Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth
Published: 2008-06-17T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Due to several simultaneous Department of Defense (DOD) force structure and basing initiatives, 20 installations are expecting a combined net growth of over 173,000 military and civilian personnel, not including family members and all contractors, over fiscal years 2006-2012. Although communities surrounding these installations can expect to realize economic benefits in the long term, DOD has identified these 20 to be substantially and seriously impacted in terms of being able to provide infrastructure to accommodate the growth. In response to the House report to the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill, GAO (1) examined the extent to which communities affected by DOD's actions have identified their infrastructure needs, and (2) assessed DOD's efforts and those of other agencies to assist affected communities. GAO reviewed applicable directives and executive orders, surveyed the 20 growth communities, and met with community and agency officials to discuss growth issues.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Communities surrounding DOD growth installations have begun to identify infrastructure needs to help support expected personnel growth in general terms, but planning efforts have been hampered by a lack of consistent and detailed information about anticipated DOD personnel movements. When asked to identify their top infrastructure challenges, 16 of the 20 communities identified by DOD as substantially and seriously impacted cited transportation, 11 named school capacity, and 6 said affordable housing. However, communities lack the detailed planning information, such as the growth population demographics, necessary to effectively plan and obtain financing for infrastructure projects. A DOD directive requires the military services to develop guidance for providing planning information to installations, communities, and DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), but GAO found that none had done so. While the consistency of the personnel relocation data DOD provides has improved, over half of the communities we surveyed expressed concerns about the completeness of the personnel data they receive and the lack of detailed demographic data, such as the number and ages of dependent children expected to accompany incoming service members and attend school. Until the military departments begin to disseminate consistent and more detailed information about planned defense personnel moves, it will be difficult for community, state, and federal officials to effectively plan for and provide necessary infrastructure to accommodate DOD personnel and their families relocating to growth-impacted communities. OEA, other DOD agencies, and some state, local, and federal agencies have provided grants and technical assistance to DOD growth communities, but the Office of the Secretary of Defense has not provided the high-level leadership critical to achieving effective interagency and intergovernmental coordination. To ensure that DOD-impacted communities receive assistance, the 22-agency Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC) was created by executive order over 30 years ago and amended as recently as 2005. The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, chairs the committee that is required to lead efforts to assist communities most affected by its activities and serve as a clearinghouse for sharing information about expected DOD impacts on the communities surrounding military growth installations, as well as information regarding possible government resources that could mitigate some of those impacts. As chair of the EAC, DOD could regularly convene full committee meetings and exercise the high-level leadership needed to help ensure that federal agencies are affording certain priority considerations to defense-affected communities. However, the full committee has not met since November 2006. Instead, DOD has left the workings of the EAC to OEA, which has been proactive in assisting impacted communities but can not guide interagency operations at a high enough level to promote effective interagency cooperation. Consequently, in the absence of high-level DOD leadership, the committee has not developed a clearinghouse for information sharing which could more effectively match government resources with the needs of DOD-impacted communities.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The Department of Defense (DOD) is currently in the process of  implementing several major initiatives that are not only changing the size  and shape of its domestic installation infrastructure but are also affecting  the communities within their vicinity. Collectively, the simultaneous  implementation of recommendations from the 2005 base realignment and  closure (BRAC) round, the redeployment of U.S. forces in overseas  locations back to the United States under the Global Defense Posture  Realignment, a major Army reorganization known as force modularity, and  force structure increases for the Army and the Marine Corps under the  Grow the Force initiative are generating large personnel increases at many  military installation locations within the United States. Twenty of these  installations are expecting a combined net growth of over 173,000 military  and civilian personnel, mostly within the Army, over fiscal years 2006- 2012, not counting family members and all contractors who are also  expected to relocate to the surrounding communities. Although available  studies indicate that the communities surrounding these growth locations  can expect to realize economic benefits in the long term, many  communities will face growth-impact challenges in the short term,  including challenges to identify and provide additional infrastructure— such as schools, roads, housing, and other services—to support the  expected population growth.
