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



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



Report 2: This report provides background information and potential oversight issues for Congress on war-related and other international emergency or contingency-designated funding since FY2001  Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated approximately $2 trillion in discretionary budget authority designated for emergencies or OCO/GWOT in support of the broad U S  government response to the 9/11 attacks and for other related international affairs activities  This figure includes $1 8 trillion for the Department of Defense (DOD), $154 billion for the Department of State and U S  Agency for International Development (USAID), and $3 billion for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Coast Guard (see Figure 1 )  This CRS report is meant to serve as a reference on certain funding designated as emergency requirement s or for Overseas Contingency Ope rations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT), as well as related budgetary and policy issues  It does not provide an estimate of war costs within the OCO/GWOT account (all of which may not be for activities associated with war or defense) or such costs in the DOD base budget or other agency funding (which may be related to war activities, such as the cost of health care for combat veterans)  For additional information on the FY2019 budget and related issues, see CRS Report R45202, The Federal Budget: Overview and Issues for FY2019 and Beyond , by [author name scrubbed]; CRS In Focus IF10942, FY2019 National Defense Authorization Act: An Overview of H R  5515 , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]; and CRS Report R45168, Department of State, Foreign Operations and Related Programs: FY2019 Budget and Appropriations , by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed]  For additional information on the Budget Control Act as amended, see CRS Report R44874, The Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions , by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report R44039, The Defense Budget and the Budget Control Act: Frequently Asked Questions , by [author name scrubbed]  For additional information on U S  policy in Afghanistan and the Middle East, see CRS Report R45122, Afghanistan: Background and U S  Policy , by [author name scrubbed], CRS Report R45096, Iraq: Issues in the 115th Congress , by [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report RL33487, Armed Conflict in Syria: Overview and U S  Response , coordinated by [author name scrubbed]  Congress may consider one or more supplemental appropriations bills (colloquially called supplementals) for a fiscal year to provide funding for unforeseen needs (such as a response to a national security threat or a natural disaster), or to increase appropriations for other activities that have already been funded  Supplemental appropriations measures generally provide additional funding for selected activities over and above the amount provided through annual or continuing appropriations  Throughout the 20 th century, Congress relied on supplemental appropriations to fund war-related activities, particularly in the period immediately following the start of hostilities  For example, in 1951, a year after the start of the Korean War, Congress approved DOD supplemental appropriations totaling $32 8 billion ($268 billion in constant FY2019 dollars)  In 1952, DOD supplemental appropriations totaled just $1 4 billion ($11 billion in constant FY2019), as the base budget incorporated costs related to the war effort  A similar pattern occurred, to varying degrees, during the Vietnam War and 1990-1991 Gulf War  During the post-9/11 conflicts, primarily conducted in Afghanistan and Iraq but also in other countries, Congress has, for an extended period and to a much greater degree than in previous conflicts in the 20 th century, appropriated supplemental and specially designated funding over and above the base DOD budget—that is, funding for planned or regularly occurring costs to man, train, and equip the military force  Since FY2001, DOD funding designated for OCO/GWOT has averaged 17% of the department's total budget authority (see Figure 2 )  By comparison, during the conflict in Vietnam—the only other to last more than a decade—DOD funding designated for non-base activities averaged 6% of the department's total budget authority  Supplemental appropriations can provide flexibility for policymakers to address demands that arise after funding has been appropriated  However, that flexibility has caused some to question whether supplementals should only be used to respond to unforeseen events, or whether they should also provide funding for activities that could reasonably be covered in regular appropriations acts  Congress used supplemental appropriations to provide funds for defense and foreign affairs activities related to operations in Afghanistan and Iraq following 9/11, and each subsequent fiscal year through FY2010  Initially understood as reflecting needs that were not anticipated during the regular appropriations cycle, supplemental appropriations were generally enacted as requested, and almost always designated as emergency requirements  Beginning in FY2004, DOD received some of its war-related funding in its regular annual appropriations; these funds were designated as emergency  When funding needs for war and non-war-related activities were higher than anticipated, the Bush Administration submitted supplemental requests  In the FY2011 appropriations cycle, the Obama Administration moved away from submitting supplemental appropriations requests to Congress for war-related activities and used the regular budget and appropriation process to fund operations  This approach implied that while the funds might be war-related, they largely supported predictable ongoing activities rather than unanticipated needs  In concert with this change in budgetary approach, the Obama Administration began formally using the term Overseas Contingency Op erations in place of the Bush Administration's term Global War on Terror   Both the Obama and Trump Administrations requested that OCO funding be designated in a manner that would effectively exempt such funding from the BCA limits on discretionary defense spending  Currently, there is no overall procedural or statutory limit on the amount of emergency or OCO/GWOT-designated spending that may be appropriated on an annual basis  Both Congress and the President have roles in determining how much emergency or OCO/GWOT spending is provided to federal agencies each fiscal year  Such spending must be designated as such within the President's budget request for congressional consideration  The President must separately designate the spending after Congress enacts appropriations for it to be available for expenditure  The emergency funding designation predated the OCO/GWOT designation  Through definitions statutorily established by the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA; P L  99-177 ), spending designated as emergency requirements is for "unanticipated" purposes, such as those that are "sudden     urgent     unforeseen     and temporary " The BBEDCA does not further specify the types of activities that are eligible for that designation  Thus, any discretionary funding designated by Congress and the President as being for an emergency is effectively exempted from certain statutory and procedural budget enforcement mechanisms, such as the BCA limits on discretionary spending  Debate of what should constitute OCO/GWOT or emergency activities and expenses has shifted over time, reflecting differing viewpoints about the extent, nature, and duration of U S  military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere  Over the years, both Congress and the President have at times adopted more, and at times less, expansive definitions of such designations to accommodate the strategic, budgetary, and political needs of the moment  Prior to February 2009, U S  operations in response to the 9/11 attacks were collectively referred to as the Global War on Terror , or GWOT  Between September 2001 and February 2009, there was no separate budgetary designation for GWOT funds—instead, funding associated with those operations was designated as an emergency requirement  The term OCO was not applied to the post-9/11 military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan until 2009  In February 2009, the Obama Administration released A New Era of Responsibili ty: Renewing America's Promise , a presidential fiscal policy document  That document did not mention or reference GWOT; instead, it used the term OCO in reference to ongoing military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan  The first request for emergency funding for OCO—not GWOT—was delivered to Congress in April 2009  Since the FY2010 budget cycle, DOD has requested both base budget and OCO funding as part of its annual budget submission to Congress  Beginning with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010 (NDAA; P L  111-84 ), the annual defense authorization bills have referenced the authorization of additional appropriations for OCO rather than the names of U S  military operations conducted primarily in Afghanistan and Iraq  In 2011, the BCA ( P L  112-125 ) amended the BBEDCA to create the Overseas Contingency Ope rations/Global War on Terrorism designation, which provided Congress and the President with an alternate way to exempt funding from the BCA caps without using the emergency designation  Beginning with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2012 ( P L  112-74 ), annual appropriations bills have referenced the OCO/GWOT designation  The foreign affairs agencies began formally requesting OCO/GWOT funding in FY2012, distinguishing between what is referred to as enduring, ongoing or base costs versus any extraordinary, temporary costs of the State Department and USAID in supporting ongoing U S  operations and policies in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan  Congress, having used OCO/GWOT exemption for DOD, adopted this approach for foreign affairs, though its uses for State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs (SFOPS) activities have never been permanently defined in statute  For the first foreign affairs OCO/GWOT appropriation, in FY2012, funds were provided for a wide range of recipient countries beyond the countries in the President's request, including Yemen, Somalia, Kenya, and the Philippines  In addition to country-specific uses, OCO/GWOT-designated funds were also appropriated for the Global Security Contingency Fund  All budgetary legislation is subject to a set of enforcement procedures associated with the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 ( P L  93-344 ), as well as other rules, such as those imposed by the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P L  112-125 ) as amended  Those rules provide mechanisms to enforce both procedural and statutory limits on discretionary spending  Enacted on August 2, 2011, the BCA as amended sets limits on defense and nondefense spending  As part of an agreement to increase the statutory limit on public debt, the BCA aimed to reduce annual federal budget deficits by a total of at least $2 1 trillion from FY2012 through FY2021, with approximately half of the savings to come from defense  The spending limits (or caps ) apply separately to defense and nondefense discretionary budget authority  The caps are enforced by a mechanism called sequestration   Sequestration automatically cancels previously enacted appropriations (a form of budget authority) by an amount necessary to reach prespecified levels  The BCA effectively exempted certain types of discretionary spending from the statutory limits, including funding designated for OCO/GWOT  As a result, Congress and the President have designated funding for OCO to support activities that, in previous times, had been funded within the base budget  This was done, in part, as a response to the discretionary spending limits enacted by the BCA  By designating funding for OCO for certain activities not directly related to contingency operations, Congress and the President can effectively continue to increase topline defense, foreign affairs, and other related discretionary spending without triggering sequestration  Congress has repeatedly amended the legislation to raise the spending limits (thus lowering its deficit-reduction effect by corresponding amounts)  Congress has passed four bills that revised the automatic spending caps initially established by the BCA, including the following: American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA; P L  112-240 ); Bipartisan Budget Act of 2013 (BBA 2013; P L  113-67 ); Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA 2015; P L  114-74 ); and Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA 2018; P L  115-123 )  On February 9, 2018, three days before President Donald Trump submitted his FY2019 budget request, Congress passed the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA 2018, P L  115-123 )  The act raised the discretionary spending limits set by the BCA from $1 069 trillion for FY2017 to $1 208 trillion for FY2018 and to $1 244 trillion for FY2019  The BBA 2018 increased FY2019 discretionary defense funding levels (excluding OCO) by the largest amounts to date—$85 billion, from $562 billion to $647 billion, and nondefense funding (including SFOPS) by $68 billion, from $529 billion to $597 billion  It did not change discretionary spending limits for FY2020 and FY2021  DOD documents indicate the department in recent years has used OCO funding for activities viewed as unrelated to war  For example, the department's FY2019 budget request estimates $358 billion in OCO funding from FY2015 through FY2019  Of that amount, DOD categorizes $68 billion (19%) for activities unrelated to operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria  These activities are described as "EDI/Non-War," referring in part to the European Deterrence Initiative, and "Base-to-OCO," referring to OCO funding used for base-budget requirements  Similarly, a DOD Cost of War report from June 2018 shows $1 8 trillion in war-related appropriations from FY2001 through FY2018 for operations primarily conducted in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria  Of that total, DOD categorizes $219 billion (12%) as other than "war funds " These funds are described as "Classified," "Modularity," "Fuel (non-war)," "Noble Eagle (Base)," and "Non-War " International affairs agencies also began increasing the share of their budgets designated for OCO, and applying the designation to an increasing range of activities apparently unrelated to conflicts  OCO as a share of the international affairs budget grew from about 21% in FY2012 to nearly 35% in FY2017  Unlike DOD, however, the State Department and USAID have not specified whether any OCO-designated funds are considered part of the agencies' base budgets  According to a DOD budget document from FY2016, the Obama Administration planned to "transition all enduring costs currently funded in the OCO budget to the base budget beginning in 2017 and ending by 2020 " The plan was to describe "which OCO costs should endure as the United States shifts from major combat operations, how the Administration will budget for the uncertainty surrounding unforeseen future crises, and the implications for the base budgets of DOD, the Intelligence Community, and State/OIP  This transition will not be possible if the sequester-level discretionary spending caps remain in place " The BCA remained in effect and OCO funding was used for base-budget requirements  Some defense officials and policymakers say OCO funding enables a flexible and timely response to an emergency or contingency and provides a political and fiscal safety valve to the BCA caps and threat of sequestration  They say if OCO funding were not used in such a manner and discretionary spending limits remained in place, DOD and other federal agencies would be forced to cut base budgets and revise strategic priorities  For example, former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis has said if Congress allows the FY2020 and FY2021 defense spending caps to take effect, the 2018 National Defense Strategy, which calls for the United States to bolster its military advantage against potential competitors such as Russia and China, "is not sustainable " Critics, including Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, have described the OCO account as a "slush fund" for military and foreign affairs spending unrelated to contingency operations  Mulvaney, former director of the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB), has described the use of OCO funding for base budget requirements as "budget gimmicks " Critics argue what was once generally restricted to a fund for replacing combat losses of equipment, resupplying expended munitions, transporting troops to and through war zones, and distributing foreign aid to frontline states has "ballooned into an ambiguous part of the budget to which government financiers increasingly turn to pay for other, at times unrelated, costs " OMB criteria for OCO funding include the combat losses of ground vehicles, aircraft, and other equipment; replenishment of munitions expended in combat operations; facilities and infrastructure in the theater of operations; transport of personnel, equipment, and supplies to and from the theater; among other items and activities  Determining which activities are directly related, tangentially related, or unrelated to war operations is often a point of debate  Some have questioned the use of OCO funding to purchase F-35 fighter jets: "It is jumping the shark     There's no pretense that it has anything to do with the region " Others have argued it makes sense for the military to use OCO funding to purchase new aircraft to replace planes used in current conflicts and no longer in production: "What are the conditions that are making the combatant commanders and those with train/equip authority to say, 'We need more of this?'" Congress has appropriated approximately $2 trillion in discretionary budget authority for war-related and other international emergency or contingency-designated activities since 9/11  This figure is a CRS estimate of funding designated for emergencies or OCO/GWOT in support of the broad U S  government response to the 9/11 attacks, as well as other foreign affairs activities, from FY2001 through FY2019  This includes $1 8 trillion for DOD, $154 billion for the Department of State and USAID, and $3 billion for DHS and the Coast Guard (see Table 1 )  These figures do not include emergency-designated funding appropriated in this period for domestic programs, such as disaster response  From FY2001 through FY2009, DOD received $1 8 trillion in appropriations for OCO/GWOT, or approximately 17% of the department's total discretionary budget authority of $10 8 trillion during the period  The department's OCO/GWOT funding peaked in FY2008 both in terms of nominal dollars, at $186 9 billion, and as a share of its discretionary budget, at 28 1% (see Figure 3 ), after the Bush Administration surged additional U S  military personnel to Iraq  The department's OCO funding also increased as a share of its discretionary spending from FY2009 to FY2010 following the Obama Administration's deployment of more U S  military personnel to Afghanistan, and again in FY2017 following enactment of legislation in response to the Trump Administration's request for additional appropriations  In FY2019, the department's OCO/GWOT funding totaled $68 8 billion, or 10% of its discretionary spending  In terms of appropriations titles, more than two-thirds of OCO/GWOT funding since FY2001 has been for Operation and Maintenance (O&M)—nearly double the percentage of base budget funding for O&M over the same period (see Figure 4 )  O&M funds pay for the operating costs of the military such as fuel, maintenance to repair facilities and equipment, and the mobilization of forces  DOD describes "war-related operational costs" as operations, training, overseas facilities and base support, equipment maintenance, communications, and replacement of combat losses and enhancements  In terms of the military services, more than half (55%) of OCO/GWOT funding since FY2001 has gone to the Army—more than double the percentage of base budget funding for the service during this period (see Figure 5 )  Emergency appropriations were initially provided as general "defense-wide" appropriations  Beginning in FY2003, as operations evolved and planning developed, allocations increased and were specifically provided for the services  OCO funding for DOD has not decreased at the same rate as the number of U S  troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria has decreased  For example, the number of U S  military personnel in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria decreased from a peak of 187,000 personnel in FY2008 (including 148,000 in Iraq and 39,000 in Afghanistan) to an assumed level of nearly 18,000 personnel in FY2019 (including 11,958 personnel in Afghanistan and 5,765 personnel in Iraq and Syria)—a decline of approximately 169,000 