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



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

Report 1: The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent federal agency, with its five members appointed by the President, subject to confirmation by the Senate  It was established by the Communications Act of 1934 (1934 Act, or "Communications Act") and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite, and cable  The mission of the FCC is to ensure that the American people have available, "without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, or sex, a rapid, efficient, Nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges " The 1934 Act is divided into titles and sections that describe various powers and concerns of the commission  Title I—FCC Administration and Powers  The 1934 Act originally called for a commission consisting of seven members, but that number was reduced to five in 1983  Commissioners are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate to serve five-year terms; the President designates one member to serve as chairman  Title II—Common carrier regulation, primarily telephone regulation, including circuit-switched telephone services offered by cable companies  Common carriers are communication companies that provide facilities for transmission but do not originate messages, such as telephone and microwave providers  The 1934 Act limits FCC regulation to interstate and international common carriers, although a joint federal-state board coordinates regulation between the FCC and state regulatory commissions  Title III—Broadcast station requirements  Much existing broadcast regulation was established prior to 1934 by the Federal Radio Commission, and most provisions of the Radio Act of 1927 were subsumed into Title III of the 1934 Act  Title IV—Procedural and administrative provisions, such as hearings, joint boards, judicial review of the FCC's orders, petitions, and inquiries  Title V—Penal provisions and forfeitures, such as violations of rules and regulations  Title VI—Cable communications, such as the use of cable channels and cable ownership restrictions, franchising, and video programming services provided by telephone companies  Title VII—Miscellaneous provisions and powers, such as war powers of the President, closed captioning of public service announcements, and telecommunications development fund  The FCC is directed by five commissioners appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate for five-year terms (except when filling an unexpired term)  The President designates one of the commissioners to serve as chairperson  Three commissioners may be members of the same political party as the President and none can have a financial interest in any commission-related business  Ajit Pai, Chair (originally sworn in on May 14, 2012; designated chairman by President Trump in January 2017 and confirmed by the Senate for a second term on October 2, 2017); Michael O'Rielly (sworn in for a second term on January 29, 2015); Brendan Carr (sworn in on August 11, 2017); Jessica Rosenworcel (sworn in on August 11, 2017); and Geoffrey Starks (sworn in on January 30, 2019)  The day-to-day functions of the FCC are carried out by 7 bureaus and 10 offices  The current basic structure of the FCC was established in 2002 as part of the agency's effort to better reflect the industries it regulates  The seventh bureau, the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, was established in 2006, largely in response to Hurricane Katrina  The bureaus process applications for licenses and other filings, analyze complaints, conduct investigations, develop and implement regulatory programs, and participate in hearings, among other things  The offices provide support services  Bureaus and offices often collaborate when addressing FCC issues  The bureaus hold the following responsibilities: Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau—Develops and implements consumer policies, including disability access and policies affecting Tribal nations  The Bureau serves as the public face of the Commission through outreach and education, as well as responding to consumer inquiries and informal complaints  The Bureau also maintains collaborative partnerships with state, local, and tribal governments in such critical areas as emergency preparedness and implementation of new technologies  In addition, the Bureau's Disability Rights Office provides expert policy and compliance advice on accessibility with respect to various forms of communications for persons with disabilities  Enforcement Bureau—Enforces the Communications Act and the FCC's rules  It protects consumers, ensures efficient use of spectrum, furthers public safety, promotes competition, resolves intercarrier disputes, and protects the integrity of FCC programs and activities from fraud, waste, and abuse  International Bureau—Administers the FCC's international telecommunications and satellite programs and policies, including licensing and regulatory functions  The Bureau promotes pro-competitive policies abroad, coordinating the FCC's global spectrum activities and advocating U S  interests in international communications and competition  The Bureau works to promote high-quality, reliable, interconnected, and interoperable communications infrastructure on a global scale  Media Bureau—Recommends, develops, and administers the policy and licensing programs relating to electronic media, including broadcast, cable, and satellite television in the United States and its territories  Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau—Develops and implements policies and programs to strengthen public safety communications, homeland security, national security, emergency management and preparedness, disaster management, and network reliability  These efforts include rulemaking proceedings that promote more efficient use of public safety spectrum, improve public alerting mechanisms, enhance the nation's 911 emergency calling system, and establish frameworks for communications prioritization during crisis  The Bureau also maintains 24/7 operations capability and promotes Commission preparedness to assist the public, first responders, the communications industry, and all levels of government in responding to emergencies and major disasters where reliable public safety communications are essential  Wireless Telecommunications Bureau—Responsible for wireless telecommunications programs and policies in the United States and its territories, including licensing and regulatory functions  Wireless communications services include cellular, paging, personal communications, mobile broadband, and other radio services used by businesses and private citizens  Wireline Competition Bureau—Develops, recommends, and implements policies and programs for wireline telecommunications, including fixed (as opposed to mobile) broadband and telephone landlines, striving to promote the widespread development and availability of these services  The Bureau has primary responsibility for the Universal Service Fund which helps connect all Americans to communications networks  The offices hold the following responsibilities: Administrative Law Judges—Composed of one judge (and associated staff) who presides over hearings and issues decisions on matters referred by the FCC  Communications Business Opportunities—Promotes competition and innovation in the provision and ownership of telecommunications services by supporting opportunities for small businesses as well as women and minority-owned communications businesses  Economics and Analytics—Responsible for expanding and deepening the use of economic analysis into Commission policymaking, for enhancing the development and use of auctions, and for implementing consistent and effective agency-wide data practices and policies  The Office also manages the FCC's auctions in support of and in coordination with the FCC's Bureaus and Offices  In January 2019, the FCC voted along party lines to eliminate the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis and replace it with the Office of Economics and Analytics  Engineering and Technology—Advises the FCC on technical and engineering matters  This Office develops and administers FCC decisions regarding spectrum allocations and grants equipment authorizations and experimental licenses  General Counsel—Serves as the FCC's chief legal advisor and representative  Inspector General—Conducts and supervises audits and investigations relating to FCC programs and operations  Legislative Affairs—Serves as the liaison between the FCC and Congress, as well as other federal agencies  Managing Director—Administers and manages the FCC  Media Relations—Informs the media of FCC decisions and serves as the FCC's main point of contact with the media  Workplace Diversity—Ensures that FCC provides employment opportunities for all persons regardless of race, color, sex, national origin, religion, age, disability, or sexual orientation  Additionally, an FCC Secretary serves to preserve the integrity of the FCC's records, oversee the receipt and distribution of documents filed by the public through electronic and paper filing systems, and give effective legal notice of FCC decisions by publishing them in the Federal Register and the FCC Record   The current FCC Strategic Plan covers the five-year period FY2018-FY2022  The plan outlines four goals: Closing the Digital Divide—Broadband is acknowledged as being critical to economic opportunity, but broadband is unavailable or unaffordable in many parts of the country  The FCC is to seek to help close the digital divide, bring down the cost of broadband deployment, and create incentives for providers to connect consumers in hard-to-serve areas  Promoting Innovation—Fostering a competitive, dynamic, and innovative market for communications services is a key priority for the FCC  The FCC plans to promote entrepreneurship, expand economic opportunity, and remove barriers to entry and investment  Protecting Consumers and Public Safety—Serving the broader public interest is the FCC's core mission  The FCC plans to work to combat unwanted and unlawful robocalls, make communications accessible for people with disabilities, and protect public safety (e g , ensuring delivery of 9-1-1 calls, restoring communications after disasters)  Reforming the FCC's Processes—One of the chairman's top priorities has been to implement process reforms to make the work of the FCC more transparent, open, and accountable to the public  The FCC plans to modernize and streamline its operations and programs to improve decisionmaking, build consensus, and reduce regulatory burdens  The FCC has identified performance objectives associated with each strategic goal  Commission management annually develops targets and measures related to each performance goal to provide direction toward accomplishing those goals  Targets and measures are published in the FCC's Performance Plan, and submitted with the commission's annual budget request to Congress  Results of the commission's efforts to meet its goals, targets, and measures are found in the FCC's Annual Performance Report published each February  The FCC also issues a Summary of Performance and Financial Results every February, providing a concise, citizen-focused review of the agency's accomplishments  Since the 110 th Congress, the FCC has been funded through the House and Senate Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) appropriations bill as a single line item  Previously, it was funded through what is now the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill, also as a single line item  The FCC annually collects and retains regulatory fees to offset costs incurred by the agency and to carry out its functions  Since 2009 the FCC's budget has been derived from regulatory fees collected by the agency rather than through a direct appropriation  The fees, often referred to as "Section (9) fees," are collected from license holders and certain other entities (e g , cable television systems)  The regulatory fees do not apply to governmental entities, amateur radio operator licensees, nonprofit entities, and certain other non-commercial entities  The FCC is authorized to review the regulatory fees each year and adjust them to reflect changes in its appropriation from year to year  The Commission originally implemented the Regulatory Fee Collection Program by rulemaking on July 18, 1994  The most recent regulatory fee order was released by the Commission on August 29, 2018  The FCC's budgets from FY2010 to FY2020 are in Figure 1 


