You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
The National Cemeteries Act of 1973 created the modern veterans’ cemetery system. NCA, within VA, manages a majority of veterans’ cemeteries in the United States. In that role NCA maintains existing national cemeteries and builds new national cemeteries for the nation’s veterans and their family members. Since 1978 NCA has also provided funding through VA’s Veterans Cemetery Grants Program (Grants Program) to help establish, expand, or improve state and tribal veterans’ cemeteries. States and tribal governments seeking funding from the Grants Program must apply to the VA. Any cemetery established, expanded, or improved through funding from VA’s Grants Program must be maintained and operated in accordance with NCA’s operational standards. Veterans from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and some U.S. territories are served by national, state, or tribal cemeteries. In addition, over time NCA has changed its policies and procedures to better fulfill its mission to serve and honor veterans and their family members. For example, in 2011 NCA lowered its policy threshold for establishing new national cemeteries from an area having at least 170,000 veterans who are unserved by burial options to an area having 80,000 unserved veterans. NCA established this revised policy threshold in recognition that many highly populated areas still lacked reasonable access to a burial option, and based on data and analysis provided by an independent review of VA’s burial benefits program in 2008. This revised minimum veteran population threshold was chosen based on data showing that state veterans’ cemeteries funded through VA’s Grants Program were located in areas that typically served a maximum of 80,000 veterans within a 75-mile service area. According to VA documentation, moving to this lower threshold has enabled the agency to establish new national cemeteries in areas where states may not have been willing to place them because of the size and cost of operating a larger state veterans’ cemetery. NCA offers a variety of facilities to meet the burial needs of veterans, including various cemetery configurations that either provide burial options to eligible veterans or improve their access to burial options, as shown in table 1. NCA uses county-level population data to determine whether veterans currently have reasonable access to burial options and uses county-level population projections to support decisions about future cemetery locations. NCA makes its decisions regarding whether a veteran is served or unserved based on the county in which the veteran resided, without reference to the location of the veteran’s actual residence. NCA’s methodology uses a veteran’s county of residence as a proxy for being within 75 miles of a veterans’ cemetery. NCA’s plan entails establishing 18 new national cemeteries—comprised of five traditional national cemeteries and 13 urban and rural initiative national cemeteries—and awarding funds for new state veterans’ cemeteries. In 2014, we reported that NCA estimated approximately 90 percent of the veteran population had reasonable access to burial options, and that it expected to reach its strategic goal of providing reasonable access to 96 percent of veterans by the end of fiscal year 2017. Since 2014, NCA has revised its strategic goal to provide reasonable access to 95 percent of the veteran population, and NCA’s current long-range plan to achieve this goal covers fiscal years 2018- 2022. NCA’s 2014 plan to increase veterans’ access to burial options included building 18 new national cemeteries as follows: Five traditional national cemeteries, to be located in Western New York; Central East Florida; Southern Colorado; Tallahassee, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska. Taken together, according to NCA, these cemeteries are intended to provide a burial option to an additional 550,000 veterans and their families. Five urban initiative cemeteries, to be located in Los Angeles, California; the San Francisco Bay Area, California; Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; and New York, New York. Taken together, according to NCA, the urban initiative is intended to expand burial options for approximately 2.4 million additional veterans in certain urban areas. NCA announced this initiative in 2011 with the purpose of expanding burial options in urban areas through building columbaria-only (facilities for cremated remains) national cemeteries close to the urban core. Eight rural initiative cemeteries, to be located in Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Taken together, according to NCA, the intent of the rural initiative is to increase the burial options for approximately 106,000 additional veterans in certain rural areas. NCA announced this initiative in 2012 with the purpose of increasing access by establishing new national cemeteries for states with no open national cemetery and a population of 25,000 or fewer veterans. In addition, since 1978, NCA has used the Grants Program to help increase veterans’ cemetery access. The Grants Program was established to complement national cemeteries by assisting state, territory, and tribal government applicants to establish, expand, or improve veterans’ cemeteries in order to provide gravesites for veterans in those areas where NCA cannot fully satisfy their burial needs. As noted earlier, states