personnel (90%)  Meanwhile, OCO funding decreased from a peak of $187 billion in FY2008 to $69 billion in FY2019—a decline of approximately $118 billion (63%)  While the number of U S  forces in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria has decreased since FY2009, the number of U S  troops deployed or stationed elsewhere to support those personnel has fallen by a lesser degree and, in recent years, remained relatively steady  For example, the number of support forces—that is, personnel from units and forces operating outside of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries (including those stationed in the continental United States or otherwise mobilized) decreased from 112,000 personnel in FY2009 to an assumed level of 76,073 personnel in FY2019—a decline of 35,927 personnel (32%)  In addition, when these support forces are combined with in-country force levels, the total force level decreases by a percentage more similar to the OCO budget, from 297,000 personnel in FY2009 to an assumed level of 93,796 personnel in FY2019—a decline of 203,204 personnel (68%) (see Figure 6 )  Some of these support forces serve in U S  Central Command's area of responsibility, which includes 20 countries in West Asia, North Africa, and Central Asia, and whose forward headquarters is based in Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar  According to DOD, the reason OCO funding has not fallen in proportion to the number of U S  troops in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria is "due to the fixed, and often inelastic, costs of infrastructure, support requirements, and in-theater presence to support contingency operations " For example, in FY2019, the department requested $20 billion in OCO funding for "in-theater support"—nearly 30% of the OCO request and more than any other functional category  However, some analysts have noted the U S  military's fixed costs in Afghanistan remained relatively stable at roughly $7 billion a year from FY2005 through FY2013 until after the BCA went into effect—and have since increased to roughly $32 billion a year, suggesting "that roughly $25 billion in 'enduring' or base budget costs migrated into the Afghanistan budget, effectively circumventing the budget caps  The actual funding needed for operations in Afghanistan is roughly $20 billion in FY2019 " Title 10, Section 101, of the United States Code, defines a contingency operation as any Secretary of Defense-designated military operation "in which members of the armed forces are or may become involved in military actions, operations, or hostilities against an enemy of the United States or against an opposing military force " Since the 1990s NATO intervention in the Balkans, DOD Financial Management Regulations (FMR) have defined contingency operations costs as those expenses necessary to cover incremental costs "that would not have been incurred had the contingency operation not been supported " Such incremental costs would not include, for example, base pay for troops or planned equipment modernization, as those expenditures are normal peacetime needs of the DOD  In September 2010, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in collaboration with DOD, issued criteria for the department to use in making war/overseas contingency operations funding requests (see Appendix A )  In January 2017, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) concluded the criteria for deciding whether items belong in the base budget or OCO funding "are outdated and do not address the full scope of activities" in the budget request  "For example, they do not address geographic areas such as Syria and Libya, where DOD has begun military operations; DOD's deterrence and counterterrorism initiatives; or requests for OCO funding to support requirements not related to ongoing contingency operations" it states  Section 1524 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 ( P L  115-91 ), directed the Secretary of Defense to "update the guidelines regarding the budget items that may be covered by overseas contingency operations accounts " Congress has enacted legislation directing DOD to compile reports on the costs of certain contingency operations  Section 1266 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 ( P L  115-91 ) directs the Secretary of Defense to submit the Department of Defense Supplemental and Cost of War Execution report, known as the Cost of War report, on a quarterly basis to the congressional defense committees and the GAO: "Not later than 45 days after the end of each fiscal year quarter, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to the congressional defense committees and the Comptroller General of the United States the Department of Defense Supplemental and Cost of War Execution report for such fiscal year quarter " The conference report accompanying the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-245 ) requires DOD to report incremental costs for operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other countries in the U S  Central Command area of responsibility and directs: the Secretary of Defense to continue to report incremental costs for all named operations in the Central Command Area of Responsibility on a quarterly basis and to submit, also on a quarterly basis, commitment, obligation, and expenditure data for the Afghanistan Security Forces Fund, the Counter-Islamic State of Iraq and Syria Train and Equip Fund, and for all security cooperation programs funded under the Defense Security Cooperation Agency in the Operation and Maintenance, Defense-Wide Account  DOD's June 2018 Cost of War report to Congress details $1 5 trillion in obligations associated with certain contingency operations from FY2001 through FY2018  That figure includes $757 1 billion for those conducted primarily in Iraq—Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF), Operation New Dawn (OND), and Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR); $727 7 billion for those conducted primarily in Afghanistan—Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) and Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS); and $27 8 billion for those conducted primarily in the United States (see Table 2 and Figure 7 )  DOD's quarterly Cost of War reports are intended to provide Congress, GAO, and other stakeholders insight into the how the department obligates war-related appropriations  The reports include base and OCO obligations related to war activities, as well as obligation data broken down by certain major operations, service, component, agency, and appropriation  However, as GAO has noted, "the proportion of OCO appropriations not associated with specific operations identified in the statutory Cost of War reporting requirement has trended upward" in part because the criteria DOD uses for making OCO funding requests is outdated and not always used  More recently, the June 2018 Cost of War report does not appear to reference three recently classified overseas contingency operations targeting militants affiliated with al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS): Operation Yukon Journey in the Middle East, Northwest Africa Counterterrorism, and East Africa Counterterrorism  Some observers have noted other limitations to Cost of War reports, such as incomplete accounting of costs, limited distribution of the documents and underlying data, and formatting that makes it difficult to reconcile the data with information contained in budget justification documents  Between FY2001 and FY2018, Congress appropriated a total of $154 billion in OCO funds for State Department and USAID  For FY2018 (the most recent full-year appropriations for foreign affairs agencies), OCO funding amounted to 22% of the total appropriations for State Department, Foreign Operations and Related Programs appropriation  The Obama Administration's FY2012 International Affairs budget request was the first to include a request for OCO funds for "extraordinary and temporary costs of operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan " At the time, the Administration indicated that the use of this designation was intended to provide a transparent, whole-of-government approach to the exceptional war-related costs incurred in those three countries, thus better aligning the associated military and civilian costs  This first foreign affairs OCO request identified the significant resource demands placed on the State Department as a result of the transitions from military-led to civilian-led missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the importance of a stable Pakistan for the U S  effort in Afghanistan  The FY2012 foreign affairs OCO request included: for Iraq, funding for the U S  Embassy in Baghdad, consulates throughout Iraq, security costs in light of the then-planned U S  military withdrawal, a then-planned civilian-led Police Development and Criminal Justice Program, military and development assistance in Iraq, and oversight of U S  foreign assistance through the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction; for Afghanistan, funding to strengthen the Afghan government and build institutional capacity, support State/USAID and other U S  government agency civilians deployed in Afghanistan, provide short-term economic assistance to address counterinsurgency and stabilization efforts, and provide oversight of U S  foreign assistance programs in Afghanistan through the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction; and for Pakistan, funding to support U S  diplomatic presence and diplomatic security in Pakistan, provide Pakistan Counterinsurgency Capability Funds (PCCF) to train and equip Pakistani forces to eliminate insurgent sanctuaries and promote stability and security in neighboring Afghanistan and the region  In subsequent years, the Administration designated certain State Department activities in Syria and other peacekeeping activities as OCO, and Congress accepted and broadened this expanded use of OCO in annual appropriations  In the FY2017 budget request, the Administration further broadened its use of State OCO funds, applying the designation to funds for countering Russian aggression, counterterrorism, humanitarian assistance, and aid to Africa  In addition to OCO funds requested through the normal appropriations process, the Administration in recent years requested emergency supplemental funding (designated as OCO) to support State/USAID efforts in countering the Islamic State and to respond to global health threats such as the Ebola and Zika viruses  For FY2019, the Trump Administration requested no OCO/GWOT funding for the Department of State and USAID, although the FY2019 House and Senate SFOPS bills ( H R  6385 and S  3108 , 115 th Congress) would have appropriated approximately $8 billion in OCO-designated funding for various priorities  The estimated $154 1 billion in emergency and OCO/GWOT appropriations enacted to date for State/USAID includes major non-war-related programs, such as aid for the 2004 tsunami along Indian Ocean coasts, 2010 earthquake in Haiti, 2013 Ebola outbreak in West Africa, and 2015 worldwide outbreak of the Zika virus; as well as diplomatic operations (e g , paying staff, providing security, and building and maintaining embassies)  OCO/GWOT has also funded a variety of foreign aid programs, ranging from the Economic Support Fund to counter-narcotics in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq, among other activities in other countries  Figure 8 depicts the emergency or OCO appropriations for foreign affairs activities  Since 2012, when the OCO designation was first used for foreign affairs, more OCO funds have been appropriated than were requested each year, and those have also been authorized to be used in additional countries  Since January 2002, approximately $3 billion of post-9/11 emergency and OCO-designated funding has been provided to the U S  Coast Guard (USCG) for its traditional homeland security missions and for USCG operations in support of U S  Navy activities  This funding has been provided at various times as either an appropriation to the Coast Guard's operating expenses accounts, or as a transfer from Navy accounts to the Coast Guard  Open-source information on the use of those funds has varied  One FY2009 supplemental appropriations request included funding as a transfer, with the intent of funding "Coast Guard operations in support of OIF and OEF, as well as other classified activities " The FY2017 OCO request for annual appropriations for Navy Operations and Maintenance included $163 million for Coast Guard operational support for the deployment of patrol boats to the Northern Arabian Gulf and a port security unit to Guantanamo Bay, among other pay and equipment expenses  The Trump Administration initially requested a total of $89 billion in OCO funding for FY2019  All the funding was requested by DOD  In an amendment to the budget after Congress raised the BCA spending caps as part of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (BBA 2018; P L  115-123 ), the Administration removed the OCO designation from $20 billion of the funding, in effect, shifting that amount into the DOD base budget request  In a statement on the budget amendment, Mulvaney said the request fixes "long-time budget gimmicks" in which OCO funding has been used for base budget requirements  Beginning in FY2020, "the Administration proposes returning to OCO's original purpose by shifting certain costs funded in OCO to the base budget where they belong," he wrote  Of the revised amount of $69 billion requested for DOD OCO funding in FY2019: $46 3 billion (67%) was for Operation Freedom's Sentinel (OFS) in Afghanistan and related missions; $13 billion (22%) for Operation Inherent Resolve (OIR) in Iraq and Syria and related missions; $4 8 billion (9%) for the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI) to boost the U S  military presence in eastern Europe to deter Russian military aggression; and $0 9 billion (1%) for security cooperation (see Figure 9 )  The FY2019 OCO budget assumes a total force level (average annual troop strength) of 93,796 personnel  That figure includes: 11,958 primarily in Afghanistan (OFS); 5,765 primarily in Iraq and Syria (OIR); 59,463 for in-theater support; and 16,610 primarily in the continental United States (CONUS) or otherwise mobilized (see Figure 10 )  The number of personnel actually in-country or in-theater at any given time may exceed or fall below those assumed levels  The FY2019 force level assumes an increase of 3,153 personnel (3 5%) from the FY2018 assumed level, all of which is assumed for in-theater support  (For analysis of troop level and budget trends, see the section, " Trends in OCO Funding and Troop Levels ," earlier in this report ) As previously discussed, DOD acknowledges "OCO funding has not declined at the same rate as the in-country troop strength … due to the fixed, and often inelastic, costs of infrastructure, support requirements, and in-theater presence to support contingency operations " The departments lists the following as OCO cost drivers: In-theater support, including infrastructure costs like command, control, communications, computers, and intelligence (C4I) and base operations for U S  Central Command (CENTCOM) locations; Persistent demand for combat support such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) assets used to enhance force protection; Equipment reset, which lags troop level changes and procurement of contingency-focused assets like munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles and force protection capabilities that may not be linked directly to in-country operations; and International programs and deterrence activities, which are linked to U S  engagement in contingency operations and support U S  interests but are not directly proportional to U S  troop presence  DOD also breaks down the FY2019 OCO budget request by functional category (see Table 3 )  By this measure, the largest portion of OCO funding was $20 billion for in-theater support, followed by operations and force protection (including the incremental cost of military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and other countries), at $14 7 billion; and unspecified classified programs, at $9 9 billion  According to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), approximately $47 billion (68%) of the FY2019 OCO budget request consists of enduring activities—that is, "those that would probably continue in the absence of overseas conflicts"—that could be funded in the DOD base budget  CBO associates enduring activities with the following DOD functional categories: in-theater support, classified programs, equipment reset and readiness, European Deterrence Initiative, security cooperation, and joint improvised-threat defeat  Executive Branch budget documents for FY2019 show differing projections for how much OCO would be apportioned over the Future Years Defense Program (also known as the FYDP, pronounced "fiddip," the five-year period from FY2019 through FY2023)  For example, Table 1-11 in DOD's National Defense Budget Estimates for FY2019, citing OMB data, projects five-year OCO funding at $359 billion  However, Table 1-9 of the same document puts the figure at $149 billion after assuming a higher amount of OCO funding shifting into the base budget  According to OMB, the President's initial FY2019 budget request projected increasing caps on defense discretionary base budget authority by $84 billion (15%) to $660 billion in FY2020 and by $87 billion (15%) to $677 billion in FY2021  It also projected defense funding for Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) totaling $73 billion in FY2020 and $66 billion in FY2021  Thus, projected defense discretionary funding would total $733 billion in FY2020 and $743 billion in FY2021  FY2019 DOD budget documents show the same defense discretionary topline for FY2020 and FY2021  But they list an "Outyears Placeholder for OCO" of $20 billion in fiscal years FY2020-FY2023, and an "OCO to Base" amount of $53 billion in FY2020 and $45 8 billion in each year from FY2021-FY2023  The documents do not break down what accounts or activities are included in these amounts  The emergence of any new contingencies or conflicts would likely change DOD assumptions about OCO needs  Congress has appropriated a total of $68 8 billion for DOD OCO funding in FY2019, including the following amounts: $67 9 billion in defense funds provided in the Department of Defense and Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act, 2019 and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-245 ), which Congress passed on September 26, 2018; and $921 million in defense funds provided in the Energy and Water, Legislative Branch, and Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act, 2019 ( P L  115-244 ), which Congress passed on September, 21, 2018  For the Department of State and USAID, as well as the Department of Homeland Security and U S  Coast Guard, FY2019 OCO levels have not yet been determined  They remain at prorated FY2018 levels because of continuing resolutions (CR) to fund certain agencies through December 21, 2018  The FY2019 House and Senate SFOPS bills ( H R  6385 and S  3108 , 115 th Congress) would have appropriated approximately $8 billion in OCO-designated funding for various priorities  The House committee-reported version of the Homeland Security appropriations bill ( H R  6776 , 115 th Congress) would not have appropriated any OCO/GWOT funding for the Coast Guard, while the Senate committee-reported version of the bill ( S  3109 , 115 th Congress) would have appropriated $165 million for OCO/GWOT funding for the Coast Guard  Any decision by the 116 th Congress to change discretionary defense and nondefense spending limits that remain in effect for FY2020 and FY2021 under the Budget Control Act (BCA; P L  112-25 ) could impact future OCO funding levels  Lawmakers may consider the following questions: Will Congress keep the BCA as is and rely on OCO funding that is not subject to the caps to meet agency requirements? Will Congress repeal the BCA and use less OCO funding? Will Congress amend the BCA limits for future years and continue to use OCO funding, as it has in the past? Will Congress significantly reduce DOD and international affairs funding to stay within the BCA caps and not use OCO funding? In a November 2018 report, the National Defense Strategy Commission, a bipartisan panel created by Congress, issued recommendations related to OCO and the BCA  Recommendation No  24 states, "Congress should eliminate the final two years of caps under the BCA " Recommendation 29 states, "To better prepare for major-power competition, Congress should gradually integrate OCO spending back into the base Pentagon budget  This also requires a dollar-for-dollar increase in the BCA spending caps, should they remain in force, so that this transfer does not result in an overall spending cut " Both House and Senate FY2019 committee-reported appropriations bills from the 115 th Congress included about $8 billion in OCO funding for State/USAID  It remains to be seen if the 116 th Congress will pass this OCO level as requested or extend the continuing resolution  Congress could enact legislation to authorize and appropriate a level of base and OCO spending to meet