Report 2:  On March 23, 2018, the Repack Airwaves Yielding Better Access for Users of Modern Services Act of 2018 (the "RAY BAUM'S Act" or "2018 Act") became law as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P L  115-141 )  The 2018 Act requires the FCC to transfer all excess collections for FY2018 and prior years to the General Fund of the U S  Treasury for the sole purpose of deficit reduction  The 2018 Act also requires the Commission to transfer any excess collections in FY2019 and in subsequent years to the General Fund of the U S  Treasury for the sole purpose of deficit reduction  On October 1, 2018, the Commission transferred over $9 million in excess collections from FY2018 as well as approximately $112 million in excess collections from FY2017 and prior years to the General Fund of the U S  Treasury  For FY2020, the FCC has requested $335,660,000 in budget authority from regulatory fee offsetting collections  This is $3,950,000 less than the authorization level of $339,610,000 included in the 2018 FCC Reauthorization in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018  The FY2020 FCC request also represents a decrease of $3,340,000, or about 1 0%, from the FY2019 appropriated level of $339,000,000  The FCC requested $132,538,680 in budget authority for the spectrum auctions program  For FY2019, Congress appropriated a cap of $130,284,000 for the spectrum auctions program, which included additional funds to implement the requirements of the 2018 Act that mandated significant additional work for the FCC related to the TV Broadcaster Relocation Fund  The Commission's FY2020 budget request of $132,538,680 for this program would be an increase of $2,254,680, or 1 7%, over the FY2019 appropriation  This level of funding is intended to enable the Commission to continue its efforts to: reimburse full power and Class A stations, multichannel video programming distributors, Low Power TV, TV translator, and FM stations for reasonable costs incurred as a result of the Commission's incentive auction; make more spectrum available for 5G; and educate consumers affected by the reorganization of broadcast television spectrum  To date, the Commission's spectrum auctions program has generated over $114 6 billion for government use; at the same time, the total cost of the auctions program has been less than $2 0 billion, or less than 1 7% of the total auctions' revenue  Through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2018 ( P L  115-141 ), the FCC was reauthorized for the first time since 1990 (FCC Authorization Act of 1990, P L  101-396 )  The FCC publishes four periodic reports for Congress  Strategic Plan  The Strategic Plan is the framework around which the FCC develops its yearly Performance Plan and Performance Budget  The FCC submitted its current four-year Strategic Plan for 2018-2022 in February 2018, in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010, P L  111-352   Performance Budget  The annual Performance Budget includes performance targets based on the FCC's strategic goals and objectives, and serves as the guide for implementing the Strategic Plan  The Performance Budget becomes part of the President's annual budget request  Agency Financial Report  The annual Agency Financial Report contains financial and other information, such as a financial discussion and analysis of the agency's status, financial statements, and audit reports  Annual Performance Report  At the end of the fiscal year, the FCC publishes an Annual Performance Report that compares the agency's actual performance with its targets  All of these reports are available on the FCC website, https://www fcc gov/about/strategic-plans-budget   One FCC-related hearing has been held in the 116 th Congress  On April 3, 2019, the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government held a hearing on the FY2020 FCC budget  The hearing addressed issues including 5G deployment, federal preemption of state and local tower siting requirements, merger reviews, robocalls, and net neutrality  No bills that would affect the operation of the FCC have been introduced in the 116 th Congress  The FCC operates under a public interest mandate first laid out in the 1927 Radio Act (P L  632, 69 th Congress), but how this mandate is applied depends on which of two regulatory philosophies is relied upon to interpret it  The first seeks to protect and benefit the public at large through regulation, while the second seeks to achieve the same goals through the promotion of market efficiency  Additionally, Congress granted the FCC wide latitude and flexibility to revise its interpretation of the public interest standard to reflect changing circumstances, and the agency has not defined it in more concrete terms  These circumstances, paired with changes in FCC leadership, have led to significant changes over time in how the FCC regulates the broadcast and telecommunications industries  This evolution can be illustrated in changes to the agency's strategic goals under former Chairman Tom Wheeler to current Chairman Ajit Pai, which, in turn, led to the repeal in 2017 of the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules and to changes in the agency's structure in 2019  The FCC's strategic goals are set forth in its quadrennial Strategic Plan  How these goals change from one plan to the next can illustrate how the priorities of the commission change over time, especially when there is a change in the political majority of the commission and therefore, the political party of the chairman  Table 1 outlines the strategic goals of Chairman Wheeler in the FY2015-FY2018 Strategic Plan compared to those of Chairman Pai in the FY2018-FY2022 Strategic Plan  Chairman Wheeler was a proponent of protecting and benefitting the public through regulation  His support of this regulatory philosophy can be seen in the language used in the strategic goals, such as the "rights of users" and the "responsibilities of network providers " Another example can be seen in the following language: "The FCC has a responsibility to promote the expansion of these networks and to ensure they have the incentive and the ability to compete fairly with one another in providing broadband services " On the other hand, Chairman Pai speaks about protecting and benefitting the public through the promotion of market incentives and efficiency  His support of this regulatory philosophy can be seen in the language used in the strategic goals, such as "reducing regulatory burdens" and ensuring that "regulations reflect the realities of the current marketplace, promote entrepreneurship, expand economic opportunity, and remove barriers to entry and investment " The use of this particular language may seem somewhat vague, but within the context of the net neutrality debate, discussed below, and the replacement of the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis with the Office of Economics and Analytics, those words take on more specific meaning, each intending to support the policy agenda of the Chairman  Net neutrality is arguably the highest profile issue illustrating the two regulatory philosophies described above  Chairman Pai had long maintained that the FCC under Chairman Wheeler had overstepped its bounds, expressing confidence that the 2015 Wheeler-era net neutrality rules would be undone, calling them "unnecessary regulations that hold back investment and innovation " Although the net neutrality debate originated in 2005, the 2015 Open Internet Order, implemented under the leadership of Chairman Wheeler, and the 2017 Order overturning those rules, promulgated under Chairman Pai, are the most recent  These two orders can be used to illustrate the contrast between the regulatory philosophies of the two chairmen: Some policymakers contend that more proscriptive regulations, such as those contained in the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order (2015 Order), are necessary to protect the marketplace from potential abuses which could threaten the net neutrality concept  Others contend that existing laws and the current, less restrictive approach, contained in the FCC's 2017 Restoring Internet Freedom Order (2017 Order), provide a more suitable framework  Net neutrality continues to be a highly politicized issue, with most FCC action being approved along party lines  In January 2019, the FCC voted along party lines to eliminate the Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis and replace it with a new Office of Economics and Analytics  The Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis (OSP) was created in 2005, replacing the Office of Plans and Policy  OSP had been charged with "providing advice to the chairman, commissioners, bureaus, and offices; developing strategic plans; identifying the agency's policy objectives; and providing research, advice, and analysis of advanced, novel, and nontraditional communications issues " It had also been the home of the Chief Economist and Chief Technologist  The new Office of Economics and Analytics is "responsible for expanding and deepening the use of economic analysis into FCC policy making, for enhancing the development and use of auctions, and for implementing consistent and effective agency-wide data practices and policies " This new office reflects the goals in the current strategic plan: We will modernize and streamline the FCC's operations and programs to … reduce regulatory burdens…  A key priority [is to] … ensure that the FCC's actions and regulations reflect the realities of the current marketplace … and remove barriers to entry and investment  As the FCC continues to conduct its business into the future, the changing regulatory philosophies of the FCC chairmen may continue to drive how the FCC defines its long-term, strategic goals  This, in turn, may affect how the agency structures (and restructures) itself and how it decides regulatory questions, including a continued review of net neutrality  Congress may determine that the public interest standard should remain more static, rather than fluctuating dramatically depending on the regulatory philosophy of the chairman  No legislation on this topic has been introduced in Congress, signaling to some observers that it intends to continue allowing the FCC to define it  Table A-1   Senate and House hearings in the 115 th Congress regarding the operation of the FCC are detailed in Table A-2 and Table A-3 , respectively  Links to individual hearing pages are included in these tables 

ground_truth: The administration of elections in the United States is highly decentralized. Elections are primarily administered by thousands of state and local systems rather than a single, unified national system. States and localities share responsibility for most election administration duties. Exactly how responsibilities are assigned at the state and local levels varies both between and within states, but there are some general patterns in the distribution of duties. States typically have primary responsibility for making decisions about the rules of elections (policymaking). Localities typically have primary responsibility for conducting elections in accordance with those rules (implementation). Localities, with varying contributions from states, typically also have primary responsibility for paying for the activities and resources required to conduct elections (funding). The structures of the state and local systems that conduct elections also vary between and within states. Common variations include differences related to the leadership of the system, the relationship between local election officials and the state, and the population size and density of the jurisdiction the system serves. The leadership of a state or local election system may be elected or appointed, and both the leaders and the methods used to select them may be partisan, bipartisan, or nonpartisan. State officials may have more or less direct influence over local election officials, and the extent of their influence may be affected by other structural features of the state's election systems, such as the methods used to select local officials. Finally, larger election jurisdictions have different administrative advantages and challenges than smaller ones, and more urban jurisdictions have different advantages and challenges than more rural ones. These differences between jurisdictions may be reflected in structural features of the election systems that serve them, such as how the systems allocate resources and where they find specialized expertise. Understanding the duties and structures of state and local election systems may be relevant to Congress for at least two reasons. First, the way state and local election systems work can affect how well federal action on election administration serves its intended purposes. The effectiveness of federal action depends in part on how it is implemented. How it is implemented can depend, in turn, on how the state and local election systems that implement it work. Second, Congress can make or incentivize changes to the way state and local election systems work. Congress has a number of policy tools it can use to affect the administration of federal elections. The use of these tools can—either intentionally or unintentionally—affect the state and local election systems that administer federal elections.

