said that these problems are particularly significant when trying to collect information on potentially eligible students for whom they do not have open VR cases  These students could include all those with an IEP and those that receive accommodations in school based on their disability, among others  Updating data tracking systems  Updating data systems was also one of the top challenges reported in our survey, and was cited as an additional administrative burden by state VR officials in our discussion groups  Specifically, 53 of 74 state VR agencies reported that it was moderately difficult, very difficult, or extremely difficult to update tracking systems to collect and report financial and service data on pre-employment transition services during fiscal year 2017  According to a state VR agency official we interviewed, updating that state’s tracking system is difficult because data collected on pre-employment transition services—such as the type of service provider and how the service was provided—do not fit well into a case management system designed for the full VR program  Updating these tracking systems also created an additional administrative burden for VR agency staff, according to officials from all three discussion groups and three of the four state agencies that we interviewed  Officials in two of our three discussion groups said that they have one or more full-time staff members doing only administrative tasks or that they have had to hire additional staff to handle data tracking  Education officials said that they plan to document and share best practices with states; however, they said the agency does not have a final written plan for managing these efforts because plans are still under discussion in light of inquiries received  Education officials said they are collecting information on state VR agencies’ practices through monitoring and they are sharing this information with WINTAC—information that could be useful for sharing best practices across states—but a comprehensive summary of states’ efforts will not be available until after Education officials conduct monitoring visits of all states by the end of fiscal year 2021  In addition, in a 2015 technical assistance circular, Education recommended that state VR agencies consult with other federal, state, and local agencies to identify best practices for providing pre-employment transition services to students and youth with a variety of disabilities  Education officials also said that they are looking for opportunities, such as webinars and conferences, to share information with states  However, Education does not have set timeframes and has not detailed the specific steps and activities for fully leveraging knowledge to address common challenges, or for finalizing and disseminating best practices  By doing so, Education would be better positioned to provide best practices information to state VR agencies to better serve students with disabilities who are transitioning from high school  Pre-employment transition services are designed to help students with disabilities begin to identify career interests and move from high school to post-secondary education or employment  Using federal funding, state VR agencies reported that they have generally enhanced their services and staff capacity and begun to coordinate with state educational agencies  As a result, state VR agencies generally reported serving an increased number of students  However, most states reported they have not used all the funds reserved for pre-employment transition services or updated interagency agreements between state VR and educational agencies  Education has developed multiple forms of guidance and made presentations, either directly or through its technical assistance centers  Education officials said they plan to issue additional guidance as needed  However, without clear timeframes for the issuance of this guidance, states do not know when information will become available to help them make decisions on allowable expenditures for pre-employment transition services  As a result, opportunities may be missed to identify and serve all students who might be eligible, and unserved students could continue to face difficulties preparing for a future of meaningful post-secondary education or employment  In addition, agreements between state VR and educational agencies can help facilitate the effective coordination of and financial responsibility for services  Finally, WIOA requires Education to highlight best state practices for implementing pre-employment transition services  Developing a written plan with specific timeframes would help Education provide states with information on best practices, such as balancing service delivery between pre-employment transition services and other VR services and collecting data that other states may have successfully addressed  We are making the following three recommendations to Education: The Secretary of Education should establish timeframes for providing states with additional information on allowable expenditures of funds reserved for pre-employment transition services  (Recommendation 1) The Secretary of Education should take additional steps to provide states assistance on updating and finalizing their interagency agreements with state educational agencies to include pre-employment transition services  These steps could include, for example, accelerating their efforts to discuss the benefits of finalizing interagency agreements, and reminding states of existing technical assistance resources pertaining to updating and finalizing interagency agreements  (Recommendation 2) The Secretary of