current or revised discretionary defense spending caps in any number of ways  In FY2019 budget documents from OMB and DOD, the Trump Administration projected increasing defense spending in FY2020 and FY2021 beyond the statutory limits of the Budget Control Act of 2011 ( P L  112-25 ), but by differing amounts based on differing OCO projections  These figures serve as possible scenarios or options for Congress to consider  According to OMB budget documents, the President's initial FY2019 budget request projected $733 billion in defense discretionary spending in FY2020, including a base budget of $660 billion (which assumes an $84 billion, or 15%, increase in the BCA defense cap—or repeal of the legislation altogether) and an OCO defense budget of $73 billion (see Figure 11 )  According to DOD budget documents, the President's revised FY2019 budget request projected $733 billion in defense discretionary spending in FY2020, including a base budget of $713 billion (which assumes a $137 billion, or 24%, increase in the BCA defense cap—what would be the largest increase to the BCA defense caps yet—or repeal of the legislation altogether) and an OCO budget of $20 billion  Alternatively, assuming no change in the cap and congressional support for the Administration's projected $733 billion topline in FY2020, Congress could keep the BCA defense cap unchanged at $576 billion and designate an additional $157 billion for OCO  According to OMB budget documents, the President's initial FY2019 budget request projected $743 billion in defense discretionary spending in FY2021, including a base budget of $677 billion (which assumes an $87 billion, or 15%, increase in the BCA defense cap—or repeal of the legislation altogether) and an OCO budget of $66 billion (see Figure 11 )  According to DOD budget documents, the President's revised FY2019 budget request projected $743 billion in defense discretionary spending in FY2021, including a base budget of $723 billion (which assumes a $133 billion, or 23%, increase in the BCA defense cap—or repeal of the legislation altogether) and an OCO budget of $20 billion  Alternatively, assuming no change in the cap and congressional support for the Administration's projected $743 billion topline in FY2020, Congress could keep the BCA defense cap unchanged at $590 billion and designate an additional $153 billion for OCO  As previously discussed, these figures would change with different toplines for the national defense budget function (050)  Former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis and the National Defense Strategy Commission have recommended that Congress increase the defense budget between 3% and 5% a year above inflation ("real growth") to meet U S  strategic goals  President Donald Trump has said the discretionary defense spending request would total $700 billion in FY2020, a decrease of 2% in nominal terms from FY2019  Trump said, "We know what the budget—the new budget is for the Defense Department  It will probably be $700 billion " However, some media outlets have since reported that the President intends to request a discretionary defense budget of $750 billion in FY2020  Senator James Inhofe, chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, and Representative Mac Thornberry, ranking member of the House Armed Services Committees in the 116 th Congress, have argued, "Any cut in the defense budget would be a senseless step backward " Thornberry has also said transferring recurring OCO costs into the regular budget "makes sense … it makes for more predictable budgeting, but it's all about what happens on the topline " Representative Adam Smith, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee in the 116 th Congress, has said of the defense budget: "I think the number is too high, and it's certainly not going to be there in the future … We've got a debt, we've got a deficit, we've got infrastructure problems, we've got healthcare, education—there's a whole lot that is necessary to make our country safe, secure, and prosperous " Acting Defense Secretary Patrick Shanahan has talked about a flat topline for national defense: "When you look at the $700 billion, it's not just for one year drop down, [or] a phase, it's a drop and then held constant" over the FYDP  Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)/Chief Financial Officer David Norquist, who is also performing the duties of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, at one time was reportedly preparing two budgets for FY2020—one assuming $733 billion for national defense and another assuming $700 billion  An analyst has noted "returning enduring OCO costs to the base budget, particularly a vast majority of those enduring costs over a short period as DOD has outlined, could significantly complicate an agreement between congressional Democrats and Republicans to increase both the defense and nondefense BCA budget caps for FY2020 and FY2021 " As analyst noted, "OCO has become an even less-defined pot of money … Congress needs to properly question the DOD budget planners on the future of OCO " In a January 2017 report, GAO concluded, "Without a reliable estimate of DOD's enduring OCO costs, decision makers will not have a complete picture of the department's future funding needs or be able to make informed choices and trade-offs in budget formulation and decision making " The department states it has not fully estimated those costs in part because of the BCA  In a response to GAO, DOD wrote, "Developing reliable estimates of enduring OCO costs is an important first step to any future effort to transition enduring OCO costs to the base budget  In the context of such an effort, the Department would consider developing and reporting formal estimates of those costs  However, until there is sufficient relief from the budgetary caps established in the Budget Control Act of 2011, the Department will need OCO to finance counterterrorism operations, in particular [OFS] and [OIR] " In an October 2018 report, the Congressional Budget Office estimated OCO funding for DOD enduring activities—that is, those that would probably continue in the absence of overseas conflicts—totaled more than $50 billion a year (in 2019 dollars) from 2006 to 2018—and are projected to total about $47 billion a year starting in FY2020  This figure appears to be consistent with projections published by DOD  According to the department's FY2019 budget documents, DOD projected $53 billion for "OCO to Base" in FY2020 and $45 8 billion for "OCO to Base" for FY2021 through FY2023  Some analysts have concluded: Uncertainty created by current reliance on OCO, particularly to fund base budget needs, could be detrimental to national security on three levels: (a) by undermining budget controls and contributing thereby to larger deficits, (b) by generating insecurity in the defense workforce and in defense suppliers, and (c) by creating long-term uncertainty in defense planning  The alternative, transitioning longer-term OCO expenses to the base budget, could be achieved through a combination of increased budget caps, targeted cuts in inefficient Defense programs, and increased revenues  For example, a potential enduring activity in the OCO budget is the European Deterrence Initiative (EDI)  It was previously known as the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), an effort that began in June 2014 to increase the number of U S  military personnel and prepositioned equipment in Central and Eastern Europe intended in part to reassure NATO allies after Russia's military seized Crimea  As some analysts have noted, "Because it is in the OCO part of the budget request, EDI funding does not include a projection for how much funding will be allocated in future years, which can create uncertainty in the minds of allies and adversaries alike about the U S  military's commitment to the program " On the other hand, some contend that it is precisely EDI's flexibility that allows the commander of European Command to quickly respond to changing security and posture needs in Europe, and ensure that monies intended for European deterrence will not be redirected to other DOD priorities  In its November 2018 report, the National Defense Strategy Commission quoted the late military strategist Bernard Brodie, who wrote "strategy wears a dollar sign " The panel concluded that relying on OCO funding to increase the defense budget "is not the way to provide adequate and stable resources" for the type of great power competition outlined in the Secretary of Defense's 2018 National Defense Strategy (NDS), which calls for the United States to bolster its competitive military advantage relative to threats posed by China and Russia: Because of budgetary constraints imposed by the BCA, lawmakers and the Department of Defense have increasingly relied upon the overseas contingency operations (OCO) fund to pay for warfighting operations in the greater Middle East, as well as other activities and initiatives  Yet this approach to resourcing has produced problems and distortions of its own  For one thing, the amount of money devoted to OCO since the BCA was enacted no longer corresponds to warfighting operations in the greater Middle East  Furthermore, such operations are no longer a top priority as articulated in the NDS  Finally, reorienting the military toward high-end competition and conflict will require new capabilities beyond the current program of record  OCO is not the way to provide adequate and stable resources for such a long-term endeavor, given its lack of predictability and the limitations on what OCO funds can be used to buy " Appendix A  Statutes, Guidance, and Regulations The designation of funding as emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) is governed by several statues as well as Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance and the Department of Defense (DOD) Financial Management Regulation (FMR)  The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (BBEDCA) of 1985 BBEDCA, as amended, includes the statutory definitions of emergency and unanticipated as they relate to budget enforcement through sequestration  The act also allows for appropriations to be designated by Congress and the President as emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism   Such appropriations are effectively exempt from the statutory discretionary spending limits  Title 10, United States Code—Armed Forces 10 U S C  101—Definitions Section 101 provides definitions of terms applicable to Title 10  While it does not define overseas contingency operations, it does include a definition of a contingency operations   Administration and Internal Guidance In addition to statutory requirements, the DOD and the Department of State are subject to guidance on OCO spending from the Administration  In October 2006 , under the Bush Administration, then-Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England directed the services to break with long-standing DOD regulatory policies and expand their request for supplemental funding to reflect incremental costs related to the "longer war on terror " There was no specific definition for the "longer war on terror," now one of the core missions of the DOD  In February 2009, at the beginning of the Obama Administration, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued updated budget guidance that required DOD to move some OCO costs back into the base budget  However, within six months of issuing the new criteria, officials waived restrictions related to pay and that would have prohibited end-strength growth  In a letter from OMB to the then-Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) Robert Hale, the agency characterized its 2009 criteria as "very successful" for delineating base and OCO spending but stated, "This update clarifies language, eliminates areas of confusion and provides guidance for areas previously unanticipated " GAO subsequently reported that the revised guidance significantly changed the criteria used to build the fiscal year 2010 OCO funding request by: specifying stricter definitions for repair and procurement of equipment; limiting applicability of OCO funds for RDT&E; excluding pay and allowances for end-strength above the level requested in the budget; excluding enduring family support initiatives; and excluding base realignment and closures (BRAC) amounts  OMB again revised its guidance in September 2010 following a number of GAO reports that had concluded DOD reporting on OCO costs was of "questionable reliability," due in part to imprecisely defined financial management regulations related to OCO spending  (as of September 9, 2010) Source: Letter from Steven M  Kosiak, Associate Director for Defense and Foreign Affairs, OMB, to Robert Hale, Under Secretary of Defense, Comptroller, "Revised War Funding Criteria," September 9, 2010  DOD Financial Management Regulations DOD incorporated the September 2010 OMB criteria for war costs into the Financial Management Regulation  Table 1 includes the general cost categories DOD uses in accounting for costs of contingency operations  Appendix B  Transfer Authorities, Special Purpose Accounts In addition to the supplemental appropriations and emergency or OCO/GWOT designation, the Department of Defense and the Department of State also have the authority to shift funds from one budget account to another in response to operational needs  For DOD, these transfers (sometimes called reprogramings ) are statutorily authorized by 10 U S C  2214—Transfer of funds: procedures and limitations  This authority allows the Secretary of Defense to reallocate funds for higher priority items, based on unforeseen military requirements, after receiving written approval from the four congressional defense committees  DOD may also reprogram funds within an account from one activity to another, as long as the general purpose for the use of those funds remains unchanged  Specific limits to transfer or reprogramming authorities have also been added to these general authorities through provisions in annual defense authorization and appropriation acts  The FY2019 defense appropriations bill sets the base budget transfer cap at $4 billion and the OCO transfer cap at $2 billion  The Department of State's OCO transfer authority has been provided in appropriations acts and has specifically authorized the Administration to transfer OCO funds only to other OCO funds within Title VIII SFOPS appropriations, not between OCO and base accounts  The transfer authority is capped, specified by account, and requires regular congressional notification procedures  Overseas Contingency Operations Transfer Fund (OCOTF) The OCOTF was established for DOD in FY1997 as a no year transfer account (meaning amounts are available until expended) in order to provide additional flexibility to meet operational requirements  Transfers from the OCOTF are processed using existing reprogramming procedures  A quarterly report is submitted to the congressional oversight committees, documenting all transfers from the OCOTF to DOD components base budget accounts  Beginning in FY2002, funds to support Southwest Asia, Kosovo, and Bosnia contingency requirements were appropriated directly to DOD components' Operation and Maintenance (O&M) and Military Personnel accounts rather than to the OCOTF for later disbursement  FY2014 was the last year the Administration requested a direct appropriation to the OCOTF  Contingency Operations Funded in the DOD Base Budget As first mandated by section 8091 of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008 ( P L  110-116 ), Congress has required DOD to provide separate annual budget justification documents detailing the costs of U S  armed forces' participation in all named contingency operations where the total cost of the operation exceeds $100 million or is staffed by more than 1,000 U S  military personnel  Funding for certain DOD contingency operations has been moved to the base budget request, and is no longer designated as emergency or OCO/GWOT requirements  This movement of funding from the OCO request to the base budget request typically occurs as the operational activities of an enduring contingency operation evolve over time and DOD determines that certain elements of the associated military operations have become stable enough to be planned, financed, and executed within the base budget  For example, funding for Operation Noble Eagle, which provides fighter aircraft on 24/7 alert at several U S  military bases, was moved from the GWOT request to the base budget request in 2005  Contingency operations and other activities funded wholly or in part through DOD's base budget have included: NATO Operations in the Balkans   The U S  Army and U S  Air Force provide support to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization-led operations in the Balkans region  Most U S  forces are deployed to Kosovo in support of the NATO-led Kosovo Force (KFOR)  A small number of U S  personnel are deployed to the NATO headquarters in Sarajevo in Bosnia and Herzegovina; Joint Task Force - Bravo   U S  forces support this task force, which operates from Soto Cano Air Base in Honduras and supports joint, combined, and interagency exercises and operations in Central America to counter the influence of transnational organized crime; carry out humanitarian assistance and disaster relief; and build military capacity with regional partners and allied nations to promote regional cooperation and security; Operation Juniper Shield  Previously known as Operation Enduring Freedom-Trans Sahara (OEF-TS), this operation supports efforts to defeat violent extremist organizations in East Africa  This operation also provides military-to-military engagement with partner African countries, as well as readiness for crisis response and evacuation of U S  military, diplomatic, and civilian personnel; Operation Noble Eagle   This operation funds the continuing efforts to defend the United States from airborne attacks, maintain the sovereignty of the United States airspace, and defend critical U S  facilities from potentially hostile threats or unconventional attacks; Operation Enduring Freedom- Horn of Africa   This operation was established to support efforts to defeat violent extremist organizations in East Africa; provide military-to-military engagement with partner African countries, as well as readiness for crisis response and evacuation of U S  military, diplomatic, and civilian personnel throughout East Africa; Operation Enduring Freedom- Caribbean and Central America   A U S  regional military operation initiated in 2008, under the operational control of Special Operations Command-South, this operation was established to focus on counterterrorism to support DOD's overall military objectives and the larger fight against terrorism  Operation Observant Compass   This operation was established to support the deployment of approximately 100 U S  military personnel assisting the Ugandan People's Defense Force and neighboring partner African countries in countering the Lord's Resistance Army operations  Operation Spartan Shield  This operation was established to support ongoing U S  Central Command missions  Other Congressionally Authorized Funds or Programs Through the OCO authorization and appropriation process, Congress has created numerous funds and programs that are designed to finance specific overseas contingency operations-related activities that do not fit into traditional budgetary accounts  Many of these funds and programs are supplied with amounts that are available until expended—however, authorization for the specified fund or program has an expiration date, thereby requiring further congressional action for reauthorization of affected funds or programs  Congress has also provided increased transfer authority to provide greater flexibility for U S  government activities in situations that are typically unpredictable  Examples of these types of congressionally authorized OCO programs or funds have included: Afghan istan Security Forces Fund (ASFF) and Counter-ISIS Train and Equip Fund (CTEF)   These funds were established to provide funding and support for the training, equipping, and expansion of selected military and security forces in support of U S  objectives; Counterterrorism Partnership s Fund   This fund was established to provide funding and support to partner nations engaged in counterterrorism and crisis response activities; Command er's Emergency Response Program  This program was established to support infrastructure improvements, such as road repair and construction and enable military commanders on the ground to respond to urgent humanitarian relief and reconstruction needs by undertaking activities that will immediately aid local populations and assist U S  forces in maintaining security gains; Joint Improvised Explosive Device (IEDs) Defeat Fund   This fund was established to coordinate and focus all counter-IED efforts, including ongoing research and development, throughout DOD  Due to the enduring nature of the threat, DOD began moving associated funding to the base budget in FY2010; Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle (MRAP) Fund   This fund was intended to expedite the procurement and deployment of MRAPs to Iraq and Afghanistan; European Deterrence Initiative (EDI)   Initially the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI), this effort was established to provide funding and support to NATO allies and partners to "reassure allies of the U S  commitment to their security and territorial integrity as members of the NATO Alliance, provide near-term flexibility and responsiveness to the evolving concerns of our allies and partners in Europe, especially Central and Eastern Europe, and help increase the capability and readiness of U S  allies and partners;" Global Security Contingency Fund   This fund was established to provide funding for the Department of State and the Department of Defense "to facilitate an interagency approach to confronting security challenges;" Complex Crise s Fund   This fund was established to provide funding through the State Department and USAID "to help prevent crises and promote recovery in post-conflict situations during unforeseen political, social, or economic challenges that threaten regional security;" Migration and Refugee Assistance Fund   This fund was established to provide funding to respond to refugee crises in Africa, the Near East, South and Central Asia, and Europe and Eurasia; and Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative   This initiative was established to provide assistance, including training, equipment, lethal weapons, of a defensive nature; logistics support; supplies and services; sustainment; and intelligence support to the military and national security forces of Ukraine  This is an update to a report originally co-authored by [author name scrubbed], former CRS Specialist in Defense Readiness and Infrastructure  It references research previously compiled by [author name scrubbed], former CRS Specialist in U S  Defense Policy and Budget; Christopher Mann, Analyst in Defense Policy and Trade; [author name scrubbed], Analyst in U S  Defense Acquisition Policy; [author name scrubbed], CRS Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process; and [author name scrubbed], CRS Analyst in Public Finance  [author name scrubbed], Research Assistant, helped compile the graphics 