and tribal governments seeking grant funding must apply to the VA. States, funded by the Grants Program, often build in areas with veteran populations that are too small to qualify for a national cemetery. NCA prioritizes pending grant applications by giving the highest priority to cemetery construction projects in geographic locations with the greatest projected number of veterans who will benefit from the project, as determined by NCA based on county-level population projections. In 2018, NCA provided funding for a total of 15 grants for the expansion, improvement, or establishment of state and tribal government veterans’ cemeteries. This includes the establishment of two new state and tribal government veterans’ cemeteries. In 2019, NCA expects to provide funding for 17 state and tribal government veterans’ cemetery projects, three of which would be for new cemeteries. While NCA has made some progress in implementing its plan to increase burial access for veterans, that progress has been limited, as it is years behind its original schedule for opening new cemeteries. In its efforts, NCA has experienced three key challenges: (1) acquiring suitable land for new national cemeteries, (2) estimating the costs associated with establishing new national cemeteries, and (3) using all available data to inform how its Grants Program targets unserved veteran populations. In 2014, NCA planned to open 18 new sites by the end of fiscal year 2017 to better serve the burial needs of the veteran population. As of September 2019, NCA has opened four new traditional national cemeteries—Tallahassee National Cemetery in Tallahassee, Florida; Cape Canaveral National Cemetery in Mims, Florida; Omaha National Cemetery in Omaha, Nebraska; and Pikes Peak National Cemetery in Colorado Springs, Colorado. NCA also opened two of its eight planned rural initiative cemeteries—Yellowstone National Cemetery in Laurel, Montana, and Fargo National Cemetery in Harwood, North Dakota. As a result, according to NCA, by the end of fiscal year 2018 the percentage of veterans with reasonable access had increased from 90 percent to about 92 percent. As previously discussed, NCA’s goal is to provide 95 percent of veterans with reasonable access to burial options. As we reported in 2014, NCA had initially planned to open all of its 13 urban and rural initiative sites by the end of fiscal year 2017. As shown in figure 1, NCA had originally estimated completing all five of its urban initiative sites by the end of fiscal year 2015. However, the completion dates for all of these sites have slipped multiple times. In July 2019, NCA officials stated that the planned completion dates for the urban initiative sites were as follows: October 2019 for Los Angeles, sometime in 2020 for New York and Indianapolis, September 2021 for Chicago, and sometime in 2027 for San Francisco. As shown in figure 2, NCA has opened two of its rural initiative sites, in Laurel, Montana, and Fargo, North Dakota. However, the completion dates for the other six rural initiative sites have slipped multiple times. In September 2019, NCA officials stated that the planned completion dates for the rural initiative sites were currently Fall 2019 for Twin Falls, Idaho, Machias, Maine, and Rhinelander, Wisconsin; sometime in 2020 for Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Summer 2021 for Cedar City, Utah. NCA did not provide a specific estimated completion date for the site in Elko, Nevada, affirming that it would be completed “in a future year.” When we asked NCA officials why the rural and urban initiative sites were currently projected to take years longer to complete than originally planned, they replied that they might have overstated their 2014 expectations for having all initiative sites completed by the end of fiscal year 2017. NCA officials also stated that it takes at least 12 months for the land acquisition phase of cemetery construction projects; 9 to 12 months for the design phase; and 12 to 15 months—sometimes up to 30—for the construction phase. According to NCA officials, as of September 2019, five of the 11 initiative sites had reached the construction phase, and one of the sites no longer had an estimated completion date. There were still some outstanding or unresolved issues that had complicated NCA’s ability to estimate a completion date for the site in Elko, Nevada. See figure 3 for a timeline of each of NCA’s urban and rural initiative sites as of September 2019. In executing its plans to increase access to burial options for veterans, NCA has experienced three key challenges: (1) acquiring suitable land for new national cemeteries; (2) estimating the costs associated with establishing new national cemeteries; and (3) using all available data to inform how its Grants Program targets unserved veteran populations. The primary factor that has led NCA to adjust its timelines for completing these cemeteries concerns challenges in acquiring suitable land. Such challenges include difficulty in finding viable land for development, legal issues related to the acquisitions process, and resistance from the local community, among others. Four examples are described below, including two instances in which, as of July 2019, NCA had not yet acquired suitable land, which may further delay the opening of those specific urban and rural sites. Chicago, Illinois. NCA officials stated that they are on their fifth attempt to acquire