Education should develop a written plan with specific timeframes and activities for identifying and disseminating best practices that address, as appropriate, implementation challenges for pre- employment transition services, such as those identified in this report  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to Education for review and comment  Education’s written comments are reproduced in appendix III  Education also provided technical comments, which we incorporated into our report where appropriate  Education concurred with recommendation 1 and disagreed with recommendations 2 and 3 in the draft report  With regard to recommendation 1, Education stated that it agreed and will establish projected timeframes for providing states with additional information on allowable expenditures for the provision of pre- employment transition services  Education also stated that it intends to provide states with additional information in at least two forums before the end of calendar year 2018 and to review and analyze previous guidance provided to states on allowable expenditures  With regard to the draft report’s recommendation 2, which called for Education to identify states that have not updated and finalized their interagency agreements to include pre-employment transition services, Education stated that it disagreed, in large part, because there is no statutory provision authorizing the agency to identify such states  However, Education is taking some steps as part of its ongoing monitoring of the VR program to provide assistance to states that have not updated their interagency agreements, which is consistent with the intention of our recommendation, but more could be done  Education stated that it will continue to offer and provide technical assistance if it becomes known through the onsite monitoring of the VR program or through other means that states have not updated their interagency agreements between VR agencies and state educational agencies  It also noted that the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and its Office of Special Education Programs will provide information related to sources of technical assistance, as appropriate, to VR agencies and state educational agencies  While these steps may be helpful, given the number of states that have not updated and finalized their agreements and the length of time Education officials say they will take to complete this round of monitoring where Education asks state VR agencies about these agreements, additional action by Education may be needed to help states more efficiently and effectively coordinate services to students with disabilities  Education also wrote that while the Rehabilitation Act requires an interagency agreement, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act does not contain a parallel requirement for state and local educational agencies with respect to the provision of pre-employment transition services or the incorporation of such discussion into the interagency agreement  In light of these differing requirements, as we state in our report, stakeholders with whom we spoke indicated it can be difficult to get state educational agencies to work with state VR agencies to update interagency agreements  Therefore, it is all the more important for Education to take additional action to engage with VR agencies regarding interagency agreements and to work closely with VR agencies as Education becomes aware of states that have not updated their agreements  Education suggested a modified recommendation that removed reference to Education identifying states that have not updated and finalized their agreements  We modified the recommendation and the report to address Education’s concerns about its authority to identify states  By taking additional steps, such as discussing the benefits of finalizing interagency agreements, and reminding states of existing technical assistance resources pertaining to updating and finalizing interagency agreements, Education would help raise awareness about the importance of the interagency agreements and be better positioned to help states efficiently and effectively coordinate services to students with disabilities  With regard to recommendation 3, Education stated that it disagreed because it is premature to develop a timeline for the dissemination of best practices  Education stated that the identification of “best” practices, meaning those that are clearly supported by a body of evidence derived from valid and reliable research findings, is still emerging as states implement the requirements  Education suggested a modified recommendation that included planning for the dissemination of best practices identified by states as they become available  Education stated in its comments that as RSA identifies best practices through its monitoring and technical assistance activities, it will, in collaboration with its Office of Special Education Programs, consider when and how best to disseminate this information to state VR and educational agencies  With regard to including specific timeframes and activities in a written plan, by detailing the specific steps Education is taking and plans to take along with the amount of time it expects them to take, Education would be better positioned to complete those steps in a timely manner and meet the statutory requirement that Education highlight best state practices and support state agencies  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Education  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Elizabeth H  Curda at (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  The objectives of this report are