Report 2:  For example, Education awarded about $130 million from 2014-2016 to states and school districts through the School Climate Transformation Grant, which was established in 2014 to support districts taking steps to improve behavioral outcomes  According to Education, nearly 3,000 schools have worked to implement these behavioral support systems through the grant, and preliminary outcomes data have shown increased student attendance and fewer disciplinary referrals  In addition, Education awarded about $68 million for fiscal years 2015-2019 to over 20 school districts under Project Prevent—a grant to promote conflict resolution skills in students, particularly when they have been exposed to pervasive violence  According to the districts’ grant summary documents, these districts have experienced nearly 10,000 fewer violent behavioral incidents and have provided access to mental health services for over 5,000 students  Justice’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice, also started the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative in 2014 and has since provided about $84 million to fund nearly 40 research projects and interventions that address school discipline and safety, such as implementing restorative practices and studying the root causes of the school-to-prison pipeline  More recently, Education collaborated with HHS to fund the Pyramid Equity Project for early learning programs, which is designed to address implicit bias in school discipline, implement culturally responsive practices in addressing student behavior, and use data systems to understand equity issues  For ongoing technical assistance related to student behavior and school discipline, Education sponsors centers on supportive learning environments, improving student engagement and attendance, and implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS)  For example, the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments provides information and resources on addressing school discipline, mental health, substance abuse, physical safety, student engagement, and other related issues  Justice funds a technical assistance center on school-justice partnerships that works to enhance collaboration among schools, mental and behavioral health specialists, and law enforcement officials  This center recently published a bulletin on the intersection of exclusionary school discipline and the juvenile justice system, which offers tips for judges who handle school-related cases and information on successful efforts to reduce the number of school-based referrals to law enforcement  For a list of other technical assistance centers related to student behavior or discipline, see appendix III  Lastly, to help identify discipline disparities among the nation’s schools, Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other year through the CRDC  The agency publicly releases highlights from these data through their “First Look” documents and in annual reports, which typically focus on a limited number of disciplinary actions (primarily suspensions) and student demographics (usually race and disability status)  Education’s public analyses of school discipline data have not included school characteristics like poverty level or type of school  Education encourages districts and schools to disaggregate their data by various student demographics and examine it for disparities  In addition, Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services recently examined racial and ethnic disparities for students with disabilities using data collected under IDEA, Part B  This IDEA report provides the public with information on whether districts had significant disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity in the discipline of students with disabilities  We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education and Justice for review and comment  These agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We also provided selected draft excerpts relevant to officials we interviewed in state agencies, school districts, and school officials  We received technical comments from those officials in four of our five selected states, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, 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, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and other interested parties  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 me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@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 V  The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) the challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) the actions the Department of Education (Education) and the Department of Justice (Justice) have taken to identify and address any disparities or discrimination in school discipline  To conduct this work we (1) analyzed federal discipline data by student demographics and school characteristics; (2) visited five school districts to provide illustrative examples of approaches to school discipline; and (3) interviewed federal agency officials and reviewed agency documentation, federal laws, regulations and policies, selected state laws, and a selection of resolved school discipline cases  To inform all aspects of our work, we interviewed representatives from several nonfederal civil rights organizations and advocacy organizations that represent parents and families, individuals with disabilities, and people from specific racial or ethnic backgrounds, such as Hispanic, African-American, and American Indian communities  We also met with academic subject matter experts to discuss issues related to school discipline, including disparities in school discipline and initiatives intended to reduce exclusionary discipline  In addition, we reviewed two dozen articles containing research that had been published since 2010 to further understand the context of school discipline issues and programs  We evaluated the methods used in the research and eliminated the research if we felt the methods were not appropriate or rigorous  The following sections contain detailed information about the scope and methodology for this report  To determine the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, we used Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to analyze discipline data from all public schools by student demographics (e g , race, sex, disability) and school characteristics (e g , school type, such as charter or magnet school)  Our analyses of this data, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  The CRDC is a biennial survey that is mandatory for every public school and district in the United States  Conducted by Education’s Office for Civil Rights, the survey collects data on the nation’s public schools (pre-K through 12th grade), including disciplinary actions as well as student characteristics and enrollment, educational and course offerings, and school environment, such as incidents of bullying  CRDC data are self-reported by districts and schools, and consequently there is potential for misreporting of information  In school years 2011-12 and 2013-14, the CRDC collected data from nearly every public school in the nation (approximately 17,000 school districts, 96,000 schools, and 50 million students in school year 2013-14)  Using the public-use data file of the CRDC, we focused our analysis primarily on data for school year 2013- 14, the most recent data available at the time of our analysis  We also compared disciplinary data from school years 2011-12 and 2013-14 to analyze how discipline may have changed over that period  The 2013-14 CRDC collected data on six broad types of disciplinary actions: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school-related arrests  The CRDC did not collect data on less severe forms of discipline, such as detentions, Saturday school, or removing privileges to engage in extracurricular activities, such as athletic teams or field trips  As shown in table 4, we combined related variables for out-of- school suspension and expulsion; we also provide a crosswalk of discipline variables used in this report and those captured in the CRDC  For each of the six disciplinary actions in our review, we examined discipline counts and rates both overall and disaggregated by student demographic characteristics  Specifically, we examined counts and rates for each disciplinary action by student sex (boy or girl), race or ethnicity (see table 5), disability status (students with or without disabilities), and English Language Learners  Using the CRDC, we also examined race and sex intersectionally, for example, disciplinary rates for Black boys or White girls  In order to analyze discipline counts and rates by the poverty level of the school, we pulled in data on free or reduced-price lunch eligibility from the 2013-14 Common Core of Data (CCD), and matched it to schools in the 2013-14 CRDC, which did not collect eligibility data  The CCD is administered by Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, and annually collects nonfiscal data about all public schools in the nation  A student is generally eligible for free or reduced-price lunch based on federal income eligibility guidelines that are tied to the federal poverty level and the size of the family  State education agencies supply these data for their schools and school districts  We then sorted schools into quartiles based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch as follows: 0 to 25 percent, 25 1 to 49 9 percent, 50 to 74 9 percent, and 75 to 100 percent (see table 6)  The poverty thresholds and measure of poverty discussed here and throughout this report were commonly used in the literature and also aligned with how Education analyzed its data  To analyze discipline counts and rates by the type of public school a student attended, we sorted schools into mutually exclusive categories and reviewed disciplinary data by student demographic information  The 2013-14 CRDC allowed schools to self-identify as special education, magnet, charter, and alternative schools (see table 7)  The categories of public schools in the CRDC were not mutually exclusive; that is, schools could select multiple school types to describe their school, such as a charter school that was also an alternative school  To create mutually exclusive categories for analytical purposes, we applied the following criteria: Alternative school: all schools that selected “alternative” as the school type in the CRDC, even if they selected other types as well  Special education school: schools that selected “special education” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type  Charter school: schools that selected “charter” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type and/or the special education school type  Magnet school: schools that selected “magnet” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type, the special education school type, and/or the charter school type  Traditional school: schools that did not select any other school type in the CRDC  Table 8 provides the breakdown of students and schools captured in the 2013-14 CRDC after applying these criteria  For each of our school discipline analyses, we also examined disparities in disciplinary rates by student demographics  Specifically, we compared each student groups’ representation among students disciplined to their representation in the overall student population  For example, if boys accounted for 50 percent of all K-12 public school students, but represented 75 percent of students that received a given disciplinary action, then boys would be overrepresented among students that received that type of discipline by 25 percentage points  We also compared disciplinary rates across student groups and similarly examined disparities based on school poverty level and school type for all students  We also analyzed CRDC data on discipline of pre-school students  The disciplinary data for pre-school students that was collected in the CRDC for school year 2013-14 was different than disciplinary data collected for K-12 students  Specifically, data on pre-school discipline was limited to out-of-school suspensions and expulsions  Findings from our analysis of pre-school discipline data are included where applicable in the report and additional data are provided in appendix IV, table 17  In addition to analyzing data on school discipline, we also analyzed data on chronic absenteeism, which was defined as students who were absent 15 or more days during the school year for any reason, which could include for suspensions and expulsions  The CRDC also collected data on instances in which students were restrained—both physically and mechanically—or secluded at school  Education has provided a resource document with principles to school districts that indicates restraint and seclusion should only be used in instances where a student’s “behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others,” and should never be used as punishment or discipline  However, multiple sources, including civil rights complaints filed with Education, news stories, and other reports have alleged that these practices have been used in response to student misbehavior, in particular for students with disabilities  We included data on chronic absenteeism and restraint and seclusion in our analyses, and present related findings in appendix IV, tables 18 and 19  We determined that the data we used from the CRDC and CCD were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by reviewing technical documentation, conducting electronic testing, and interviewing officials from Education’s Office for Civil Rights and National Center for Education Statistics  For our analysis of the 2013-14 CRDC, we used the final data file that was publicly available as of June 2017 because it corrected errors in the original data previously submitted by several school districts  We conducted a generalized linear regression using the 2013-14 CRDC and CCD data to explore whether and to what extent certain school-level characteristics were associated with higher rates of each disciplinary action  Such a model allowed us to test the association between a given school characteristic and the percentage of students receiving a given disciplinary action, while holding other school characteristics constant  We selected different school characteristics (our independent variables) for the regression based on factors that Education’s Office for Civil Rights and other researchers have identified as potential drivers of school discipline rates (our dependent, or outcome variables)  Table 9 lists the variables we included in our regression model  We conducted a separate regression for each of the six disciplinary actions listed as an outcome variable  We excluded some schools from our regression model  Specifically, we excluded schools that met one or more of the following criteria: Data were not available in both the CRDC and CCD data sets, and therefore we were unable to determine the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in these schools or whether these schools were located in rural, suburban, or urban areas  School was listed as “ungraded” in the CRDC because we could not determine if these schools offered grade 6 or above  School only offered pre-school because pre-school disciplinary data were reported separately and differently than K-12 disciplinary data in the CRDC  School identified as a juvenile justice facility in the CRDC  In the 2013-14 CRDC, schools could identify as a juvenile justice facility, and select one of the other school types in our analysis (i e , traditional, magnet, charter, alternative, and special education schools)  Due to this overlap, and because it is reasonable to expect discipline within a juvenile justice facility could function differently than discipline in other schools, we excluded these schools from our regression model  School had less than 10 students enrolled because in smaller schools minor fluctuations in the numbers of students receiving a given disciplinary action could have a large effect on disciplinary rates  In the 2013-14 data, these exclusions reduced the total number of public schools in our regression model from a universe of 95,507 public schools to 86,769 public schools  All regression models are subject to limitations and for this model the limitations included: Data we analyzed were by school rather than student  Consequently, we were not able to describe the association between our independent variables and a student’s rate of different disciplinary actions, while controlling for characteristics of an individual student, such as sex, race or ethnicity, disability status, or grade level  Instead, the school-level nature of the CRDC data limited our description of the associations between school characteristics and disciplinary rates to whether there was an increase, decrease, or no effect on disciplinary rates for schools with a given characteristic, controlling for other characteristics of the entire school’s population, such as percent of students who are boys or are Black  Some variables that may be related to student behavior and discipline are not available in the data  For example, in this context, it could be that parent education or household type (single- versus multiple- headed household) could be related to student behaviors, such as those that lead to receiving the six disciplinary actions we analyzed  Results of our analyses are associational and do not imply a causal relationship because, for example, CRDC data were not gathered by a randomized controlled trial, where students would be randomized to attend schools with certain characteristics  Typically, a generalized linear regression model provides an estimated incidence rate ratio, where a value greater than one indicates a higher or positive association, in this case, between the disciplinary outcome and the independent variable of interest, such as being a charter school or having a higher percentage of Black students  An estimated incidence rate ratio less than one indicates a lower incidence of a given disciplinary action when a factor is present  Given the limitations of our model as described above, we present the results of our regression model in table 10 by describing the direction of the associations, rather than an estimated rate (incidence) of disciplinary outcomes  For categorical variables in table 10, we provided the comparison school characteristic in brackets and italics  For example, the results in this table should be interpreted as students attending alternative schools were significantly more likely than students attending traditional schools to be suspended out of school  For continuous variables (i e , those starting with “Percent”), the results in this table should be interpreted as the likelihood of receiving a given disciplinary action as the percentage of students in the school with a given characteristic increased  For example, as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch increased, we found that the likelihood of receiving each of the six disciplinary actions also increased  It should be noted that interactions (i e , where we combine both race and sex variables) should be interpreted differently than other variables in