land for the urban initiative site in Chicago, Illinois. In addition, they said that the environmental assessment process for the Chicago site is currently underway, and that a site viability decision will not occur until the environmental assessment process is completed later in 2019. According to NCA documentation we reviewed, NCA initiated the land acquisition process for the Chicago site in June 2011 and planned to complete the process by July 2018. If the fifth attempt to acquire land is not successful, then NCA will attempt—for the sixth time—to acquire land. According to NCA officials, this would result in an additional 12 to 18 months to identify and evaluate new property for potential acquisition, likely further delaying the opening of this site. See figure 4 for more details on NCA’s attempts to acquire land for the urban initiative site in Chicago. Elko, Nevada. NCA officials stated that they have identified a top- rated site for the rural initiative site in Elko, Nevada, on land currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management. However, according to NCA officials, Congress would need to enact legislation transferring this land from the Bureau of Land Management to VA before NCA could begin construction. As of June 2019, Congress had not done so. According to NCA officials, VA has opened dialogue with local officials about drafting a utility agreement for the city to construct infrastructure needed to supply water to the site. Implementation of a utility agreement would be dependent upon whether future legislation may potentially be introduced and subsequently passed authorizing the Bureau of Land Management to permanently transfer property to VA for national cemetery use. Also, according to NCA officials, once legislation has passed to allow the transfer of land from the Bureau of Land Management to VA, they estimate it will take 12 to 18 months for the land transfer to be completed. Indianapolis, Indiana. In a written response, NCA officials stated that construction for the urban initiative site in Indianapolis, Indiana, has been delayed by about a year due to a public protest of NCA’s acquisition of the site because of environmental concerns, which resulted in a land transfer with the previous landowner in January 2019. In addition, NCA had to conduct a partial project re-design for the exchanged property. According to NCA’s May 2018 plan of actions and milestones, it had expected to have acquired the land for the Indianapolis site by August 2018 and to have completed construction in December 2019. However, officials told us in September 2018 that, due to the delays in acquiring the land, NCA had revised its planned construction completion date to August 2020. Los Angeles, California. According to officials, NCA is partnering with the Veterans Health Administration, which transferred property for the proposed columbarium at the Los Angeles, California, urban initiative site. Officials stated that this project was delayed initially due to the need to remove existing encumbrances on the land (for example, leases with tenants), among other things. In July 2019, officials stated that the project is scheduled for completion in October 2019. According to NCA officials, unforeseen site conditions can also contribute to delays in cemetery construction projects. During the design phase, soil and geotechnical samples are taken but do not cover the entire site. After excavation begins, issues such as rock formations or hazardous waste not identified during the geotechnical investigation may create challenges to developing land for cemetery use. For example, in July 2019 NCA officials stated that the urban initiative site in San Francisco had encountered major geotechnical and soil issues, causing the project completion to slip to 2027. Also, according to NCA’s 2017 annual status report to Congress on new national cemeteries, the cemetery construction contract for a new cemetery construction project in Western New York could not begin solicitation until additional parcels of land had been acquired. Those parcels of land have a gas well and a gas pipeline that must be relocated. According to NCA officials, as of September 2019, six of the 11 urban and rural initiative sites had not yet begun to be excavated, and any issues that arise during the excavation process at these sites could pose further scheduling delays. NCA’s Cost Estimates for Most of Its Rural Initiative Sites Have Increased Significantly We found that NCA’s cost estimates for seven rural initiative sites have increased significantly above what NCA officials had initially estimated. In its strategy, NCA had estimated that the construction cost estimate for each of the seven rural initiative sites would be approximately $1 million (totaling approximately $7 million). However, NCA officials told us in August 2018 that the construction cost estimates for these sites had increased to more than $3 million each (totaling almost $24 million). This amounts to a cost increase of more than 200 percent. Further, the information they provided was not always consistent. For example, in July 2018 NCA officials provided us the average land acquisition and construction costs for the urban and rural initiatives. According to the document they provided, the average construction cost for each urban initiative cemetery is $7.5 million. However, in August 2018 NCA stated in a written response that the