to examine (1) the steps states have reported taking to implement pre-employment transition services, and (2) the implementation challenges, if any, states reported facing, and how the Department of Education (Education) has addressed them  To address these objectives, we reviewed federal laws and regulations, and Education’s guidance and technical assistance documents, including circulars, policy directives, and transition guides  We also reviewed expenditure data reported by state vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies to Education for fiscal years 2015 and 2016, the most recent full years of data available  To assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed Education officials about their collection of the data and their opinion of the data’s quality, completeness, and accuracy  We also electronically tested the data for any obvious errors  We determined that the data were reliable for the purposes of our review  We interviewed representatives from the Council of State Administrators of Vocational Rehabilitation (CSAVR) and the National Council of State Agencies for the Blind  In addition, we interviewed officials from Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services, Rehabilitation Services Administration, Office of Special Education Programs, and the Workforce Innovation Technical Assistance Center and National Technical Assistance Center on Transition—two technical assistance centers funded by Education  To address both of the objectives, we conducted a survey of all 79 state VR agencies from October through December 2017  Seventy-four of the 79 agencies (94 percent) responded  The survey questionnaire included open-ended and closed-ended questions about agencies’ efforts to train staff, update interagency agreements, expand services to students with disabilities, and other issues  We took steps to minimize the potential errors that may be introduced by the practical difficulties of conducting any survey  Because we selected the entire population of VR agencies for our survey, our estimates are not subject to sampling error  We conducted pretests of the draft questionnaire with three agencies in the population and made revisions to reduce the possibility of measurement error from differences in how questions were interpreted and the sources of information available to respondents  We reviewed state officials’ submitted survey responses and conducted follow-up, as necessary, to determine that their responses were complete, reasonable, and sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report  A second independent analyst checked the accuracy of all computer analyses we performed to minimize the likelihood of errors in data processing  We made multiple follow-up attempts during the survey with agencies that had not yet responded  The five agencies that did not respond had smaller values, on average, on three characteristics related to size, than those that did respond  The nonrespondents tended to be smaller than respondent agencies  The sums totals for each of these three characteristics across the five nonresponding agencies comprised less than 1 percent of the totals for the population, suggesting a lower possibility of material error in our results from nonresponse  For more in-depth information on both of the objectives, we conducted interviews and held discussion groups  We conducted interviews with officials in Idaho, Illinois, and Maryland  For each state, we interviewed state VR officials and state educational agency officials  We selected these states for variety using the following criteria: size of the special education population (large, medium, and small); state agency organization, for example, whether the VR agency was organized under the state’s educational or other department; and whether the state had a second agency for serving individuals who are blind or visually impaired  We convened three discussion groups with state VR agency directors or their designated officials, with a total of 39 participants from 29 separate agencies (10 to 12 agencies represented per discussion group)  These discussion groups took place during a conference of state VR directors in November 2017 in Greenville, South Carolina  To select participants, we worked with the conference organizer, CSAVR, to send invitations for our discussion groups to all conference attendees  We additionally included a question in our survey asking respondents whether they would like to participate in discussion groups at the conference, and contacted those who responded affirmatively via phone and email  We moderated each discussion to keep participants focused on the specified issues within discussion timeframes  To assess Education’s efforts to address state VR agencies’ challenges in providing pre-employment transition services, we applied standards for internal control in the federal government  Specifically, we applied principle 15 related to communicating with external parties  In addition, regarding Education’s assistance to state VR agencies’ efforts to update interagency agreements with state educational agencies, we also applied key considerations for implementing interagency collaborative mechanisms that we have previously identified  We conducted this performance audit from February 2017 to September 2018 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  Elizabeth H  Curda, (202) 512-7215 or curdae@gao gov  In addition to the contact named above, Sara Schibanoff Kelly (Assistant Director), Paul Schearf (Analyst-In-Charge), Matthew Rabe, and Paul Wright made key contributions to this report  Also contributing to this report