table 10  Though an interaction may be “negative,” it does not necessarily imply that the group presented in the interaction was significantly less likely to receive the given disciplinary action because interactions are interpreted relative to the main effect of each variable in the interaction  For example, as shown in table 10, the interaction for percentage of Black boys was negative for out-of-school suspensions; however, the estimated incidence of out-of-school suspensions for a school with a higher than average percentage of Black students and a higher than average percentage of boys was positive  Since the contribution for an interaction coefficient is relative, in this example the contribution of the main effects outweighed that of the interaction, resulting in a positive effect altogether, despite the negative interaction  To obtain information on how selected school districts are addressing discipline issues, including any challenges they face in doing so, we selected five school districts to serve as illustrative examples  To select school districts, we used CRDC data to sort school districts into categories based on district size; the presence of disparities in out-of- school suspension rates for boys, Black students, or students with disabilities; and whether the out-of-school suspension rate was increasing or decreasing between the two most recent CRDC collections  With regard to size, we collapsed several categories that Education has previously used into three groupings, each with roughly one-third of all students attending public schools in school year 2013-14: Large School District: 25,000 or more students (34 7% of all students in 2013-14) Medium School District: 5,000 to 24,999 students (33 2% of all students in 2013-14) Small School District: Less than 5,000 students (32 1% of all students in 2013-14) Further, we focused on out-of-school suspensions for selection purposes because this disciplinary action was one of the most frequently reported disciplinary actions employed by schools in Education’s two most recent data collection efforts on the issue (2011-12 and 2013-14 CRDC)  Moreover, out-of-school suspensions are an exclusionary disciplinary action; that is, they remove or exclude students from the usual instructional or learning environment  Selecting districts with a range of out-of-school suspension rate was intended to generate a mix of districts that commonly use exclusionary discipline, as well as those that may employ alternatives  For site selection, we used out-of-school suspension data in two ways  First, we excluded districts that did not have a disparity in out-of-school suspension rates for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities  Prior GAO work and Education’s data showed that these groups were particularly vulnerable to discipline disparities, and the purpose of this research objective was to understand district efforts to identify and address such disparities  Second, we grouped school districts by whether their out-of-school suspension rate increased or decreased between 2011-12 and 2013-14  Exploring school districts that changed in different ways over time was intended to help us identify successful efforts to reduce suspensions as well as challenges districts face in addressing disparate discipline  Using the above criteria, we grouped school districts into the following categories: Category 1 and 2: Large school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14 Category 3 and 4: Medium school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013- 14 Category 5 and 6: Small school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14  After sorting school districts into the above categories, we randomized the list within each category to improve the methodological rigor of selecting school districts  In addition, we applied a series of post-checks to our list of districts in each grouping to ensure we had appropriate variety to consider other key factors in school discipline  Specifically, we checked for variety in: types of public schools in the district, geographic diversity both in terms of region of the country and use of corporal punishment in the district, and use of restraint or seclusion in the district  To select specific districts, we started with the district in each category that was at the top of the randomized list and then applied the above post-checks  We then conducted outreach to district superintendents or their designees via telephone and email to obtain their agreement to participate in this review  When school districts were unresponsive to our outreach or unwilling to participate, we contacted additional districts that had similar characteristics in order to achieve variety in our final selections  This resulted in the selection of five schools districts, one each in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas (see table 11)  We visited each district and interviewed district-level officials involved in school discipline and school climate initiatives  These officials included superintendents, assistant superintendents, program managers, and directors of applicable district departments (e g , student support services and special education)  We also reviewed district-level discipline data, school district discipline policies, and relevant state laws related to school discipline to better understand the local context in each selected district  In the five districts we visited, we also interviewed officials at a total of 19 schools  At each school, we typically met with principals and/or assistant principals, and in some instances, spoke with other personnel at the school, such as counselors, attendance coordinators, school resource officers (i e , law enforcement officers), and teachers  In each district, we selected a variety of schools to visit based on grade level, school type, and disciplinary data  For each selected district, we also interviewed officials from the state educational agency that oversees that district to better understand the statewide context around discipline, such as state laws that may affect district disciplinary policies, statewide initiatives related to discipline, and state-level monitoring of district-level disciplinary actions  In California, we also met with the county office of education that oversees the district we selected because, in that state, counties have a primary role in the local school district accountability structure  Because we selected these school districts judgmentally, we cannot generalize the findings about these districts’ approaches to discipline, and the challenges they face, to all school districts and schools nationwide  To determine the extent to which, and in what ways, Education and Justice are identifying and addressing discipline disparities and discrimination, we interviewed agency officials at headquarters and regional offices, reviewed agency documentation and administrative data, reviewed federal laws and regulations, and reviewed a non-generalizable sample of seven recently resolved school discipline investigations undertaken by Education and Justice (which we refer to as cases)  With both agencies, we interviewed officials about each agency’s responsibilities with respect to federal civil rights laws and regulations, as well as the actions the agencies took to enforce them  We also discussed each agency’s guidance, support to school districts on these issues (e g , grants and technical assistance), and data collection activities  In addition, we collected and reviewed relevant agency procedures and guidance documents  We also requested and reviewed Education’s data on the number of civil rights complaints received and cases related to school discipline investigated from 2011 to August 2017 to better understand the scope of the agency’s efforts  Education provided these data from their internal database, where investigators categorized cases as being related to school discipline  We assessed the reliability of this source through discussion with knowledgeable officials and reviewing key documents and determined the data to be reliable for our purposes  To select resolved school discipline cases to review, we searched Education’s and Justice’s respective online repositories of resolved investigations and compliance reviews, as well as Education’s annual reports, to create a list of resolved cases related to school discipline  We then narrowed the list to cases resolved in approximately the past 3 years (from 2014 to May 2017) and excluded long-standing cases that were opened several decades ago to help ensure the information in the cases reflected recent policies and practices in each agency  We also excluded cases regarding institutions of higher education because they were outside the scope of this review  This resulted in a list of 12 relevant resolved cases—9 for Education and 3 for Justice  From this list, we selected 7 cases to review in depth to better understand Education’s and Justice’s investigatory processes and resolutions with regard to school discipline cases in pre-K through 12th grade, and to provide illustrative examples in our report  We selected 4 cases from Education that provided a mix of the type of alleged discrimination (e g , race or disability) and type of discipline (e g , suspension, expulsion, arrest, etc )  We selected all 3 relevant cases from Justice  For each case, we reviewed the type of investigation (complaint investigation or compliance review); the reason for the investigation; any applicable findings or recommendations; and the ultimate resolution of the investigation, such as a voluntary agreement with the school district or remedies to address findings  In all instances, we are presenting Education’s and Justice’s findings and do not reach any independent conclusions regarding the cases  We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to March 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  This appendix contains maps showing rates of disciplinary actions by school district for each of the six disciplinary actions captured in the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection for school year 2013-14  Funded by Department of Education (Education): National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments: offers information and technical assistance focused on improving student supports and academic enrichment  This includes resources on using positive approaches to discipline, as well as promoting mental health for students and ensuring the safety and effectiveness of physical learning environments  https://safesupportivelearning ed gov/  National Student Attendance, Engagement, and Success Center: a center that disseminates evidence-based practices and facilitates communities of practice to help students attend school every day, be engaged in school, and succeed academically, so that they graduate high school prepared for college, career, and civic life  It offers webinars on identifying the root causes of chronic absence, linking school climate and exclusionary discipline to absenteeism, and improving attendance for vulnerable students  http://new every1graduates org/nsaesc/ National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth: provides technical assistance to state agencies with Title I, Part D programs and works to improve education services for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk  This includes running the Supportive School Discipline Communities of Practice, which brings together education and justice leaders for knowledge-sharing events and offers webinars on discipline initiatives such as restorative practices  https://www neglected-delinquent org/ Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Technical Assistance Center: funded by Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, this center supports implementation of a multi- tiered approach to social, emotional and behavior support  In addition, it offers resources on cultural responsiveness, addressing discipline disproportionality, and interconnecting mental health with behavior support systems, among other issues  https://www pbis org/  Funded by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Center of Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation: supports states, tribes, and communities in promoting mental health and school readiness  It provides training to leaders in early childhood education around mental health and school readiness issues  https://www samhsa gov/iecmhc Center for School Mental Health: works to strengthen policies and programs in school mental health to improve learning and promote success for youth  This center is supported in full by HHS’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Division of Child, Adolescent and Family Health Adolescent Health Branch in the Health Resources and Service Administration  http://csmh umaryland edu/ National Center for Trauma-Informed Care and Alternatives to Seclusion and Restraint: works to develop approaches to eliminate the use of seclusion, restraints, and other coercive practices and to further advance the knowledge base related to implementation of trauma-informed approaches  https://www samhsa gov/nctic National Child Traumatic Stress Network: works to improve access to care, treatment, and services for children and adolescents exposed to traumatic events  The group provides a comprehensive focus on childhood trauma by collaborating with the health, mental health, education, law enforcement, child welfare, juvenile justice, and military family service systems  http://nctsn org/ National Resource Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention: offers resources and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, and local communities to promote overall child wellness and prevent youth violence  http://www healthysafechildren org/ Now Is the Time Technical Assistance Center: provides national training and technical assistance to recipients of the Healthy Transitions (youth access to mental health) and Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience Education (AWARE) grants  https://www samhsa gov/nitt-ta/about-us Funded by Department of Justice (Justice): School-Justice Partnership National Resource Center: provides trainings and webinars, and partners with stakeholders in the law enforcement, juvenile justice, mental health, and public education arenas  The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges operates this center  https://schooljusticepartnership org/ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data used throughout this report, as well as additional analyses we conducted using the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and Common Core of Data (CCD) for school year 2013-14  Our analyses of Education’s data, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  The following tables and information are included in this appendix: Table 12: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and English Language Learner status  Table 13: students with or without disabilities who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity  Table 14: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the poverty level of the school and other student characteristics  Table 15: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the type of public school and other student characteristics  Table 16: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the grades offered in the school and other student characteristics  Table 17: pre-school students who were suspended from school, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 18: students who were restrained—mechanically or physically—or secluded, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 19: students who were chronically absent, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 20: schools that reported having access to a school counselor or sworn law enforcement officer, disaggregated by the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 21: students disciplined for harassment or bullying, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status  In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant Director), Amy Moran Lowe (Analyst-in-Charge), James Bennett, Holly Dye, Aaron Karty, Jean McSween, John Mingus, James Rebbe, Sonya Vartivarian, and David Watsula made key contributions to this report  Also contributing were Johana Ayers, Deborah Bland, Irina Carnevale, Caitlin Croake, Vijay D’Souza, Gretta Goodwin, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, Reginald Jones, DuEwa Kamara, John Karikari, Ted Leslie, Sheila R  McCoy, Brittni Milam, Cady Panetta, Moon Parks, Caroline Prado, Steven Putansu, Maria Santos, Margie K  Shields, Ruth Solomon, Alexandra Squitieri, and Barbara Steel-Lowney 

ground_truth: According to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the federal workforce consists of an estimated two million civilian employees. Federal law categorizes these employees into three types of service—the competitive service, the excepted service, and the Senior Executive Service (SES)—that may be distinguished by different selection, compensation, and other standards. Title 5 of the U.S. Code (Title 5) contains most of the standards governing federal employment, and OPM is generally responsible for implementing these requirements. The competitive service largely consists of all civil service positions in the executive branch, other than (1) positions excepted from the competitive service by statute; (2) positions appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate; and (3) the SES. Traditionally, OPM has administered examinations for entrance into the competitive service. These examinations are meant to be "practical in character" and relate to "matters that fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the applicants for the appointment sought." Title 5 also authorizes OPM to prescribe rules allowing agencies to hire candidates directly under specified circumstances. The excepted service includes designated civil service positions that are not in the competitive service or the SES and are not subject to competitive examination. OPM maintains authority to exempt a position from the competitive service when it determines that an appointment through competitive examination is not practicable, or the recruitment of students or recent graduates would be better achieved through alternate recruitment and assessment processes. The pay structure for the competitive service and the excepted service is similar. Both services are typically paid in accordance with the General Schedule, a schedule of annual basic pay rates that consists of 15 grades, designated "GS-1" through "GS-15." This fixed pay scale is generally designed to reflect, among other things, equal pay for substantially equal work within a local pay area. Additionally, the competitive service and the excepted service generally have similar notice and appeal rights for adverse personnel actions. For example, before a removal, a suspension for more than 14 days, a reduction in grade or pay, or a furlough of 30 days or less, the agency must provide at least 30 days' advance written notice to the affected employee. The employee must also be given a reasonable time to respond to the notice and provide affidavits and other evidence to support the answer. Some adverse actions may also be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board), an independent, quasi-judicial agency that reviews and adjudicates specified personnel actions taken against qualifying federal employees. The SES is a corps of some 7,000 high-level government administrators who manage major programs and projects within most federal agencies. In these leadership roles, SES members may serve as a link between top-level political appointees of an agency and career civil servants within the agency. The SES is governed by a regulatory structure separate from the competitive and excepted services. While SES members are primarily career appointees chosen through a merit-based competitive hiring process, others are noncareer, limited term or limited emergency appointees (commonly political appointees) selected by agency leadership. To shield certain SES roles from political influence, some SES positions (career reserved positions) must be filled with career appointees, and Title 5 limits the number of noncareer and limited term appointees that may serve in SES positions. The SES pay structure is distinct from the rest of the civil service. Title 5 specifies that SES members are paid within a particular range based on an executive's individual performance or contribution to agency performance (or both), as measured under a performance appraisal system. In addition, Title 5 articulates special conditions and procedures for removing, suspending, or taking other adverse actions against a member of the SES. For example, career SES appointees who have successfully completed a one-year probationary period may be removed or subject to adverse action only for specified reasons, including misconduct and substandard performance. Career appointees must receive advance written notice of these actions, and an opportunity to appeal the action. In comparison, noncareer, limited term, and limited emergency appointees are generally not subject to the same protections and may be removed from the SES at any time.