As specified in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year  2006, it is the sense of Congress that the Secretary of Defense should seek  to ensure that the permanent facilities and infrastructure necessary to  support the mission of the Armed Forces and the quality-of-life needs of  members of the Armed Forces and their families are ready for use at  receiving locations before units are transferred to such locations. Because  communities surrounding these locations also play a vital role in providing  support to the military, it has been long-standing DOD policy that DOD  should take the leadership role within the federal government in helping  communities adapt to the effects of various defense program activities.  DOD chairs the President’s Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC),  which consists of 22 federal agencies and is charged with ensuring that  communities that are substantially and seriously impacted by DOD actions  are aware of available federal economic adjustment programs. The EAC is  also responsible for identifying problems that states and communities face  as a result of defense actions; assuring interagency and intergovernmental  coordination and adjustment assistance; and serving as a clearinghouse to  exchange information among federal, state, regional, and community  officials in the resolution of community economic problems. Within DOD,  the Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), a field activity under the Office  of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, and  Logistics, provides administrative support for the EAC in addition to its  duties to provide technical and planning assistance to affected  communities.
This report is one in a series of GAO products that addresses emerging  issues associated with the implementation of the BRAC 2005 round  recommendations, overseas rebasing, Army force modularity, and force  structure initiatives. In September 2007, we reported that several complex  implementation challenges arising from these initiatives raised questions  about the Army’s ability to provide needed infrastructure to support  incoming personnel at its growth bases and that some nearby communities  had found it difficult to fully identify needed infrastructure and associated  costs due to the evolving nature of the Army’s plans. Because of the  unparalleled level of DOD-related growth and its potential impact on  domestic communities, we prepared this report in response to the House  Report accompanying the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill,  which directed us to review the impacts on communities surrounding  growth installations. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) examine the  extent to which communities affected by DOD’s actions have identified  necessary infrastructure requirements to meet anticipated growth  projections due to DOD initiatives, and (2) assess DOD’s efforts, along  with those of other governmental agencies, to provide resources and other  assistance to affected communities.
To address the first objective, we focused our efforts on the 20 growth  communities that OEA had identified, as of January 2008, to be  substantially and seriously impacted. In order to present the most current  information regarding the numbers of DOD-related personnel expected to  move to these communities, including their families, we analyzed the  Army’s centralized personnel database and prepared a consistent format  for the Air Force and Navy to complete for their installations because they  do not maintain centralized databases for this information. We contacted  OEA-designated points of contact at each of the 20 growth communities  requesting that they complete a questionnaire which included, among  other things, questions dealing with the communities’ progress in  identifying infrastructure needs and what assistance local, state, and  federal agencies had provided them. We received responses from all 20  communities. We also conducted follow-up telephone interviews with  each community representative to discuss their responses to our  questionnaire in depth and to update information on financial assistance,  and the level of detail and consistency of personnel planning information  provided by the military services. We visited 3 of these locations and  interviewed cognizant installation and local community officials regarding  the communities’ planning issues and analyzed impact and planning data  from these locations as well as from 7 other locations we had visited as  part of our September 2007 review of Army growth installations. We also  interviewed officials from several nonfederal organizations such as the  Association of Defense Communities and the National Governors  Association, both of which are familiar with the issues facing military  growth communities.
To address the second objective, we reviewed applicable DOD directives  and presidential executive orders to determine the roles that DOD and  other federal agencies play in assisting affected communities, and  discussed impact issues with various officials within DOD. We further  collected data on DOD-provided financial assistance to impacted  communities. In order to determine the level of assistance provided by  non-DOD federal agencies, we asked OEA to identify the federal agencies  that may have the most helpful programs for growth communities. OEA  identified seven agencies. Using structured interview questions, we  collected information from all seven agencies regarding their programs  and any possible assistance they have provided to the growth  communities. We followed up with some of the seven agencies to clarify  their answers. We also attended selected community-oriented conferences  and workshops sponsored by federal and local agencies which explored  growth issues and potential solutions.