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



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

Report 1: Election administration attracted significant attention in 2000, when issues with the vote count delayed the results of the presidential race  Administrative issues have also been reported in subsequent election cycles  For example, issues with voter registration were reported in multiple states in 2016 and 2018  Some responses to such reports focus on the rules of elections  The Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA; P L  107-252 ; 116 Stat  1666), for example, requires states to establish a uniform standard of what counts as a vote for each voting system they use (52 U S C  §21081(a)(6)), and bills have been introduced in recent Congresses to change how voter registration is handled  Other responses focus on the systems that apply election rules  In the United States, that typically means state and local systems  The administration of elections in the United States is highly decentralized  Elections are primarily administered by thousands of state and local systems rather than a single, unified national system  Understanding how those state and local systems work may be relevant to Congress for at least two reasons  First, the way state and local election systems work can affect how well federal action on election administration serves its intended purposes  Most federal action on election administration is carried out by state and local election systems  Interactions between the workings of those systems and federal actions can help determine how effective the federal actions are at achieving their objectives  Second, Congress can require or encourage changes to the way state and local election systems work  Congress has a number of tools for influencing election administration policy  The use of these tools can—either intentionally or unintentionally—affect the workings of the state and local systems that administer federal elections  This report is intended to help Congress understand how state and local election systems work and how their workings might relate to federal activity on election administration  It starts by describing the distribution of election administration duties at the state and local levels and the structures of the state and local systems that conduct elections  It then uses examples from past federal action on election administration to illustrate some of the ways the duties and structures of state and local election systems interact with federal activity  It closes by introducing some considerations that may be relevant to Members interested in election administration  This report focuses on the administration of federal elections in the states by executive and legislative branches of state and local government  Much of the discussion applies to nonfederal as well as federal elections, but the report is intended explicitly to address only federal elections  The report also does not cover the federal role in administering federal elections, election administration in the U S  territories, the role of law enforcement and the courts in election administration, or issues of constitutional or legal interpretation  The typical federal election process has three main parts: voter registration, vote casting, and vote counting  This report focuses on those three parts of the process rather than on other aspects of campaigns and elections, such as campaign finance and redistricting  Finally, the way federal elections are administered varies between and within states  A full accounting of the variations is beyond the scope of this report  Instead, the report describes general patterns and illustrates them with examples  Examples appear in text boxes like the box below, which describes the role the text boxes play in the report in more detail  Election administration involves making decisions about the rules of elections, such as whether voters should be able to register online, whether they should be required to show photo identification at the polls, and whether election results should be audited  It also involves conducting elections in accordance with those decisions and paying for the activities and resources required to conduct them  These three election administration duties can be described as policymaking, implementation, and funding  This section describes some common patterns in the distribution of these duties at the state and local levels  In the U S  system, states generally play the primary decisionmaking role in election administration  State legislatures, with input from their governors, can make state laws about the administration of elections and make or initiate election administration amendments to their state constitutions  State laws and constitutions can also delegate or defer responsibility for decisions about the administration of elections to other state or local officials and to voters  The U S  Constitution also provides for a federal role with respect to decisionmaking about elections, and Congress has exercised such powers in a number of instances  For more information about federal laws governing the state and local conduct of federal elections, see the Appendix   Box 1 uses examples from voter registration to illustrate a number of these approaches to policymaking  It starts with a discussion of a registration policy enacted by the federal government and then describes an adjustment to the policy made, respectively, by a state legislature on the recommendation of a state executive branch official, by state executive branch officials, and by voters  State and local officials may be granted decisionmaking authority explicitly by a variety of constitutional provisions, laws, charters, ordinances, and regulations at multiple levels of government  They may also be left discretion over policy details that are not specified in legislative or regulatory text  For example, states may set out general guidelines for voting technology and ballot design but leave decisions about exactly which machines to buy or how to lay out ballots to local officials  Voters have a say in election administration measures that are referred to the ballot by their state legislatures  Some states also offer citizen initiatives or popular referendums, which voters can use to propose their own state election administration statutes or state constitutional amendments or to repeal or affirm election administration laws adopted by their state legislatures  Table 1 lists the citizen initiative and popular referendum options available to voters in states that offer such mechanisms, as presented by the Initiative & Referendum Institute at the University of Southern California in January 2019  Box 2 uses examples from the November 2018 election to illustrate how states and voters have used ballot measures to make election administration policy  It describes a statewide proposal to enact automatic voter registration in Nevada that was initiated by citizens, and a statewide proposal to enact a voter ID requirement in North Carolina that was referred to the ballot by the state legislature  Early U S  elections were conducted almost entirely locally  Some states have departed from that tradition  For example, in Alaska, the state conducts elections above the borough level, and, in Delaware, all elections are conducted by the state  Congress has also shifted some responsibility for conducting elections to the state level  For example, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA; P L  99-410 ; 100 Stat  924) requires states to designate a single state office to provide absent uniformed services and overseas voters with information about voter registration and absentee voting (52 U S C  §20302(b))  The NVRA requires states to designate a chief state election official to coordinate state responsibilities under the act (52 U S C  §20509), and HAVA requires chief state election officials to implement statewide voter registration lists and oversee development of plans for use of federal election administration funding (52 U S C  §21083(a)(1)(A); 52 U S C  §21005(a))  However, the day-to-day implementation of election administration policy is still mostly handled by localities  For example, localities typically add eligible voters to the voter rolls; design and print ballots; recruit and train poll workers; select and prepare polling places; store and transport voting equipment; and count, canvass, and report election results  The level of locality primarily responsible for conducting elections is typically the county, but there are some exceptions  The New England states, which have a strong tradition of township government, tend to assign primary responsibility to municipalities  Some states also split implementation duties between counties and municipalities  Responsibility for implementing election administration policy may also be divided between offices or agencies at the same level of local government  For example, according to one scholarly source, as of 2015, localities in about one-third of states split responsibility for conducting elections between two or more offices or agencies  Table 2 lists the states identified by those scholars  Election administration involves both intermittent and ongoing costs  Intermittent costs include irregular expenses like the costs of acquiring voting equipment  Ongoing costs include expenses that are linked to and recur with each individual election, such as the costs of printing ballots, paying poll workers, and transporting voting equipment to polling places, as well as expenses that are incurred whether or not there is an election, such as the costs of training election officials, maintaining voter registration lists, and providing IT support for online voter registration systems  The federal government does not supply ongoing funding to states and localities to conduct elections  To date, Congress has authorized significant federal funding for state and local election administration in one bill: HAVA  HAVA authorized $3 65 billion for three main types of formula-based payments to states as well as additional funding for a number of smaller grant and payment programs (52 U S C  §§20901-20906; 52 U S C  §§21001-21072)  Congress appropriated most of the $3 65 billion for the three types of formula-based payments between FY2003 and FY2010 and appropriated an additional $380 million in March 2018  That means states and localities are responsible for most of the costs of conducting federal elections  Localities typically assume primary responsibility for those costs, with states contributing to varying degrees  All states have supplied or committed to supplying matching funds as required to receive federal HAVA funds (52 U S C  §21003(b)(5)(a))  All states but North Dakota, which does not have voter registration, have also contributed to establishing and maintaining the statewide voter registration lists required by HAVA (52 U S C  §21083(a))  State contributions to other costs vary  Many states used HAVA funding to help replace or update voting technology, and some have put additional money from state coffers toward those expenses  Table 3 lists state contributions to the costs of acquiring voting equipment, as reported by the U S  Government Accountability Office (GAO) in 2018  Table 4 provides information from the same report about states' contributions to the costs of maintaining and operating voting equipment  As GAO uses the terms in the survey, operation costs "include things such as poll worker labor to set up equipment, postage for mailing absentee or vote-by-mail ballots, paper and printing supplies for paper ballots or voter-verified paper trails, and electricity to operate equipment during elections " Maintenance costs "include things such as labor to conduct maintenance between elections of any equipment hardware and software as well as any required parts " Some states cover or contribute to the costs