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



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

Report 1: The federal government is the nation's largest employer, with over two million workers employed in the United States, U S  Territories, and foreign countries  A majority of these employees work in the competitive service of the executive branch  Applicants for competitive service positions compete with other applicants and are evaluated according to objective standards  The executive branch includes two other service classifications—the excepted service and the Senior Executive Service (SES)—with hiring and removal standards that diverge from those prescribed for the competitive service  Positions in the excepted service are specifically excepted from the competitive service by statute, by the President, or by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)  SES positions are also not in the competitive service  The SES includes senior managerial, supervisory, and policy positions that are subject to a different pay scale, as well as different hiring and removal standards  This report examines the three service classifications, and reviews some of the central features and notable differences among these classifications  The competitive service consists of all civil service positions in the executive branch, except the following: positions that are specifically excepted from the competitive service by or under statute; positions to which appointments are made by presidential nomination for confirmation by the Senate, unless the Senate otherwise directs; and positions in the SES  The competitive service also includes non-executive branch positions and positions in the District of Columbia government that are specifically included in the competitive service by statute  OPM administers examinations for entrance into the competitive service  These examinations are meant to be "practical in character" and relate to "matters that fairly test the relative capacity and fitness of the applicants for the appointment sought[ ]" OPM identifies the relative weights for the subjects in an examination, and assigns numerical ratings on a 100-point scale  Applicants who meet the minimum requirements for entrance to an examination, such as citizenship and residence requirements, and are rated 70 or more in the examination are eligible for appointment in the competitive service  These individuals are placed on registers or lists of eligibles  When an agency seeks to fill a competitive service position, it requests a certificate of eligibles from OPM  This certificate is to include enough names from the top of the relevant register to allow an agency appointing official to consider at least three individuals for every position to be filled  The competitive service includes several types of appointments  An individual selected for a continuing position is generally appointed as a career-conditional employee subject to an initial one-year probationary period  After three continuous years of service in a career-conditional appointment, an employee will be converted to a career appointment  A term appointment is a nonpermanent appointment for a period of more than one year, but less than four years  An agency may make a term appointment when the need for an employee's services is not permanent, but involves a special project, extraordinary workload, or reorganization  A temporary appointment is a time-limited appointment for a period not to exceed one year  An agency may make a temporary appointment to fill a short-term position or meet an employment need that is scheduled to end within a specified timeframe  Employees in the competitive service are generally paid in accordance with the General Schedule, a schedule of annual basic pay rates that consists of 15 grades, designated "GS-1" through "GS-15 " The grades include 10 steps that provide for increasing rates of pay  An employee who has not reached the maximum pay rate for his or her position is generally advanced to the next step at specified intervals  General Schedule salaries are based on the principles that there is equal pay for substantially equal work within a local pay area, that any pay distinctions are based on work and performance, that federal pay rates are comparable with non-federal pay rates for the same level of work, and that any pay disparities between federal and non-federal employees should be eliminated  Employees in the competitive service who are not serving a probationary or trial period, or have completed one year of current continuous service in a position other than a temporary appointment limited to one year or less, maintain specified notice and appeal rights for adverse personnel actions  Before an agency may suspend such a qualifying employee for 14 days or less, the employee must be given an advance written notice that identifies the specific reasons for the suspension  The employee must also be provided a reasonable time to answer the notice and furnish affidavits and other evidence to support the answer  Similar notice is required before an agency may subject a qualifying employee to other adverse personnel actions  Before a removal, a suspension for more than 14 days, a reduction in grade or pay, or a furlough of 30 days or less, the agency must provide at least 30 days' advance written notice to the employee  The employee must also be given a reasonable time to respond to the notice and provide affidavits and other evidence to support the answer  Unlike suspensions for 14 days or less, these adverse actions may be appealed to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB or Board), an independent, quasi-judicial agency that reviews and adjudicates specified personnel actions taken against qualifying federal employees  In general, an agency must establish three factors to withstand an individual's challenge of his or her adverse personnel action  First, the agency must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the charged conduct occurred  Second, it must establish a nexus between that conduct and the efficiency of the civil service  Finally, the agency must show that the penalty imposed on the employee is reasonable  An agency's action may not be sustained if the appellant shows: (1) harmful error in applying the agency's procedures in arriving at its decision; (2) that the decision was based on a prohibited personnel practice; or (3) that the decision was not in accordance with law  About one-third of all federal workers are employed in the excepted service  The excepted service consists of those civil service positions that are not in the competitive service or the SES  Positions in the excepted service may be designated by statute or by OPM, and are not subject to competitive examination  OPM will exempt a position from the competitive service when it determines that an appointment through competitive examination is not practicable, or the recruitment of certain students or recent graduates would be better achieved through alternate recruitment and assessment processes  For example, OPM may determine that a position should be excepted from the competitive service because it is impracticable to examine the knowledge, skills, and abilities required for a position  Positions in the excepted service are categorized into four schedules  Schedule A includes positions that are not of a confidential or policy-determining character for which it is not practicable to examine applicants  Attorneys, chaplains, and short-term positions for which there is a critical hiring need are examples of schedule A positions  Schedule B also includes positions that are not of a confidential or policy-determining character for which it is not practicable to examine applicants  Unlike Schedule A positions, however, these positions require an applicant to satisfy basic qualification standards established by OPM for the relevant occupation and grade level  Individuals appointed to schedule B positions engage in a variety of activities, including policy analysis, teaching, and technical assistance  Positions in schedule C are policy-determining or involve a close and confidential working relationship with the head of an agency or other key appointed officials  These positions include most political appointees below the cabinet and subcabinet levels  An agency's senior advisor and special assistant positions are typically in schedule C  Finally, schedule D includes positions that are not of a confidential or policy-determining character for which competitive examination makes it difficult to recruit a sufficient number of certain students or recent graduates  Examples of schedule D positions include those involving science, technology, engineering, or mathematics (STEM) occupations and positions in the Presidential Management Fellows Program  Schedule D positions generally require an applicant to satisfy basic qualification standards established by OPM for the relevant occupation and grade level  Like employees in the competitive service, excepted service employees are generally paid in accordance with the General Schedule  In addition, excepted service employees maintain the same notice and appeal rights for adverse personnel actions  Some employees in the excepted service, however, must satisfy different durational requirements before these rights become available  So-called "preference eligibles" in an executive agency, the Postal Service, or the Postal Rate Commission must complete one year of current continuous service to avail themselves of the relevant notice and appeal rights  The term "preference eligible" refers to specified military veterans and some of their family members, such as an unmarried widow, and the wife or husband of a service-connected disabled veteran  Employees in the excepted service who are not preference eligibles and (1) are not serving a probationary or trial period under an initial appointment pending conversion to the competitive service, or (2) have completed two years of current or continuous service in the same or similar position, have the same notice and appeal rights as qualifying employees in the competitive service  The SES is a cadre of high-level government administrators who manage major programs and projects within most federal agencies  While they are considered federal employees within the civil service system, the SES is governed by a regulatory structure separate from the competitive and excepted services  As defined in statute, SES positions are generally managerial or supervisory positions that are classified above the GS-15 grade (or certain equivalent positions) and need not be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate  In these leadership roles, SES members may serve as intermediaries between top-level political appointees of an agency who seek to carry out the objectives of a particular President and career civil servants with institutional experience relating to relevant issues  According to a 2018 report, there are currently more than 7,000 permanent SES positions  There are two types of SES positions: (1) career reserved and (2) general  Career reserved positions must be filled with career appointees to shield certain SES roles from political influence  Generally, agency heads are to determine whether a particular SES position warrants a career reserved designation, to "ensure impartiality, or the public's confidence in the impartiality, of the Government " OPM regulations reflect the types of SES roles in which this designation is appropriate, including those involving adjudication and appeals, auditing, and law enforcement duties  General positions may be filled by career appointees, as well as other noncareer and limited term (i e , political) appointees  There are four types of SES appointments: career, noncareer, limited term, and limited emergency appointees  The SES mainly consists of "career appointees" chosen through a merit-based competitive hiring process  As part of this process, each agency must maintain a recruitment program for career appointees, as well as at least one executive board that reviews qualifications and makes recommendations regarding SES candidates  An OPM-convened Qualification Review Board (QRB) must certify the executive and managerial qualifications of a selected candidate before a career appointment may be made to an SES position  Unlike career appointees, noncareer appointees are not subject to the competitive selection process, but agency heads must determine that these appointees meet the qualifications of the SES position  While noncareer appointees are not QRB-certified, OPM must approve these appointees  Limited term and limited emergency appointees make up a small subset of the SES, and their terms are non-renewable  These appointments are used when a position is needed for a specified period (such as to manage a special project), or a position is established to meet a "bona fide, unanticipated, urgent need " Limited term and limited emergency appointments are also subject to OPM approval  To restrict the politicization of the SES, Title 5 of the U S  Code (Title 5) limits the number of noncareer and limited term appointees who may serve in SES positions  The SES pay structure is also distinct from the rest of the civil service  Title 5 specifies that the pay rate of each senior executive is based on the executive's individual performance or contribution to agency performance (or both), as measured under a "rigorous" performance appraisal system  Each federal agency must maintain at least one of these appraisal systems, subject to OPM standards, review, and approval  Performance appraisals of SES members may consider factors such as improvements in efficiency, productivity, and quality of work or service, cost efficiency, and performance timeliness  In response to earlier concerns that SES appraisal systems were flawed because most executives received the highest rating, Title 5 tasks OPM, in collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget, with the establishment and maintenance of a government-wide performance appraisal system certification process, in an effort to ensure that an agency's appraisal systems for SES employees make "meaningful distinctions based on relative performance " Title 5 also sets out different pay rates for the SES, with a minimum rate of basic pay equal to 120 percent of the rate for GS-15, step 1, and a maximum rate of basic pay equal to the rate for Level III of the Executive Schedule  But SES members' annual aggregate pay (that includes additional compensation such as bonuses, awards, and other payments in addition to basic pay) is capped at the rate for Level I of the Executive Schedule  If a senior executive's total compensation exceeds the aggregate limitation, the executive receives the overage in the following calendar year  To encourage federal agencies to establish and maintain an OPM-certified performance appraisal system, Title 5 allows for a higher range of SES pay for agencies that have these certified systems  Title 5 also articulates conditions and procedures for removing, suspending, or taking other adverse actions against a member of the SES  Career SES appointees who have successfully completed a one-year probationary period may be removed or subject to adverse action only for specified reasons  For example, an SES career appointee may be removed from the civil service or suspended for more than 14 days only for misconduct, neglect of duty, malfeasance, or failure to accept a directed reassignment or to accompany a position in a transfer of function  SES members must receive advance written notice about the action and opportunity to provide an answer or receive hearing, subject to exception  The senior executive may also appeal the employment action to the MSPB  A career appointee receiving a single unsatisfactory performance rating may be reassigned or transferred within the SES or removed from the SES  A career SES member who receives two unsatisfactory ratings in any period of five consecutive years, or twice in any period of three consecutive years receives less than fully successful ratings, must be removed from the SES  Affected SES career appointees must receive advance written notice of these actions  While these appointees may not appeal these actions to the MSPB, they may request an informal hearing before the Board  SES career appointees are also generally entitled to be placed in a civil service position at GS-15 or above (or an equivalent position)  In comparison, noncareer, limited term, and limited emergency appointees are generally not subject to the same removal protections and may be removed from the SES at any time  The procedures for removal of noncareer and limited term appointees are largely not addressed in federal statute, and the terms and procedures for their removal are mainly at the discretion of the agency head  In response to concerns about performance and accountability of SES members employed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Congress recently created special removal requirements that apply to these positions  In 2017, Congress passed the Department of Veterans Affairs Accountability and Whistleblower Protection Act, which amended an existing provision concerning removal procedures for these covered senior executives  Under the 2017 Act, the VA Secretary has discretion to suspend, demote, remove, or take other actions against SES career appointees or other high-level executives if the Secretary determines that the individual's misconduct or performance warrants such action  To address SES job performance issues more expeditiously, SES employees at the VA Department are entitled to abbreviated notice and appeals rights, as compared to the removal procedures in place in other federal agencies 