construction cost estimates for each of the urban initiatives ranged from approximately $9 million to more than $22 million, reflecting an average cost of $13.6 million. NCA’s cost-estimating guidance used to prepare construction cost estimates does not fully incorporate the 12 steps identified in our Cost Guide that should result in reliable and valid estimates that management can use to make informed decisions, as shown in table 2. Appendix I provides a detailed summary of our assessment of NCA’s cost-estimating guidance. Specifically, NCA’s cost-estimating guidance fully met one step, substantially met four steps, partially met four steps, minimally met two steps, and did not meet one step. For example: NCA’s cost-estimating guidance fully met the step of “obtaining the data” in that it requires a market survey that explores all factors that will affect the bid cost and collects valid and useful historical data to develop a sound cost estimate. NCA’s cost-estimating guidance substantially met the step of “updating the estimate” in that it requires cost estimates to be regularly updated. For instance, it requires an updated cost-estimating report at each stage of the design of the construction project. NCA’s cost-estimating guidance minimally met the step of “conducting a risk and uncertainty analysis” in that, while it mentions the inclusion of a risk analysis, it does not describe what a risk analysis is and how it relates to cost. Additionally, none of the guidance we reviewed contains any discussion of risk management. NCA’s cost-estimating guidance did not meet the step of “conducting a sensitivity analysis.” According to our Cost Guide, a sensitivity analysis should be included in all cost estimates because it examines the effects of changing assumptions and ground rules. Because uncertainty cannot be avoided, it is necessary to identify the cost elements that represent the most risk, and cost estimators should if possible quantify the risk. NCA uses multiple guidance documents on cost estimation and requires that managers and contractors use all of these documents in implementing their projects. Specifically, NCA uses VA’s 2011 Manual for Preparation of Cost Estimates and Related Documents for VA Facilities (Manual); VA’s 2011 Architect/Engineer (A/E) Submission Requirements for National Cemetery Projects Program Guide PG 18-15 Volume D (Guide); and NCA’s Construction Program Conceptual Estimate Worksheet. We refer to these documents collectively as “NCA’s cost- estimating guidance.” We previously reported on VA’s management of minor construction projects and made several recommendations, including that the Veterans Health Administration revise its cost-estimating guidance to incorporate the 12 steps presented in the Cost Guide, to help VA have greater assurance that its cost estimates for minor construction projects are reliable. VA concurred and stated that it would ensure that the Veterans Health Administration update its cost-estimating guidance by incorporating the 12 steps outlined in the Cost Guide, as applicable. As of August 2019, VA had not taken any action to implement this recommendation. The guidance document it plans to update, the VA Manual, is also used by NCA. Further, NCA uses additional guidance documents to develop cost estimates for its cemetery construction projects—including the urban and rural initiatives—that do not fully incorporate the 12 steps presented in the Cost Guide. Without NCA’s revising its cost-estimating guidance to more fully reflect the 12 steps in the Cost Guide, including “conducting a risk and uncertainty analysis,” NCA will not be well-positioned to provide reliable cost estimates to VA and enable it to make informed decisions regarding the management of cemetery construction projects. As noted earlier, the Grants Program is part of NCA’s plan to increase veterans’ reasonable access to burial options. According to NCA officials, their plan to meet their strategic goal of 95 percent of veterans being served by burial options relies, in part, on the state and tribal government efforts funded by the Grants Program. The Grants Program, in turn, relies on states and tribal governments applying for funding to build new cemeteries or expand existing cemeteries. An NCA official told us that NCA does not have the authority to formally request that a state seek grant funding to expand access in an unserved area. However, according to VA officials, the Grants Program has had informal discussions with states that it believes have larger concentrations of unserved veterans, in order to encourage grant applications to provide increased burial access for unserved veteran populations. When reviewing grant applications, NCA considers a number of factors, including how the grant would enhance access for unserved veterans. NCA officials stated that they use the VA’s county-level population data to identify veteran population areas unserved by national, state, or tribal government veterans’ cemeteries. This analysis also allows NCA to project where additional state and tribal government veterans’ cemeteries may be most needed. Specifically, NCA has ranked what it identified as the 40 largest currently unserved veteran population areas. NCA performs this ranking at the county level, not the more precise census tract level, although as we have previously reported it has the technical ability to use census tract data. In September 