of training local election officials, and some share election-specific costs, such as printing ballots and transporting voting equipment  Box 3 uses five examples of cost-sharing arrangements for election-specific costs of federal elections to illustrate the range of approaches states have taken to such arrangements  The structures of the state and local systems that conduct federal elections vary both between and within states  Common variations include differences related to the leadership of the election system; relationship between local election officials and the state; and population size and density of the jurisdiction served by the system  This section describes these structural variations  The state and local election systems that conduct federal elections may be led by an individual, such as the state secretary of state or a town or county clerk; a group, such as a state elections commission or a county board of elections; or a combination of individuals or groups, such as a state secretary of state and state board of elections, or a city clerk and city registrar of voters  Election system leadership may be chosen by voters or appointed by an authority such as the governor or state legislature  The selection method—and the leaders themselves—may be partisan, bipartisan, or nonpartisan  Federal law requires states to designate a chief election official to carry out certain tasks  Table 5 lists the titles of chief state election officials, as reported to CRS by the EAC, and the methods of selecting them, as listed by the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) and the National Association of State Legislatures (NCSL)  The leadership types and selection methods of local election systems may vary within a state  Box 4 uses examples from Florida and Wisconsin to illustrate such variations  It describes the different causes of variation in the two states and a recent change in Florida to a more uniform selection process  The leadership structures of both state and local systems can also change over time  Box 5 uses the two states from Box 4 to illustrate the types of changes states might make, how they might make them, and how frequently they might make them  It describes one change that was approved by voters as a ballot measure and a number of others that were enacted legislatively  Another way in which the structures of election systems can vary is in the relationship between local election officials and the state  Some local election officials operate largely independently, whereas others rely on state officials or resources for some, most, or all basic functions  For example, as noted in " Funding ," states may provide some or all of the training for local election officials  As described in more detail in " Jurisdiction Size and Density ," local election officials who serve smaller or more rural jurisdictions may also depend on their states to provide specialized expertise, such as legal or technical know-how  States also have varying types and degrees of influence over local election officials  Choices about other structural features, such as the method used to select the leadership of local election systems, can shape this aspect of the state-local relationship  For example, in some states, state officials appoint and can remove local election officials  State officials in other states may have other options for influencing local officials  For example, state officials may have the power to initiate legal action against local officials, to provide or withhold funding for local election administration, or to certify and decertify voting systems  However, they tend to have less control over how local officials perform their election administration duties than state officials with appointment and removal authority  As described in more detail in " Compliance with Federal Requirements ," this dynamic may be especially pronounced for local officials who are popularly elected  Such officials are accountable primarily to voters rather than to the state  Other structural variations between election systems derive from differences in the population size and density of the jurisdictions they serve  Some election jurisdictions reported serving fewer than 100 eligible registered voters in the 2016 election, for example, whereas Los Angeles County reported serving 6 8 million  The eligible registered voters in that county alone reportedly outnumbered the eligible registrants in each of 40 other states  Election jurisdictions also differ in population density  For example, Los Angeles County is an urban center, and many small jurisdictions are rural  Jurisdictions with different population sizes and densities have different election administration advantages and face different administrative challenges  For example, voter registration list maintenance is typically more straightforward in small jurisdictions because their lists are shorter and election officials are more likely to know registrants personally  Meanwhile, large jurisdictions tend to have larger tax bases and more resources  Those differences between jurisdictions may be reflected in the internal structures of the election systems that serve them  One example of such a structural difference is the size and specialization of the system's staff  Larger jurisdictions, which typically have more personnel, may have much of the specialized expertise they need in-house  Smaller jurisdictions, which may have only one part-time employee dedicated to election administration, are more likely to rely on outside expertise  For example, according to law professors Steven F  Huefner, Daniel P  Tokaji, and Edward B  Foley, smaller jurisdictions in Illinois have looked to state attorneys for election law expertise and to voting equipment vendors for technical support  Another type of difference related to jurisdiction size and density is variation in the allocation of system resources  A study prepared for the U S  Election Assistance Commission in 2013 found that election officials in rural jurisdictions were more likely than their urban counterparts to use paid print advertising for voter outreach  Election officials in urban jurisdictions were more likely to use websites and social media  Small jurisdictions may also allocate a larger share of their resources to meeting state and federal requirements than larger jurisdictions because there are often fixed start-up costs to required changes, and smaller jurisdictions may be less equipped to capitalize on economies of scale  For example, political scientists Heather M  Creek and Kimberly A  Karnes report, "There is a minimum cost to the acquisition and maintenance of voting technology that applies whether the district is purchasing 5 or 500 machines " The duties and structures of state and local election systems can affect the implementation of federal election administration laws  Perhaps as a result, Congress has specified how states and localities should distribute certain election administration duties and structure certain elements of their election systems  Changes to the duties and structures of state and local election systems have sometimes also been side effects of other federal activity on election administration  This section provides examples of ways in which the distribution of election administration duties at the state and local levels and the structures of state and local election systems can affect the implementation of federal election administration law  These examples include federal efforts to affect the administration of elections through (1) requirements, (2) funding, and (3) information sharing  Congress can use requirements to regulate how states and localities administer certain aspects of federal elections  How well such requirements serve their intended purposes depends in part on how closely states and localities comply with them  How closely states and localities comply with federal requirements may, in turn, be affected by the duties and structures of the state and local election systems that implement them  For example, UOCAVA assigns responsibility for complying with some of its requirements to the states (52 U S C  §20302), but the tasks required for compliance are often handled by local officials  One scholar, law professor Justin Weinstein-Tull, indicates that this means that the officials who are held liable for compliance with UOCAVA requirements may differ from the officials who take or fail to take the actions needed to comply  Box 6 provides an illustration of this phenomenon as reported by state officials in Alabama  The federal government can provide funding for state and local election administration, which may be conditional on the adoption of certain election administration policies or practices  How well such funding serves its intended purposes may depend in part on how timely it is and how well-tailored it is to its objectives  Duties and structures of state and local election systems may affect how quickly federal funding is claimed and used and how well the uses to which it is put serve federal objectives  For example, HAVA has authorized payments to states to meet its requirements (52 U S C  §21007)  It has directed those payments to be disbursed to states (52 U S C  §21001(a)) and charged chief state election officials with overseeing decisions about how to spend them (52 U S C  §21005(a))  State election officials run federal elections in some states, but those states are the exception  As noted in " Implementation " and " Funding ," most states assign election administration implementation and funding duties to local officials  That means that the officials who receive HAVA funding and are charged with overseeing decisions about how to use it often differ from the officials who conduct and pay for the activities and resources it is intended to fund  That has had at least two reported consequences  First, in some cases, it has reportedly delayed access to or use of some HAVA funds  Directing HAVA funding to states introduces opportunities for state-level delays, such as decisions by state officials to wait to claim the funds or requirements in state law to obtain approval to do so  Second, some local officials have stated the view that their states' shares of HAVA funding were not put to what they considered the areas of greatest need  Box 7 provides examples of such consequences as described by state and local officials in Nevada, Minnesota, and Virginia  Congress can require or facilitate information sharing with states and localities by federal agencies  As with funding, the effectiveness of federal information sharing may depend in part on how timely it is  How quickly federal agencies share information with the appropriate state and local officials may be affected by the distribution of election administration duties at the state and federal levels  Box 8 provides an example of such an effect reported by NASS  Past federal action has resulted in both intentional and unintentional changes to state and local election systems  Some federal laws include provisions that are specifically designed to establish certain responsibilities for election administration at the state level  For example, the NVRA requires states to designate chief state election officials to coordinate state responsibilities under the act (52 U S C  §20509), and HAVA charges chief state election officials with implementing a statewide voter registration system (52 U S C  §21083(a)(1)(A))  Federal regulation has reportedly also had the side effect of shifting the distribution of other election administration duties  For example, the agency-based registration requirements in the NVRA divide voter registration responsibilities between traditional election offices and offices that had not historically been involved in election administration, such as motor vehicle and public assistance agencies (52 U S C  §20504; 52 U S C  §20506)  According to Hale, Montjoy, and