Report 2:  For example, Education awarded about $130 million from 2014-2016 to states and school districts through the School Climate Transformation Grant, which was established in 2014 to support districts taking steps to improve behavioral outcomes  According to Education, nearly 3,000 schools have worked to implement these behavioral support systems through the grant, and preliminary outcomes data have shown increased student attendance and fewer disciplinary referrals  In addition, Education awarded about $68 million for fiscal years 2015-2019 to over 20 school districts under Project Prevent—a grant to promote conflict resolution skills in students, particularly when they have been exposed to pervasive violence  According to the districts’ grant summary documents, these districts have experienced nearly 10,000 fewer violent behavioral incidents and have provided access to mental health services for over 5,000 students  Justice’s research arm, the National Institute of Justice, also started the Comprehensive School Safety Initiative in 2014 and has since provided about $84 million to fund nearly 40 research projects and interventions that address school discipline and safety, such as implementing restorative practices and studying the root causes of the school-to-prison pipeline  More recently, Education collaborated with HHS to fund the Pyramid Equity Project for early learning programs, which is designed to address implicit bias in school discipline, implement culturally responsive practices in addressing student behavior, and use data systems to understand equity issues  For ongoing technical assistance related to student behavior and school discipline, Education sponsors centers on supportive learning environments, improving student engagement and attendance, and implementing positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS)  For example, the National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments provides information and resources on addressing school discipline, mental health, substance abuse, physical safety, student engagement, and other related issues  Justice funds a technical assistance center on school-justice partnerships that works to enhance collaboration among schools, mental and behavioral health specialists, and law enforcement officials  This center recently published a bulletin on the intersection of exclusionary school discipline and the juvenile justice system, which offers tips for judges who handle school-related cases and information on successful efforts to reduce the number of school-based referrals to law enforcement  For a list of other technical assistance centers related to student behavior or discipline, see appendix III  Lastly, to help identify discipline disparities among the nation’s schools, Education collects comprehensive data on school discipline every other year through the CRDC  The agency publicly releases highlights from these data through their “First Look” documents and in annual reports, which typically focus on a limited number of disciplinary actions (primarily suspensions) and student demographics (usually race and disability status)  Education’s public analyses of school discipline data have not included school characteristics like poverty level or type of school  Education encourages districts and schools to disaggregate their data by various student demographics and examine it for disparities  In addition, Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services recently examined racial and ethnic disparities for students with disabilities using data collected under IDEA, Part B  This IDEA report provides the public with information on whether districts had significant disproportionality on the basis of race or ethnicity in the discipline of students with disabilities  We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Education and Justice for review and comment  These agencies provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  We also provided selected draft excerpts relevant to officials we interviewed in state agencies, school districts, and school officials  We received technical comments from those officials in four of our five selected states, which we incorporated as appropriate  As agreed with your offices, 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, the Secretary of Education, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Attorney General, and other interested parties  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 me at (617) 788-0580 or nowickij@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 V  The objectives of this report were to examine (1) the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, (2) the challenges selected school districts reported with student behavior and how they are approaching school discipline, and (3) the actions the Department of Education (Education) and the Department of Justice (Justice) have taken to identify and address any disparities or discrimination in school discipline  To conduct this work we (1) analyzed federal discipline data by student demographics and school characteristics; (2) visited five school districts to provide illustrative examples of approaches to school discipline; and (3) interviewed federal agency officials and reviewed agency documentation, federal laws, regulations and policies, selected state laws, and a selection of resolved school discipline cases  To inform all aspects of our work, we interviewed representatives from several nonfederal civil rights organizations and advocacy organizations that represent parents and families, individuals with disabilities, and people from specific racial or ethnic backgrounds, such as Hispanic, African-American, and American Indian communities  We also met with academic subject matter experts to discuss issues related to school discipline, including disparities in school discipline and initiatives intended to reduce exclusionary discipline  In addition, we reviewed two dozen articles containing research that had been published since 2010 to further understand the context of school discipline issues and programs  We evaluated the methods used in the research and eliminated the research if we felt the methods were not appropriate or rigorous  The following sections contain detailed information about the scope and methodology for this report  To determine the patterns in disciplinary actions among public schools, we used Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) to analyze discipline data from all public schools by student demographics (e g , race, sex, disability) and school characteristics (e g , school type, such as charter or magnet school)  Our analyses of this data, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  The CRDC is a biennial survey that is mandatory for every public school and district in the United States  Conducted by Education’s Office for Civil Rights, the survey collects data on the nation’s public schools (pre-K through 12th grade), including disciplinary actions as well as student characteristics and enrollment, educational and course offerings, and school environment, such as incidents of bullying  CRDC data are self-reported by districts and schools, and consequently there is potential for misreporting of information  In school years 2011-12 and 2013-14, the CRDC collected data from nearly every public school in the nation (approximately 17,000 school districts, 96,000 schools, and 50 million students in school year 2013-14)  Using the public-use data file of the CRDC, we focused our analysis primarily on data for school year 2013- 14, the most recent data available at the time of our analysis  We also compared disciplinary data from school years 2011-12 and 2013-14 to analyze how discipline may have changed over that period  The 2013-14 CRDC collected data on six broad types of disciplinary actions: (1) out-of-school suspensions, (2) in-school suspensions, (3) referrals to law enforcement, (4) expulsions, (5) corporal punishment, and (6) school-related arrests  The CRDC did not collect data on less severe forms of discipline, such as detentions, Saturday school, or removing privileges to engage in extracurricular activities, such as athletic teams or field trips  As shown in table 4, we combined related variables for out-of- school suspension and expulsion; we also provide a crosswalk of discipline variables used in this report and those captured in the CRDC  For each of the six disciplinary actions in our review, we examined discipline counts and rates both overall and disaggregated by student demographic characteristics  Specifically, we examined counts and rates for each disciplinary action by student sex (boy or girl), race or ethnicity (see table 5), disability status (students with or without disabilities), and English Language Learners  Using the CRDC, we also examined race and sex intersectionally, for example, disciplinary rates for Black boys or White girls  In order to analyze discipline counts and rates by the poverty level of the school, we pulled in data on free or reduced-price lunch eligibility from the 2013-14 Common Core of Data (CCD), and matched it to schools in the 2013-14 CRDC, which did not collect eligibility data  The CCD is administered by Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, and annually collects nonfiscal data about all public schools in the nation  A student is generally eligible for free or reduced-price lunch based on federal income eligibility guidelines that are tied to the federal poverty level and the size of the family  State education agencies supply these data for their schools and school districts  We then sorted schools into quartiles based on the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch as follows: 0 to 25 percent, 25 1 to 49 9 percent, 50 to 74 9 percent, and 75 to 100 percent (see table 6)  The poverty thresholds and measure of poverty discussed here and throughout this report were commonly used in the literature and also aligned with how Education analyzed its data  To analyze discipline counts and rates by the type of public school a student attended, we sorted schools into mutually exclusive categories and reviewed disciplinary data by student demographic information  The 2013-14 CRDC allowed schools to self-identify as special education, magnet, charter, and alternative schools (see table 7)  The categories of public schools in the CRDC were not mutually exclusive; that is, schools could select multiple school types to describe their school, such as a charter school that was also an alternative school  To create mutually exclusive categories for analytical purposes, we applied the following criteria: Alternative school: all schools that selected “alternative” as the school type in the CRDC, even if they selected other types as well  Special education school: schools that selected “special education” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type  Charter school: schools that selected “charter” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type and/or the special education school type  Magnet school: schools that selected “magnet” as the school type in the CRDC, except those schools that also selected the alternative school type, the special education school type, and/or the charter school type  Traditional school: schools that did not select any other school type in the CRDC  Table 8 provides the breakdown of students and schools captured in the 2013-14 CRDC after applying these criteria  For each of our school discipline analyses, we also examined disparities in disciplinary rates by student demographics  Specifically, we compared each student groups’ representation among students disciplined to their representation in the overall student population  For example, if boys accounted for 50 percent of all K-12 public school students, but represented 75 percent of students that received a given disciplinary action, then boys would be overrepresented among students that received that type of discipline by 25 percentage points  We also compared disciplinary rates across student groups and similarly examined disparities based on school poverty level and school type for all students  We also analyzed CRDC data on discipline of pre-school students  The disciplinary data for pre-school students that was collected in the CRDC for school year 2013-14 was different than disciplinary data collected for K-12 students  Specifically, data on pre-school discipline was limited to out-of-school suspensions and expulsions  Findings from our analysis of pre-school discipline data are included where applicable in the report and additional data are provided in appendix IV, table 17  In addition to analyzing data on school discipline, we also analyzed data on chronic absenteeism, which was defined as students who were absent 15 or more days during the school year for any reason, which could include for suspensions and expulsions  The CRDC also collected data on instances in which students were restrained—both physically and mechanically—or secluded at school  Education has provided a resource document with principles to school districts that indicates restraint and seclusion should only be used in instances where a student’s “behavior poses imminent danger of serious physical harm to self or others,” and should never be used as punishment or discipline  However, multiple sources, including civil rights complaints filed with Education, news stories, and other reports have alleged that these practices have been used in response to student misbehavior, in particular for students with disabilities  We included data on chronic absenteeism and restraint and seclusion in our analyses, and present related findings in appendix IV, tables 18 and 19  We determined that the data we used from the CRDC and CCD were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report by reviewing technical documentation, conducting electronic testing, and interviewing officials from Education’s Office for Civil Rights and National Center for Education Statistics  For our analysis of the 2013-14 CRDC, we used the final data file that was publicly available as of June 2017 because it corrected errors in the original data previously submitted by several school districts  We conducted a generalized linear regression using the 2013-14 CRDC and CCD data to explore whether and to what extent certain school-level characteristics were associated with higher rates of each disciplinary action  Such a model allowed us to test the association between a given school characteristic and the percentage of students receiving a given disciplinary action, while holding other school characteristics constant  We selected different school characteristics (our independent variables) for the regression based on factors that Education’s Office for Civil Rights and other researchers have identified as potential drivers of school discipline rates (our dependent, or outcome variables)  Table 9 lists the variables we included in our regression model  We conducted a separate regression for each of the six disciplinary actions listed as an outcome variable  We excluded some schools from our regression model  Specifically, we excluded schools that met one or more of the following criteria: Data were not available in both the CRDC and CCD data sets, and therefore we were unable to determine the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch in these schools or whether these schools were located in rural, suburban, or urban areas  School was listed as “ungraded” in the CRDC because we could not determine if these schools offered grade 6 or above  School only offered pre-school because pre-school disciplinary data were reported separately and differently than K-12 disciplinary data in the CRDC  School identified as a juvenile justice facility in the CRDC  In the 2013-14 CRDC, schools could identify as a juvenile justice facility, and select one of the other school types in our analysis (i e , traditional, magnet, charter, alternative, and special education schools)  Due to this overlap, and because it is reasonable to expect discipline within a juvenile justice facility could function differently than discipline in other schools, we excluded these schools from our regression model  School had less than 10 students enrolled because in smaller schools minor fluctuations in the numbers of students receiving a given disciplinary action could have a large effect on disciplinary rates  In the 2013-14 data, these exclusions reduced the total number of public schools in our regression model from a universe of 95,507 public schools to 86,769 public schools  All regression models are subject to limitations and for this model the limitations included: Data we analyzed were by school rather than student  Consequently, we were not able to describe the association between our independent variables and a student’s rate of different disciplinary actions, while controlling for characteristics of an individual student, such as sex, race or ethnicity, disability status, or grade level  Instead, the school-level nature of the CRDC data limited our description of the associations between school characteristics and disciplinary rates to whether there was an increase, decrease, or no effect on disciplinary rates for schools with a given characteristic, controlling for other characteristics of the entire school’s population, such as percent of students who are boys or are Black  Some variables that may be related to student behavior and discipline are not available in the data  For example, in this context, it could be that parent education or household type (single- versus multiple- headed household) could be related to student behaviors, such as those that lead to receiving the six disciplinary actions we analyzed  Results of our analyses are associational and do not imply a causal relationship because, for example, CRDC data were not gathered by a randomized controlled trial, where students would be randomized to attend schools with certain characteristics  Typically, a generalized linear regression model provides an estimated incidence rate ratio, where a value greater than one indicates a higher or positive association, in this case, between the disciplinary outcome and the independent variable of interest, such as being a charter school or having a higher percentage of Black students  An estimated incidence rate ratio less than one indicates a lower incidence of a given disciplinary action when a factor is present  Given the limitations of our model as described above, we present the results of our regression model in table 10 by describing the direction of the associations, rather than an estimated rate (incidence) of disciplinary outcomes  For categorical variables in table 10, we provided the comparison school characteristic in brackets and italics  For example, the results in this table should be interpreted as students attending alternative schools were significantly more likely than students attending traditional schools to be suspended out of school  For continuous variables (i e , those starting with “Percent”), the results in this table should be interpreted as the likelihood of receiving a given disciplinary action as the percentage of students in the school with a given characteristic increased  For example, as the percentage of students eligible for free or reduced- price lunch increased, we found that the likelihood of receiving each of the six disciplinary actions also increased  It should be noted that interactions (i e , where we combine both race and sex variables) should be interpreted differently than other variables in table 10  Though an interaction may be “negative,” it does not necessarily imply that the group presented in the interaction was significantly less likely to receive the given disciplinary action because interactions are interpreted relative to the main effect of each variable in the interaction  For example, as shown in table 10, the interaction for percentage of Black boys was negative for out-of-school suspensions; however, the estimated incidence of out-of-school suspensions for a school with a higher than average percentage of Black students and a higher than average percentage of boys was positive  Since the contribution for an interaction coefficient is relative, in this example the contribution of the main effects outweighed that of the interaction, resulting in a positive effect altogether, despite the negative interaction  To obtain information on how selected school districts are addressing discipline issues, including any challenges they face in doing so, we selected five school districts to serve as illustrative examples  To select school districts, we used CRDC data to sort school districts into categories based on district size; the presence of disparities in out-of- school suspension rates for boys, Black students, or students with disabilities; and whether the out-of-school suspension rate was increasing or decreasing between the two most recent CRDC collections  With regard to size, we collapsed several categories that Education has previously used into three groupings, each with roughly one-third of all students attending public schools in school year 2013-14: Large School District: 25,000 or more students (34 7% of all students in 2013-14) Medium School District: 5,000 to 24,999 