2014, we reported that NCA was using population data at the county level to identify veterans not served by burial options, and that using population data at the census tract level would enhance NCA’s management of the national cemetery program. Specifically, we recommended that NCA use its existing capabilities to estimate the served and unserved veteran populations using census tract data. This would have allowed them to make better-informed decisions concerning where to locate new national cemeteries, as well as identify which state and tribal government cemetery grant applications would provide reasonable burial access to the greatest number of veterans. However, VA did not concur with that recommendation. In its comments on our draft report, VA agreed that census tract data may yield more precise information than county-level population data, but it disagreed with our conclusion that the use of census tract data would have helped VA to make better-informed decisions regarding the location of burial options. For this review, we performed an analysis using census tract data to examine the 40 prospective sites that NCA has identified as the currently largest unserved areas, using current veteran population data. Our analysis yielded estimates for veterans in the service areas for these prospective sites that differed substantially in some instances from the numbers used by NCA (see figure 5). For example, NCA ranked Erie, Pennsylvania, as 4th on its list of prospective sites, based on its estimate that an additional 45,154 veterans could be served by a cemetery at this location. However, using census tract data we estimate that only about 10,000 veterans could be served there, resulting in a lower priority for Erie, Pennsylvania, on this list of prospective sites. Similarly, the county- based methodology used by NCA ranked Decatur, Alabama, as 25th on the list of prospective sites, while our methodology based upon nearby census tracts placed it 2nd on the list by estimated number of veterans in the service area. Thus, even though it could serve many additional veterans, Decatur, Alabama, would not be ranked highly on the list for funding using NCA’s methodology. By using the more precise census tract data to help inform its grant- making decisions, NCA could enhance its ability to implement its plan to provide burial options to unserved veterans. Comparing estimates of unserved veterans based on current census tract data with such estimates based on current county-level data can be a useful supplement to NCA’s current reliance on long-term projected county-level population data. Comparing census tract data with county-level data could also identify areas where the county-level projections might be overridden or require additional scrutiny. This could position NCA to better identify those areas of the country that will have the most significant unserved veteran populations. Additionally, this could help NCA refine its current plans or develop new ones, as it deems appropriate. We therefore continue to maintain the validity of our 2014 recommendation for VA to use census tract data to estimate the served and unserved veteran populations to help inform its plans for providing reasonable access to burial options. By NCA’s estimates, more than 2.1 million veterans—about 10 percent of the veterans in the United States—did not have reasonable access to burial options at the end of fiscal year 2013. According to NCA, its plan had helped increase the percentage served by burial options to about 92 percent of the veteran population by the end of fiscal year 2018. However, completion of some of the urban and rural sites that are part of NCA’s plan is currently estimated to take 5 years or longer than planned at significantly higher cost, in part because construction cost estimates for the remaining sites may be unreliable. Without NCA’s revising its cost- estimating guidance to more fully reflect the 12 steps in the Cost Guide, including “conducting a risk and uncertainty analysis,” NCA will not be well-positioned to provide reliable cost estimates to VA and enable it to make informed decisions regarding the funding and oversight of NCA’s ongoing minor construction projects to enhance veterans’ burial options. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs update its cost-estimating procedures for cemetery construction projects to fully incorporate the 12 steps identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs. We provided a draft of this report to VA for review and comment. In written comments, VA concurred with our recommendation. VA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. VA’s comments are printed in their entirety in appendix II. In its technical comments, VA disagreed with our finding that NCA had made limited progress implementing its plan for increasing burial access for veterans and stated that NCA had instead made significant progress. As we note in this report, in 2014, NCA planned to open 18 new sites by the end of fiscal year 2017 to better serve the burial needs of the veteran population. However, as of September 2019, only six of the planned sites were open, with NCA years behind its original schedule. For this reason, we characterized the progress as “limited.” While the progress has been limited, it is important to note that the opening of the six sites has increased accessibility of burial options to veterans. VA also stated