Brown, "the need to pass implementing legislation and the complexity of legal and technical requirements" in federal laws such as HAVA and the NVRA has also "led many states to grant new or additional rule-making power" to their chief state election officials  Congress has considered legislation—some of which has been enacted and some of which has not—that would change election rules or the state and local systems that implement them  The interactions between the duties and structures of state and local election systems and past federal actions suggest some considerations that may be relevant to future congressional consideration of proposals that would affect the administration of federal elections  The following questions may be of interest to Members as they consider making changes to election administration or maintaining current rules and structures: How would any proposed change interact with the duties and structures of state and local election systems? Would the duties and structures of state and local election systems make a proposed change difficult to implement? Would the design of a proposed change need to be adjusted to accommodate variations between or within states? Which of the policy tools available to Congress is best suited to achieving the purpose of a proposed change? For example, would it be more effective to advance a proposed change with a federal requirement, or incentivize it via federal funding? How might the nature of the state and local system inform a proposed change? For example, if it is a federal requirement, who is charged with compliance; who is responsible for the tasks required for compliance; and what is the relationship between the two? If it is federal funding, to whom should it be distributed, and who should be involved in making decisions about how to use it? Would a proposed change have the effect, either intentionally or unintentionally, of altering the duties or structures of state or local election systems? If so, what are the advantages and disadvantages of such changes? Are there complications with a proposed change that are not specifically related to election administration? For example, could there be federalism-related issues with intervening in the relationships between states and their political subdivisions? 


Report 2: The EFMP provides support to families with special needs at their current and proposed locations  Servicemembers relocate frequently, generally moving every 3 years if in the Army, Marine Corps, and Navy, and every 4 years if in the Air Force  In fiscal year 2016, the Military Services relocated approximately 39,000 servicemembers enrolled in the EFMP to CONUS installations  To implement DOD’s policy on support for families with special needs, DOD requires each Service to establish its own EFMP for active duty servicemembers  EFMPs are to have three components—identification and enrollment, assignment coordination, and family support  Identification and enrollment: Medical and educational personnel at each installation are responsible for identifying eligible family members with special medical or educational needs to enroll in the EFMP  Once identified by a qualified medical provider, active duty servicemembers are required to enroll in their service’s EFMP  Servicemembers are also required to self-identify when they learn a family member has a qualifying condition  Assignment coordination: Before finalizing a servicemember’s assignment to a new location, DOD requires each Military Service to consider any family member’s special needs during this process, including the availability of required medical and special educational services at a new location  Family support: DOD requires each Military Service’s EFMP to include a family support component through which it helps families with special needs identify and gain access to programs and services at their current, as well as proposed, locations  Servicemembers assigned to a joint base would receive family support from the Service that is responsible for leading that installation  For example, an Airman assigned to a joint base where the Army is the lead would receive family support from the Army installation’s EFMP  As required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010, DOD established the Office of Community Support for Military Families with Special Needs (Office of Special Needs or OSN) to develop, implement, and oversee a policy to support these families  Among other things, this policy must (1) address assignment coordination and family support services for families with special needs; (2) incorporate requirements for resources and staffing to ensure appropriate numbers of case managers are available to develop and maintain services plans that support these families; and (3) include requirements regarding the development and continuous updating of a services plan for each military family with special needs  OSN is also responsible for collaborating with the Services to standardize EFMP components as appropriate and for monitoring the Services’ EFMPs  OSN has been delegated the responsibility of implementing DOD’s policy for families with special needs by the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness through the Assistant Secretary for Manpower and Reserve Affairs according to DOD officials  Currently, OSN is administered under the direction of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy through the Office of Military Family Readiness Policy  In addition, each Military Service has designated a program manager for its EFMP who is also responsible for working with OSN to implement its EFMP (see fig  1)  DOD’s guidance for the EFMP (1) identifies procedures for assignment coordination and family support services; (2) designates the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Manpower and Reserve Affairs as being responsible for monitoring overall EFMP effectiveness; (3) assigns the OSN oversight responsibility for the EFMP, including data review and monitoring; and (4) directs each Service to develop guidance for overseeing compliance with DOD requirements for their EFMP  Table 1 provides an overview of the procedures each Service must establish for the assignment coordination and family support components of the EFMP  As a part of its guidance for monitoring military family readiness programs, DOD also requires each Military Service to certify or accredit its family readiness services, including family support services provided through the EFMP  In addition, DOD states that each Service must balance the need for overarching consistency across EFMPs with the need for each Service to provide family support that is consistent with their specific mission  To accomplish this, each Service is required to jointly work with DOD to develop a performance strategy, which is a plan that assesses the elements of cost, quality, effectiveness, utilization, accessibility, and customer satisfaction for family readiness services  In addition, each Military Service is required to evaluate their family readiness services using performance goals that are linked to valid and reliable measures such as customer satisfaction and cost  DOD also requires each Service to use the results of these evaluations to inform their assessments of the effectiveness of their family readiness services for families with special needs  According to DOD officials, each Military Service provides family support services in accordance with DOD guidance as well as Service-specific guidance  However, we found wide variation in each Service’s requirements for family support personnel as well as the practices and expectations of EFMP staff  As a result the type, amount, and frequency of assistance enrolled families receive varies from Service to Service and when a servicemember from one Service is assigned to a joint base led by another Service (see table 2)  For example, in terms of a minimum level of contact for families with special needs enrolled in the EFMP, the Services vary in the frequency with which they require family support providers to contact families with special needs: The Marine Corps specifies a frequency (quarterly) with which families with special needs should be contacted by their family support providers  The Air Force has each installation obtain a roster of families with special needs enrolled in the EFMP on a monthly basis, but it does not require family support providers to, for example, use this information to regularly contact these families  The Navy assigns one of three service levels to each family member enrolled in the EFMP  These service levels are based on the needs of each family with special needs; family support providers are responsible for assigning a “service level” that directs the frequency with which the family must be contacted  The Army has no requirements for how often families with special needs should be contacted  The Services also vary as to whether they offer legal assistance to families with special needs as follows: The Marine Corps employs two attorneys who can represent families with special needs who fail to receive special education services from local school districts, as specified in their children’s individualized education programs (IEP)  They can also advise EFMP-enrolled families on their rights and options if a family believes their child needs special education services from a local school district (e g , an IEP)  The Air Force, Army, and Navy choose not to employ special education attorneys  Officials with whom we spoke said families with special needs in these Services can receive other types of assistance that may help them resolve special education legal issues  For example, Air Force officials said servicemembers and their families can receive support from attorneys that provide general legal assistance on an installation, Army officials said installation EFMP managers can refer families with special needs to other organizations that provide legal support, and Navy officials said families can find support through working with their installation’s School Liaison Officers  The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 requires DOD’s policy to include requirements regarding the development and continuous updating of a services plan (SP) for each family with special needs, and DOD has specifically required these plans as part of the provision of family support services  These plans describe the necessary services and support for a family with special needs and document and track progress toward meeting related goals  According to DOD guidance, these plans should also document the support provided to the family, including case notes  In addition, the DOD reference guide for family support providers emphasizes that timely, up-to-date documentation is especially important each time a family relocates, as military families regularly do  Therefore, SPs are an important part of providing family support during the relocation process, and provide a record for the gaining installation  Requiring timely and up-to-date documentation is consistent with federal internal control standards, which state that agencies should periodically review policies, procedures, and related control activities for continued relevance and effectiveness in achieving their objectives  SPs follow families with special needs each time they relocate and without timely and up-to-date documentation, DOD cannot ensure that all families continue to receive required medical and/or special educational services once they relocate to another installation  For every Service the number of SPs was relatively few when compared to the number of servicemembers (known as sponsors) or the number of family members enrolled in the EFMP (see table 3)  The Services and OSN provided a range of reasons as to why the Services do not develop and maintain a SP for each family with special needs  For example, Air Force officials said their family support providers