students (33 2% of all students in 2013-14) Small School District: Less than 5,000 students (32 1% of all students in 2013-14) Further, we focused on out-of-school suspensions for selection purposes because this disciplinary action was one of the most frequently reported disciplinary actions employed by schools in Education’s two most recent data collection efforts on the issue (2011-12 and 2013-14 CRDC)  Moreover, out-of-school suspensions are an exclusionary disciplinary action; that is, they remove or exclude students from the usual instructional or learning environment  Selecting districts with a range of out-of-school suspension rate was intended to generate a mix of districts that commonly use exclusionary discipline, as well as those that may employ alternatives  For site selection, we used out-of-school suspension data in two ways  First, we excluded districts that did not have a disparity in out-of-school suspension rates for Black students, boys, or students with disabilities  Prior GAO work and Education’s data showed that these groups were particularly vulnerable to discipline disparities, and the purpose of this research objective was to understand district efforts to identify and address such disparities  Second, we grouped school districts by whether their out-of-school suspension rate increased or decreased between 2011-12 and 2013-14  Exploring school districts that changed in different ways over time was intended to help us identify successful efforts to reduce suspensions as well as challenges districts face in addressing disparate discipline  Using the above criteria, we grouped school districts into the following categories: Category 1 and 2: Large school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14 Category 3 and 4: Medium school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013- 14 Category 5 and 6: Small school district and out-of-school suspension rate that increased (or decreased) from 2011-12 to 2013-14  After sorting school districts into the above categories, we randomized the list within each category to improve the methodological rigor of selecting school districts  In addition, we applied a series of post-checks to our list of districts in each grouping to ensure we had appropriate variety to consider other key factors in school discipline  Specifically, we checked for variety in: types of public schools in the district, geographic diversity both in terms of region of the country and use of corporal punishment in the district, and use of restraint or seclusion in the district  To select specific districts, we started with the district in each category that was at the top of the randomized list and then applied the above post-checks  We then conducted outreach to district superintendents or their designees via telephone and email to obtain their agreement to participate in this review  When school districts were unresponsive to our outreach or unwilling to participate, we contacted additional districts that had similar characteristics in order to achieve variety in our final selections  This resulted in the selection of five schools districts, one each in California, Georgia, Massachusetts, North Dakota, and Texas (see table 11)  We visited each district and interviewed district-level officials involved in school discipline and school climate initiatives  These officials included superintendents, assistant superintendents, program managers, and directors of applicable district departments (e g , student support services and special education)  We also reviewed district-level discipline data, school district discipline policies, and relevant state laws related to school discipline to better understand the local context in each selected district  In the five districts we visited, we also interviewed officials at a total of 19 schools  At each school, we typically met with principals and/or assistant principals, and in some instances, spoke with other personnel at the school, such as counselors, attendance coordinators, school resource officers (i e , law enforcement officers), and teachers  In each district, we selected a variety of schools to visit based on grade level, school type, and disciplinary data  For each selected district, we also interviewed officials from the state educational agency that oversees that district to better understand the statewide context around discipline, such as state laws that may affect district disciplinary policies, statewide initiatives related to discipline, and state-level monitoring of district-level disciplinary actions  In California, we also met with the county office of education that oversees the district we selected because, in that state, counties have a primary role in the local school district accountability structure  Because we selected these school districts judgmentally, we cannot generalize the findings about these districts’ approaches to discipline, and the challenges they face, to all school districts and schools nationwide  To determine the extent to which, and in what ways, Education and Justice are identifying and addressing discipline disparities and discrimination, we interviewed agency officials at headquarters and regional offices, reviewed agency documentation and administrative data, reviewed federal laws and regulations, and reviewed a non-generalizable sample of seven recently resolved school discipline investigations undertaken by Education and Justice (which we refer to as cases)  With both agencies, we interviewed officials about each agency’s responsibilities with respect to federal civil rights laws and regulations, as well as the actions the agencies took to enforce them  We also discussed each agency’s guidance, support to school districts on these issues (e g , grants and technical assistance), and data collection activities  In addition, we collected and reviewed relevant agency procedures and guidance documents  We also requested and reviewed Education’s data on the number of civil rights complaints received and cases related to school discipline investigated from 2011 to August 2017 to better understand the scope of the agency’s efforts  Education provided these data from their internal database, where investigators categorized cases as being related to school discipline  We assessed the reliability of this source through discussion with knowledgeable officials and reviewing key documents and determined the data to be reliable for our purposes  To select resolved school discipline cases to review, we searched Education’s and Justice’s respective online repositories of resolved investigations and compliance reviews, as well as Education’s annual reports, to create a list of resolved cases related to school discipline  We then narrowed the list to cases resolved in approximately the past 3 years (from 2014 to May 2017) and excluded long-standing cases that were opened several decades ago to help ensure the information in the cases reflected recent policies and practices in each agency  We also excluded cases regarding institutions of higher education because they were outside the scope of this review  This resulted in a list of 12 relevant resolved cases—9 for Education and 3 for Justice  From this list, we selected 7 cases to review in depth to better understand Education’s and Justice’s investigatory processes and resolutions with regard to school discipline cases in pre-K through 12th grade, and to provide illustrative examples in our report  We selected 4 cases from Education that provided a mix of the type of alleged discrimination (e g , race or disability) and type of discipline (e g , suspension, expulsion, arrest, etc )  We selected all 3 relevant cases from Justice  For each case, we reviewed the type of investigation (complaint investigation or compliance review); the reason for the investigation; any applicable findings or recommendations; and the ultimate resolution of the investigation, such as a voluntary agreement with the school district or remedies to address findings  In all instances, we are presenting Education’s and Justice’s findings and do not reach any independent conclusions regarding the cases  We conducted this performance audit from November 2016 to March 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  This appendix contains maps showing rates of disciplinary actions by school district for each of the six disciplinary actions captured in the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection for school year 2013-14  Funded by Department of Education (Education): National Center on Safe Supportive Learning Environments: offers information and technical assistance focused on improving student supports and academic enrichment  This includes resources on using positive approaches to discipline, as well as promoting mental health for students and ensuring the safety and effectiveness of physical learning environments  https://safesupportivelearning ed gov/  National Student Attendance, Engagement, and Success Center: a center that disseminates evidence-based practices and facilitates communities of practice to help students attend school every day, be engaged in school, and succeed academically, so that they graduate high school prepared for college, career, and civic life  It offers webinars on identifying the root causes of chronic absence, linking school climate and exclusionary discipline to absenteeism, and improving attendance for vulnerable students  http://new every1graduates org/nsaesc/ National Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Neglected or Delinquent Children and Youth: provides technical assistance to state agencies with Title I, Part D programs and works to improve education services for children and youth who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk  This includes running the Supportive School Discipline Communities of Practice, which brings together education and justice leaders for knowledge-sharing events and offers webinars on discipline initiatives such as restorative practices  https://www neglected-delinquent org/ Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports Technical Assistance Center: funded by Education’s Office of Special Education Programs, this center supports implementation of a multi- tiered approach to social, emotional and behavior support  In addition, it offers resources on cultural responsiveness, addressing discipline disproportionality, and interconnecting mental health with behavior support systems, among other issues  https://www pbis org/  Funded by Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): Center of Excellence for Infant and Early Childhood Mental Health Consultation: supports states, tribes, and communities in promoting mental health and school readiness  It provides training to leaders in early childhood education around mental health and school readiness issues  https://www samhsa gov/iecmhc Center for School Mental Health: works to strengthen policies and programs in school mental health to improve learning and promote success for youth  This center is supported in full by HHS’s Maternal and Child Health Bureau, Division of Child, Adolescent and Family Health Adolescent Health Branch in the Health Resources and Service Administration  http://csmh umaryland edu/ National Center for Trauma-Informed Care and Alternatives to Seclusion and Restraint: works to develop approaches to eliminate the use of seclusion, restraints, and other coercive practices and to further advance the knowledge base related to implementation of trauma-informed approaches  https://www samhsa gov/nctic National Child Traumatic Stress Network: works to improve access to care, treatment, and services for children and adolescents exposed to traumatic events  The group provides a comprehensive focus on childhood trauma by collaborating with the health, mental health, education, law enforcement, child welfare, juvenile justice, and military family service systems  http://nctsn org/ National Resource Center for Mental Health Promotion and Youth Violence Prevention: offers resources and technical assistance to states, tribes, territories, and local communities to promote overall child wellness and prevent youth violence  http://www healthysafechildren org/ Now Is the Time Technical Assistance Center: provides national training and technical assistance to recipients of the Healthy Transitions (youth access to mental health) and Project Advancing Wellness and Resilience Education (AWARE) grants  https://www samhsa gov/nitt-ta/about-us Funded by Department of Justice (Justice): School-Justice Partnership National Resource Center: provides trainings and webinars, and partners with stakeholders in the law enforcement, juvenile justice, mental health, and public education arenas  The National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges operates this center  https://schooljusticepartnership org/ Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) This appendix contains several tables that show the underlying data used throughout this report, as well as additional analyses we conducted using the Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) and Common Core of Data (CCD) for school year 2013-14  Our analyses of Education’s data, as reflected in these tables, taken alone, do not establish whether unlawful discrimination has occurred  The following tables and information are included in this appendix: Table 12: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and English Language Learner status  Table 13: students with or without disabilities who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity  Table 14: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the poverty level of the school and other student characteristics  Table 15: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the type of public school and other student characteristics  Table 16: students who received disciplinary actions captured in the CRDC, disaggregated by the grades offered in the school and other student characteristics  Table 17: pre-school students who were suspended from school, disaggregated by student sex and race or ethnicity, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 18: students who were restrained—mechanically or physically—or secluded, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 19: students who were chronically absent, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status, as well as the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 20: schools that reported having access to a school counselor or sworn law enforcement officer, disaggregated by the poverty level of school and the type of public school  Table 21: students disciplined for harassment or bullying, disaggregated by student sex, race or ethnicity, and disability status  In addition to the contact named above, Sherri Doughty (Assistant Director), Amy Moran Lowe (Analyst-in-Charge), James Bennett, Holly Dye, Aaron Karty, Jean McSween, John Mingus, James Rebbe, Sonya Vartivarian, and David Watsula made key contributions to this report  Also contributing were Johana Ayers, Deborah Bland, Irina Carnevale, Caitlin Croake, Vijay D’Souza, Gretta Goodwin, Gloria Hernandez-Saunders, Reginald Jones, DuEwa Kamara, John Karikari, Ted Leslie, Sheila R  McCoy, Brittni Milam, Cady Panetta, Moon Parks, Caroline Prado, Steven Putansu, Maria Santos, Margie K  Shields, Ruth Solomon, Alexandra Squitieri, and Barbara Steel-Lowney 

ground_truth: Congressional interest in Overseas Contingency Operation (OCO) funding has continued as Members debate ways of funding priorities without breaching discretionary spending limits set in law. Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Congress has appropriated approximately $2 trillion in discretionary budget authority designated as emergency requirements or for Overseas Contingency Operations/Global War on Terrorism (OCO/GWOT) in support of the broad U.S. government response to the 9/11 attacks and for other related international affairs activities. This figure amounts to approximately 9.4% of total discretionary spending during this period. Congress has used supplemental appropriation acts or designated funding for emergency requirements or OCO/GWOT—or both—in statute. These funds are not subject to limits on discretionary spending in congressional budget resolutions or to the statutory discretionary spending limits established by the Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA; P.L. 112-125). The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (BBEDCA; P.L. 99-177) allows emergency funding to be excluded from budget control limits. The BCA added the OCO/GWOT designation to the BBEDCA exemption, thereby providing Congress and the President with an alternate way to exclude funding from the BCA spending limits. While there is no overall statutory limit on the amount of emergency or OCO/GWOT spending, both Congress and the President have fundamental roles in determining how much of the spending to provide each fiscal year. Congress must designate any such funding in statute on an account-by-account basis. The President is also required to designate it as such after it is appropriated to be available for expenditure. Debate over what should constitute OCO/GWOT or emergency activities and expenses has shifted over time, reflecting differing viewpoints about the extent, nature, and duration of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and elsewhere. Funding designated for OCO/GWOT has also been used to fund base-budget requirements of the DOD and State Department and to prevent or respond to crises abroad, including armed conflict, as well as human-caused and natural disasters. Some defense officials and policymakers argue OCO funding allows for flexible response to contingencies, and provides a "safety valve" to the spending caps and threat of sequestration—the automatic cancellation of budget authority largely through across-the-board reductions of nonexempt programs and activities—under the BCA. Critics, however, have described OCO/GWOT as a loophole or "gimmick"—morphing from an account for replacing combat losses of equipment, resupplying expended munitions, and transporting troops through war zones, to a "slush fund" for activities unrelated to contingency operations. Congress appropriated approximately $103 billion for OCO in FY2017 (8.5% of all discretionary appropriations), $78 billion for OCO in FY2018 (5.5% of all discretionary appropriations), and $68.8 billion for OCO so far in FY2019. Discretionary appropriations for FY2019 are not yet final; a continuing resolution expired December 21, 2018. Following passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (P.L. 115-123), which raised discretionary budget caps for defense and foreign affairs agencies in FY2018 and FY2019, the Administration proposed shifting some OCO funding into the base, or regular, budget. Although Congress has generally not followed Administration requests for reduced funding for foreign affairs and domestic activities and has increased funding for defense, the President has asked cabinet secretaries to propose spending cuts of 5% in FY2020. Such proposals, if requested in a budget submission, may create difficult choices for Congress in FY2020 and FY2021—the final two years of the BCA discretionary spending limits. Congress's decisions on OCO/GWOT designations will affect how much agency funding is available for military operations and foreign affairs activities overseas, how much is subject to the BCA caps, and how much is incorporated into regular budgets and long-term budget projections.