were James Bennett, Kristy Kennedy, Sheila R  McCoy, Thomas James, Jessica Orr, Sam Portnow, Carl Ramirez, Monica Savoy, Kate Van Gelder, Adam Wendel, and James Whitcomb  Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act: States and Local Areas Report Progress in Meeting Youth Program Requirements  GAO-18-475  Washington, D C : June 15, 2018  Supplemental Security Income: SSA Could Strengthen Its Efforts to Encourage Employment for Transition-Age Youth  GAO-17-485  Washington, D C : May 17, 2017  Youth with Autism: Federal Agencies Should Take Additional Action to Support Transition-Age Youth  GAO-17-352  Washington, D C : May 4, 2017  Youth with Autism: Roundtable Views of Services Needed During the Transition into Adulthood  GAO-17-109  Washington, D C : October 18, 2016  Students with Disabilities: Better Federal Coordination Could Lessen Challenges in the Transition from High School  GAO-12-594  Washington, D C : July 12, 2012 

ground_truth: In response to Russia's annexation of Crimea in March 2014, the President announced the ERI, to reassure allies in Europe of U.S. commitment to their security. This initiative has been funded using OCO appropriations, which Congress provides in addition to DOD's base budget appropriations. The Joint Explanatory Statement accompanying the Continuing Appropriations and Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2017, included a provision for GAO to review matters related to ERI. In this report, we (1) describe changes in ERI's objectives, funding under ERI, and DOD's posture in Europe since 2014 and (2) evaluate the extent to which DOD's planning processes for posture initiatives funded under ERI prioritize those initiatives, estimate their long-term costs, and communicate their estimated costs to Congress. GAO analyzed DOD strategy documentation, budget and cost analysis guidance, budget justification materials, and cost and obligations data. GAO also interviewed knowledgeable officials within the Office of the Secretary of Defense, U.S. European Command, the military services, and the State Department. Since 2014, the Department of Defense (DOD) has expanded the European Reassurance Initiative's (ERI) objectives, increased its funding, and planned enhancements to European posture. DOD expanded ERI's objectives from the short-term reassurance of allies and partners to include deterring Russian aggression in the long term and developing the capacity to field a credible combined force should deterrence fail. With respect to funding, DOD will have requested approximately $4.5 billion for ERI's posture enhancements through the end of fiscal year 2017 (about $3.2 billion for fiscal year 2017 alone), and in July 2016 EUCOM identified funding needs for future posture initiatives. The expansion of ERI's objectives has contributed to DOD's enhancing its posture in Europe. Specifically, DOD has increased the size and duration of Army combat unit deployments, planned to preposition Army equipment in Eastern Europe, added new enduring locations (e.g., locations that DOD expects to access and use to support U.S. security interests for the foreseeable future), improved infrastructure, and negotiated new agreements with European nations. As of April 2017, DOD was considering further force enhancements under ERI as part of the department's ERI budget request. DOD also was reviewing whether new enduring locations to support ERI were needed and was considering other improvements to existing infrastructure. DOD's process for planning ERI has not established priorities among posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to those in its base budget, nor estimated long-term sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, nor communicated future costs to Congress. ERI is being planned using a separate process from DOD's established processes and is funded from DOD's overseas contingency operations (OCO) appropriations. GAO found several weaknesses: Lack of prioritization : DOD establishes priorities among ERI posture initiatives but has not evaluated them against base budget initiatives using its posture management process. As a result, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of ERI initiatives and may be investing in projects that it will not continue should OCO funding become unavailable. Lack of sustainment costs : EUCOM and the military services have not fully estimated the long-term costs to sustain equipment and construction funded under ERI. Based on DOD's approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs, GAO determined that these costs could be substantial. DOD officials said that GAO correctly applied DOD's approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual costs may be lower, because the military services may not fully fund sustainment. In the absence of comprehensive estimates, DOD has been limited in its ability to assess affordability and plan for future costs. Not communicating future costs : DOD limits Congress's visibility into the resources needed to implement ERI and achieve its objectives because it does not include future costs in its ERI budget request. This is a public version of a classified report issued in August 2017. Information on specific posture planning, guidance, and budget estimates that DOD deemed to be classified have been omitted from this report. GAO recommends that DOD prioritize ERI posture initiatives against initiatives in its base budget, develop cost estimates for sustaining initiatives, and communicate future costs to Congress. DOD partially concurred with GAO's recommendations. GAO continues to believe that these recommendations are warranted.