consider the needs of each family with special needs before determining whether a SP will help them receive the required services  In addition, Army and Marine Corps officials said they may not develop these plans if families do not request them  Further, according to a Navy official, some families lack the required SPs because installations may not have the staff needed to develop them—even though DOD requires the Services to maintain sufficient staff and certify their EFMPs  OSN officials with whom we spoke also said that the Services may not have developed many SPs during fiscal year 2016 because DOD had not yet approved a standardized form that could be used to meet this requirement  Finally, OSN officials also said that each family with special needs enrolled in the EFMP may not need a SP because their condition does not require this type of family support  To meet requirements of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010, in April 2017, DOD issued to the Services guidance that directed them to “rogram, budget, and allocate sufficient funds and other resources, including staffing,” to meet DOD’s policy objectives for the EFMP  According to OSN officials, DOD relies on each Service to determine what level of funds and resources is sufficient and what constitutes an appropriate number of family support personnel  To determine family support providers and related personnel staffing levels, the Service officials with whom we spoke said they consider a number of factors, including the number of families with special needs enrolled in the EFMP at any given installation (see app  II for more information about the EFMP data by installation)  See Table 4 for a summary of EFMP family support providers and other key personnel at CONUS installations  As required by DOD, all of the Services employ family support providers to assist families with special needs  In addition, some Services employ additional personnel to support implementation of the EFMP (see sidebar)  For example, the Air Force employs family support coordinators to administer its EFMP and no other personnel are dedicated to assisting these coordinators or enrolled families  The Army employs “system navigators” who provide individualized support to families with special needs at selected installations through its EFMP, as well as other personnel to administer the EFMP  workers at most of its CONUS installations to administer individualized support to families with special needs  In addition, the Marine Corps employs program managers, administrative assistants, as well as training and education outreach specialists  The Navy contracts regional case liaisons and case liaisons at selected CONUS installations to administer individualized support to families with special needs  In addition, the Navy employs collateral duty case liaisons who assist with the delivery of family support services at all other CONUS installations  Senior OSN officials said they rely on each Service to determine the extent to which its EFMP complies with DOD’s policy for families with special needs because they consider OSN to be a policy-making organization that is not primarily responsible for assessing compliance  In addition, these officials said the Services need flexibility to implement DOD’s policy for families with special needs because they each have unique needs and the number of enrolled families in the EFMP is constantly changing  However, DOD has not developed a standard for determining the sufficiency of funding and resources each Service allocates for family support  Air Force officials at one of the installations we visited said the Air Force identified the lack of staff and funding to provide individualized support to most families with special needs as an issue  In addition, officials from the Army and Navy said they have not received any guidance from OSN officials about their Service-specific guidance, including requirements for resources and services plans  Further, the Services may not know the extent to which their Service- specific guidance complies with DOD’s policy for families with special needs  The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010 requires DOD to identify and report annually to the congressional defense committees on gaps in services for military families with special needs and to develop plans to address these gaps  However, DOD’s most recent reports to the congressional defense committees did not address the relatively few SPs being created for families with special needs, or whether the Services are providing sufficient resources to ensure an appropriate number of family support providers  Federal internal control standards require that agencies establish control activities, such as developing clear policies, in order to accomplish agency objectives such as those of the Services’ EFMPs  Without fully identifying and addressing potential gaps in family support across these programs, some families with special needs may not get the assistance they require, particularly when they relocate  Each Service monitors EFMP assignment coordination and family support using a variety of mechanisms, such as regularly produced internal data reports  However, DOD has not yet established common performance measures to track the Services’ progress in implementing its standard procedures over time or developed a process to evaluate the overall effectiveness of each Service’s assignment coordination and family support procedures  DOD requires each Service to monitor implementation of their EFMP, including their procedures for assignment coordination and family support  To comply with this requirement, each Service has developed guidance that establishes monitoring protocols and assigns oversight responsibilities  Officials from each Service told us they use internal data reports from each installation to monitor assignment coordination and family support  To monitor assignment coordination, officials from each Service told us their headquarters reviews proposed assignment locations for families with special needs enrolled in the EFMP  These officials said monitoring proposed assignment locations helps ensure that enrolled families will be able to access required services at their new installations  In addition, Army officials said each Army unit commander is responsible for tracking the number of families with special needs that have expired enrollment paperwork because it affects assignment coordination worldwide  Several years ago, the Army determined that 25 percent of soldiers (over 13,000) enrolled in the EFMP had expired enrollment paperwork, complicating the task of considering each enrolled family’s special medical or educational needs as part of proposed relocations  In response, in August 2011, the Army revised its policies and procedures for updating enrollment paperwork which would help ensure a family member’s special needs are considered during the assignment coordination process  To monitor family support provided by installations worldwide, each Military Service told us they use a variety of mechanisms (see table 5)  The Marine Corps pays particular attention to customer satisfaction  Marine Corps officials told us that every three years Marine Corps headquarters administers a survey of family members enrolled in the EFMP  We previously reported that organizations may be able to increase customer satisfaction by better understanding customer needs and organizing services around those needs  This survey is one of the primary ways Marine Corps headquarters measures customer satisfaction with family support services at installations worldwide  Marine Corps officials also said this survey helps ensure its EFMP is based on the current needs of families with special needs  To improve its oversight of the EFMP and implement its policy for families with special needs, DOD, through OSN, has several efforts under way to standardize the Services’ procedures for assignment coordination and family support  However, DOD has not developed common performance measures to monitor its progress toward these efforts and has not developed a process for assessing the Services’ related monitoring activities  Federal internal control standards emphasize the importance of assessing performance over time and evaluating the results of monitoring activities  To help improve family member satisfaction by addressing gaps in support that may exist between Services, OSN has begun to standardize procedures for assignment coordination and family support  To date, OSN’s efforts have focused on ensuring each Service’s EFMP considers the needs of family members during the assignment process and helps family members identify and gain access to community resources  According to OSN’s April 2017 Report to Congress, the long-term goal of these efforts is to help ensure that all families with special needs enrolled in the EFMP receive the same level of service regardless of their Military Service affiliation or geographic location  In addition, OSN officials told us its standardized procedures will also help DOD perform required oversight by improving its access to Service-level data and its ability to validate each Service’s monitoring activities  To date, efforts to standardize assignment coordination and family support have included efforts such as developing new family member travel screening forms which will be the official documents used during the assignment coordination process and completing a DOD-wide customer service satisfaction survey on EFMP family support (see table 6)  Despite its efforts to begin standardizing assignment coordination and family support services, DOD is unable to measure its progress in standardizing assignment coordination and family support procedures for families with special needs and assessing the Services’ performance of these processes because it has not yet developed common metrics for doing so  Federal internal control standards emphasize the importance of agencies assessing performance over time  We have also reported on the importance of federal agencies engaging in large projects using performance metrics to determine how well they are achieving their goals and to identify any areas for improvement  By using performance metrics, decision makers can obtain feedback for improving both policy and operational effectiveness  Additionally, by tracking and developing a baseline for all measures, agencies can better evaluate progress made and whether or not goals are being achieved—thus providing valuable information for oversight by identifying areas of program risk and causes of risks or deficiencies to decision makers  Through our body of work on leading performance management practices, we have identified several attributes of effective performance metrics relevant to OSN’s work (see table 7)  OSN officials said each Service is currently responsible for assessing the performance of its own EFMP, including the development of Service- specific goals and performance measures  OSN officials said that they recognize the need to continually measure the department’s progress overall in implementing its policy for families with special needs, and are considering ways to do so  They also said they have encountered challenges to developing common performance measures  In addition, OSN officials said its efforts to reach consensus among the Services about performance measures for the overall EFMP are still ongoing because each Service wants to maintain its own measures, and DOD has not required them to reach a consensus  Absent common performance measures, DOD is unlikely to fully determine whether its long-standing efforts to improve support for families with special needs are being implemented as intended  DOD requires each Service to monitor its own family readiness programs, including procedures for assignment coordination and family support through the EFMP, but lacks a systematic process to evaluate the results of