that it continues to disagree with our 2014 recommendation that VA use census tract data to estimate the current served and unserved veteran populations to inform its plans for providing reasonable access to burial options. In its written response, VA stated that we recommended NCA use census tract rather than county-level data. However, that is not what we recommended. As we stated in this report, comparing estimates of unserved veterans based on current census tract data with estimates based on current county-level data would provide a useful supplement to NCA’s current reliance on long-term projected county-level population data. Specifically, NCA would be better positioned to identify those areas of the country that will have the most significant unserved veteran populations and refine its current plans or develop new ones, as it deems appropriate. We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@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 members who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III. We compared NCA’s cost-estimating guidance with the 12 steps identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs (Cost Guide). We found that NCA’s cost-estimating guidance on preparing cost estimates for cemetery construction projects—specifically Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Manual for Preparation of Cost Estimates & Related Documents for VA Facilities (Manual), VA’s Architect/Engineer Submission Requirements for National Cemetery Projects, Program Guide 18-15 Volume D (Guide), and NCA’s Construction Program Conceptual Estimate Worksheet (Worksheet)—does not fully incorporate these 12 steps, as shown in table 3. The guidance incorporates some of the 12 steps to some degree, but not others, raising the possibility of unreliable cost estimates for NCA’s urban and rural initiatives. Specifically, NCA’s guidance on preparing cost estimates: fully or substantially met five of the 12 steps, partially met four of the 12 steps, and minimally met or did not meet three of the 12 steps. Diana Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. In addition to the contact named above, Brian Lepore, Director (Retired); Maria Storts, Assistant Director; Pamela Nicole Harris, Analyst-in-Charge; Brian Bothwell, Jennifer Echard, Alexandra Gonzalez, Jason Lee, Amie Lesser, Serena Lo, John Mingus, Brenda Mittelbuscher, Maria Staunton, Frank Todisco, Cheryl Weissman, and John Wren made significant contributions to this report.

 

 Report 2:
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? 

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

Answer: The VA is responsible for ensuring that veterans have reasonable access to burial options in a national or state veterans' cemetery. In fiscal year 2018 VA estimated that about 92 percent of veterans had reasonable access to burial options, which was an increase from 90 percent in fiscal year 2014 but short of its goal of 96 percent by the end of fiscal year 2017. The House Appropriations Committee has expressed concerns that there are geographic pockets where veterans remain unserved by burial options. House Report 115-188 accompanying a bill for the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, includes a provision for GAO to examine veterans' access to burial options. This report (1) describes VA's plan for increasing reasonable access to burial options for veterans and (2) assesses VA's progress in implementing its plan and any challenges experienced. GAO reviewed applicable VA and NCA documents, compared NCA's cost-estimating practices with GAO's cost-estimating 12 steps, and met with cognizant officials regarding NCA's efforts to provide reasonable access to burial options. Within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) has a plan to establish 18 new national cemeteries to increase reasonable access to burial options for veterans. NCA defines reasonable access as a national or state veterans' cemetery being located within 75 miles of veterans' homes. Key parts of NCA's plan include establishing 13 urban and rural initiative national cemeteries and awarding grant funds to state applicants for establishing new state veterans' cemeteries. NCA has made limited progress in implementing its plan to increase burial access and is years behind its original schedule for opening new cemeteries. For example, NCA has opened only two of its planned urban and rural initiative sites and is behind its original schedule for the other 11 (see fig. below). The primary factor delaying NCA's completion of these cemeteries has been challenges in acquiring suitable land. NCA has also been challenged in producing accurate estimates of construction costs for most of its rural initiative sites. Cost estimates have increased more than 200 percent (from about $7 million to $24 million) for these sites, and NCA's guidance for developing cost estimates for the cemeteries does not fully incorporate the 12 steps identified in cost-estimating leading practices—such as conducting a risk and uncertainty analysis or a sensitivity analysis. As a result, NCA is not well positioned to provide reliable and valid cost estimates to better inform decisions to enhance veterans' cemetery access. GAO recommends that NCA fully adopt cost-estimating leading practices into its procedures to assist in improving its cost estimates for establishing cemeteries. NCA concurred with our recommendation.