these monitoring activities  To monitor family readiness services, as required by DOD, each Service must accredit or certify its family support services, including the EFMP, using standards developed by a national accrediting body not less than once every 4 years  In addition, personnel from each Service’s headquarters are required to periodically visit installations as a part of their monitoring activities for assignment coordination, among other things  The Services initially had the Council on Accreditation accredit family support services provided through their installations’ EFMPs using national standards developed for military and family readiness programs, according to the officials with whom we spoke  However, by 2016, each Service was certifying installations’ family support services using standards that meet those of a national accrediting body, Service-specific standards, and best practices  According to officials from each Service with whom we spoke, this occurred due to changes in the funding levels allocated to this activity  Table 8 provides an overview of the certification process currently being used by each Service  OSN officials said they do not have an ongoing process to systematically review the results of the Services’ activities, including the certification of EFMPs because they choose to rely on the Services to develop their own monitoring activities and ensure they provide the desired outcomes  In doing so, DOD allows each Service to develop its own processes for certifying installations’ family support services, including the selection of standards  In addition, OSN officials told us that efforts to standardize certification of EFMPs are ongoing because the Military Services have not been able to reach consensus on a set of standards that can be used across DOD for installations’ family support services  Further, OSN has not established a process to assess the results of the Services’ processes for certifying installations’ family support services  Federal standards for internal control state that management should evaluate the results of monitoring efforts—such as those the Services are conducting on their own—to help ensure they meet their strategic goals  The lack of such a process hampers OSN’s ability to monitor the Services’ EFMPs and determine the adequacy of such programs as required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010  OSN’s job of developing a policy for families with special needs that will work across DOD’s four Services is challenging given the size, complexity, and mission of the U S  military  It has had to consider, among other things, the Services’ mission requirements, resource constraints, and the myriad demands on servicemembers and their families during their frequent relocations  Anything that further complicates a relocation—such as not receiving the required family support services for family members with special needs—potentially affects readiness or, at a minimum, makes an already stressful situation worse  By providing little direction on how the Services should provide family support or what the scope of family support services should be, some servicemembers get more—or less—from the EFMP each time they relocate, including when a servicemember from one Service is assigned to a joint base led by another Service  By largely deferring to the Services to design, implement, and monitor their EFMPs’ performance, DOD cannot, as required by the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010, fully determine the adequacy of the Services’ EFMPs in serving families with special needs, including any gaps in services these families receive, because it has not built a systematic process to do so  Instead, it relies on the Services to self-monitor and address, within each Service, the results of monitoring activities  However, because servicemembers relocate frequently and often depend on the EFMP of a Service other than their own, a view of EFMP performance across all of the Services is essential to ensuring, for example, that relocating servicemembers get consistent EFMP service delivery no matter where they are stationed  Evaluating and developing program improvements based on the results of the Services’ monitoring would help DOD ensure the Services’ EFMPs achieve the desired outcomes and improve its ability to assess the overall effectiveness of the program  We are making the following three recommendations to DOD: We recommend the Secretary of Defense direct the Office of Special Needs (OSN) to assess the extent to which each Service is (1) providing sufficient resources for an appropriate number of family support providers, and (2) developing services plans for each family with special needs, and to include these results as part of OSN’s analysis of any gaps in services for military families with special needs in each annual report issued by the Department to the congressional defense committees  (Recommendation 1) We recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct the Office of Special Needs (OSN) to develop common performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support, in accordance with leading practices for performance measurement  (Recommendation 2) We recommend that the Secretary of Defense implement a systematic process for evaluating the results of monitoring activities conducted by each Service’s EFMP  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Defense (DOD) for comment  DOD provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix IV  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  DOD agreed with all three of our recommendations  In its written comments, DOD stated that additional performance metrics need to be developed for assignment coordination and that it is in the process of measuring families’ satisfaction with family support provided through the EFMP  DOD also stated that it is developing plans for evaluating the results of each Service’s monitoring activities for the EFMP  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretaries of Defense and Education, and other interested parties  The report also is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (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 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017 includes a provision for GAO to assess the effectiveness of the Department of Defense’s (DOD) Exceptional Family Member Programs (EFMP)  This report focuses on the assignment coordination and family support components of the EFMP for dependents with special needs and examines: (1) the extent to which each Service has provided family support as required by DOD, and (2) the extent to which the Services monitor and DOD evaluates assignment coordination and family support  To address these objectives, we used a variety of data collection methods  Key methods are described in greater detail below  For both objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws, regulations, and DOD guidance and documentation that pertain to the EFMP, including the following: The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010, which established the Office of Special Needs and defined program requirements for assisting families with special needs, including assignment coordination and family support  DOD’s guidance for administering the EFMP  We assessed how DOD implements the requirements in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2010; how each Service implements assignment coordination and family support; and how the Services and DOD monitor assignment coordination and family support using performance measures  Specially, we reviewed DOD Instruction 1315 19 - Exceptional Family Member Program; Service-specific guidance and related documents from the Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy; and DOD Instruction 1342 22 - Military Family Readiness  Standards for internal control in the federal government related to the documentation of responsibilities through policies, performance measures, and evaluating the results of monitoring activities  We compared each Service’s procedures for monitoring assignment coordination and family support to these standards  To determine the extent of the Services’ EFMP family support, we obtained and analyzed fiscal year 2016 EFMP data (the most recent available) for each Service  We reviewed DOD policy to identify data variables that each Service maintains related to its EFMP  We used these data to summarize key characteristics of each Service’s EFMP  The selected variables provided Service-wide and installation-specific EFMP information on, the number of continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS) installations; the number of servicemembers (sponsors) enrolled in the EFMP; the number of family members with special needs enrolled in the EFMP; the number of EFMP family support personnel; and the number of services plans created for families with special needs enrolled in the EFMP  We determined that the selected data variables from each Service are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of providing summary results about family support for fiscal year 2016  To learn more about how the Services implement their EFMPs, we visited seven installations in five states  We selected the seven installations based on their location in states with the largest number of military- connected students in school year 2012-2013 (the most recent available and reliable data) or in states with the largest percentage of students enrolled in U S  DOD schools as of May 2017, as well as their status as a joint base  At each installation, we interviewed installation officials, EFMP managers, selected family support personnel, and family members and caregivers enrolled in the program  In states we visited that had the largest number of military-connected students, the EFMP personnel we interviewed collectively served 66 percent of students who attend local public schools and 42 percent of the students attending U S  DOD schools  To obtain illustrative examples about how the EFMP serves families with special needs, we conducted seven group interviews with EFMP-enrolled family members and caregivers (one at each of the seven installations we visited)  Using a prepared script, we asked participants to describe how they were identified and enrolled in the EFMP, how they were assigned to new installations, and the types of family support services they received  We also asked about how these services aligned with their family member’s EFMP-eligible condition, the benefits and challenges they experienced, as well as their overall satisfaction  A total of 38 self- selected volunteers participated in the seven group discussions  While the participants in these groups included a variety of family members and caregivers, the number of participants and groups were very small relative to the total number of family members enrolled in the EFMP  Their comments are not intended to represent all EFMP-enrolled family members or caregivers  Other EFMP-enrolled family members and caregivers may have had other experiences with the program during the same period  Finally, for both objectives, we conducted interviews with a variety of DOD, Service-level, and nonfederal officials  We spoke with DOD officials from the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense–Offices of Manpower and Reserve Affairs, Military Community and Family Policy, Military Family Readiness Policy, and Special Needs  We also spoke with EFMP Managers from Air Force, Army, Marine Corps, and Navy headquarters  We also met with officials from selected national military family advocacy organizations including the National Military Family Association; the Military Family Advisory Network; and the Military Officers Association of America to discuss the EFMP  We conducted this performance audit from February 2017 to May 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  Each Service has an Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) that provides support to military families with special needs  The tables below present the following information on selected EFMP and family support categories for each Service’s program at continental United States (CONUS) and outside the continental United States (OCONUS) installations in fiscal year 2016: City, state or country; Number of exceptional family members; Number of family support providers (by Full-Time Equivalent); Number of family support provider vacancies; Number of services plans; Number of indirect contacts; and Number of direct contacts  The information below is listed sequentially in alphabetical order by Service  We held small group discussions with Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) participants at the seven military installations we visited  Family members and caregivers who attended each session reported they had children or spouses with EFMP-eligible conditions  The discussion group participants were self-selected; and their comments are not intended to represent all EFMP -enrolled family members or caregivers in fiscal year 2016  In addition, other EFMP -enrolled family members and caregivers may have had different experiences with the program during the same period  There were a total of 38 participants representing all the Services  The following issues were discussed by one or more participants during the small group discussions at the installations we visited  The issues that emerged relate to the current and future overall effectiveness of the EFMP  Overall Satisfaction with EFMP (Discussed by 30 of 38 participants): Measure of participants’ approval of the family support services offered and experience with the EFMP  Many participants expressed overall satisfaction with the EFMP  Several participants expressed dissatisfaction with the EFMP  A participant expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of consistency in the provision of family support services (i e , special education advocacy) across installations  School Liaison Officers (Discussed by 20 of 38 participants): Serve as the primary point of contact for school-related matters as well as assist military families with school issues  Several participants noted that they received no response to their request for assistance from their School Liaison Officer or they only received general information  Several participants said School Liaison Officers were not helpful  Some participants found School Liaison Officers were helpful  Some participants were unaware of School Liaison Officers being available at their installation and the service(s) they provide  A few participants said School Liaison Officers did not follow up on requests for information  A participant noted there seems to be a disconnect between family support services provided through the EFMP and services provided by School Liaison Officers  Family Support Personnel (Discussed by 12 of 38 participants): Provide information and referral to military families with special needs  Some participants at one installation noted that the EFMP was understaffed  Some participants at one installation noted high turnover of family support personnel  Some participants noted family support personnel did not provide support for their family with special needs  Stigma (Discussed by 12 of 38 participants): A perception that participating in the EFMP may limit a soldier’s assignment opportunities and/or compromise career advancement  Several participants believe there is still stigma associated with participating in the EFMP  Some participants said participating in the EFMP has not affected career advancement  Assignment Coordination (Discussed by 10 of 38 participants): The assignment of military personnel in a manner consistent with the needs of armed forces that considers locations where care and support for family members with special needs are available  Some participants found the assignment coordination process challenging  Some participants described limitations with the assignment coordination process  A few participants noted there is a lack of information among families with special needs regarding how to express the need for stabilization and /or continuity of care  A few participants cited the challenges of assignment coordination as contributing to their decision to retire  One participant commented that the opinion of a medical professional was not reflected in the assignment coordination process  Special Education Services (Discussed by 10 of 38 participants): The provision of staff capable of assisting families with special needs with special education and disability law advice and/or assistance and attendance at individualized education program (IEP) meetings where appropriate  Several participants who had a family support provider assist them with preparing for or attending a school-based meeting, including IEP meetings, spoke positively of their experience(s)  Some participants at one installation agreed that assistance from family support providers during meetings with school officials regarding special education services is helpful  A few participants who were unable to get assistance with special education services from the EFMP sought the services of private attorneys at their own expense  Family Support Services (Discussed by 9 of 38 participants): The non-clinical case management delivery of information and referral for families with special needs, including the development and maintenance of a services plan  Some participants found that family support providers were helpful  Some participants could not identify needed resources or were unaware of the resources or services available to them  One participant noted that the family support provider had minimal contact  One participant said navigating the system can be challenging  Surveys (Discussed by 8 of 38 participants): The process of collecting data from a respondent using a structured instrument and survey method to ensure the accurate collection of data  Several participants noted that they had not or rarely had the opportunity to evaluate the family support services provided through the EFMP  One participant noted that comment cards used by each service are not effective for evaluating the EFMP  Warm hand-off (Discussed by 6 of 38 participants): Assistance to identify needed supports or services and facilitating the initial contact or meeting with the next program  Many participants at one installation agreed that the warm hand-off process worked well for them  Several participants said they found the warm hand-off process helpful when moving from one installation to the next  Outreach (Discussed by 5 of 38 participants): Developing partnerships with military and civilian agencies and offices (local, state, and national), improving program awareness, providing information updates to families, and hosting and participating in EFMP family events  Some participants found it difficult to obtain information regarding the types of family support services that are available  A few participants noted that communications regarding the EFMP were not targeted to address their needs  A few participants noted communications regarding the EFMP are untimely, (e g , newsletters not issued periodically)  Joint Base Family Support Services (Discussed by 1 of 38 participants): Family support services provided by the lead Service of the Joint Base that is different from that of the servicemember enrolled in the EFMP  One participant said that using family support services on joint bases may pose a challenge as each Service has different rules and procedures and as a result provides different types of family support services  In addition to the contact named above, Bill MacBlane (Assistant Director), Brian Egger (Analyst-in-Charge), Patricia Donahue, Holly Dye, Robin Marion, James Rebbe, Shelia Thorpe, and Walter Vance made significant contributions to this report  Also contributing to this report were Lucas Alvarez, Bonnie Anderson, Connor Kincaid, Brian Lepore, Daniel Meyer, and Mimi Nguyen 

ground_truth: Military families with special medical and educational needs face unique challenges because of their frequent moves. To help assist these families, DOD provides services plans, which document the support a family member requires. The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 included a provision for GAO to review the Services' EFMPs, including DOD's oversight of these programs. This report examines the extent to which (1) each Service provides family support and (2) the Services monitor and DOD evaluates assignment coordination and family support. GAO analyzed DOD and Service-specific EFMP guidance and documents; analyzed fiscal year 2016 EFMP data (the most recent available); visited seven military installations, selected for their large numbers of military-connected students; and interviewed officials responsible for implementing each Service's EFMP, as well as officials in OSN that administer DOD's EFM policy. The support provided to families with special needs through the Department of Defense's (DOD) Exceptional Family Member Program (EFMP) varies widely for each branch of Military Service. Federal law requires DOD's Office of Special Needs (OSN) to develop a uniform policy that includes requirements for (1) developing and updating a services plan for each family with special needs and (2) resources, such as staffing, to ensure an appropriate number of family support providers. OSN has developed such a policy, but DOD relies on each Service to determine its compliance with the policy. However, Army and Navy officials said they have not received feedback from OSN about the extent to which their Service-specific guidance complies. Federal internal control standards call for developing clear policies to achieve agency goals. In addition, DOD's most recent annual reports to Congress do not indicate the extent to which each Service provides services plans or allocates sufficient resources for family support providers. According to GAO's analysis, the Military Services have developed relatively few services plans, and there is wide variation in the number of family support providers employed, which raises questions about potential gaps in services for families with special needs (see table). Each Service uses various mechanisms to monitor how servicemembers are assigned to installations (assignment coordination) and obtain family support, but DOD has not established common performance measures to assess these activities. DOD has taken steps to better support families with special needs, according to the DOD officials GAO interviewed. For example, DOD established a working group to identify gaps in services. However, OSN officials said that DOD lacks common performance measures for assignment coordination and family support because the Services have not reached consensus on what those measures should be. In addition, OSN does not have a process to systematically evaluate the results of the Services' monitoring activities. Federal internal control standards call for assessing performance over time and evaluating the results of monitoring activities. Without establishing common performance measures and assessing monitoring activities, DOD will be unable to fully determine the effect of its efforts to better support families with special needs and the adequacy of the Services' EFMPs as required by federal law. GAO makes a total of three recommendations to DOD. DOD should assess and report to Congress on the extent to which each Service provides sufficient family support personnel and services plans, develop common performance metrics for assignment coordination and family support, and evaluate the results of the Services' monitoring activities. DOD agreed with these recommendations and plans to develop performance metrics for assignment coordination and develop plans to evaluate the Services' monitoring activities.