We conducted our work from February 2007 through May 2008 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, which we have done. Although  we present expected personnel growth numbers at the 20 communities we  surveyed, we have concerns about the completeness and consistency of  these data, as discussed later in this report. We present these numbers to  give a sense of the relative magnitude of growth the communities can  expect. Overall, we believe that the evidence obtained for this report  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our  audit objectives. Additional information regarding our scope and  methodology is included in appendix I.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: DOD is currently implementing several major force structure and basing  initiatives that are expected to result in a large number of personnel  movements and changes in the size and shape of its domestic installation  infrastructure. First, under the 2005 BRAC round, DOD is implementing  182 recommendations, as set forth by the Base Closure and Realignment  Commission, which must be completed by the statutory deadline of  September 15, 2011. Through the BRAC process, DOD intends to  transform its departmentwide installation infrastructure and, as such, the  recommendations have an unusually large number of realignment actions  that are expected to result in significant personnel movements across  DOD’s installations. Second, under the Global Defense Posture  Realignment, DOD is realigning its overseas basing structure to more  effectively support current allies and strategies in addition to addressing  emerging threats. Included in this rebasing effort is the expected return of  about 70,000 military and civilian personnel to the United States by 2011.  Third, the Army is also undergoing major force restructuring in  implementing its force modularity effort, which has been referred to as the  largest Army reorganization in 50 years. The foundation for the modular  force is the creation of brigade combat teams that are expected to be more  agile and deployable to better meet combatant commander requirements.  Finally, DOD has recently initiated a Grow the Force initiative intended to  permanently increase the end strength of the Army and Marine Corps by  74,000 soldiers and 27,000 marines, respectively, to enhance overall U.S.  forces, reduce stress on deployable personnel, and provide necessary  forces for success in the Global War on Terrorism.
When considered collectively, the simultaneous implementation of these  initiatives is generating large personnel increases at many military  installations within the United States, which, in turn is impacting the  communities that are in close proximity to those installations. As of  January 2008, OEA was assisting 20 communities surrounding growth  installations based on direct DOD impacts in light of community-specific  needs and resources. Figure 1 shows those impacted locations.
As indicated in figure 1, most of the growth locations are attributable to  the Army, which is affected more than any other military service by force  structure and basing initiatives. As shown in table 1, available DOD data  indicate that these 20 installations are expecting a combined net growth of  over 173,000 military and civilian personnel over fiscal years 2006-2012,  not counting family members and nonmission-related contractors who are  also expected to relocate to the surrounding communities and generate  additional community infrastructure needs. It should be noted that these  estimates are based on planned personnel movement actions as of March  2008 and are subject to change over time as there are a number of factors,  such as revisions in operational plans associated with the Global War on  Terrorism, which may give cause for estimate revisions. As table 1 shows,  the vast majority of the community locations predicted to be most affected  by DOD growth surround Army installations, with Fort Bliss, Fort Belvoir,  Fort Riley, and Fort Lee expected to experience personnel growth rates of  more than 50 percent over fiscal years 2006-2012. Moreover, while Fort  Knox, Kentucky and Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico are actually  expected to incur overall losses in personnel at their facilities between  fiscal years 2006 and 2012, OEA has identified growth challenges for the  surrounding communities and therefore treats them as such. For example,  the Fort Knox population is changing from mostly military students living  on base to a civilian population living off base, creating new growth  demands on the surrounding community’s infrastructure and services.
Moreover, because the growth estimates displayed in table 1 exclude  dependents associated with military and civilian personnel movements as  well as support contractors who may elect to relocate to these growth  locations, these estimates do not represent total growth at these locations.
As shown in table 2, available military projections for increases in the  number of dependents at these locations over fiscal years 2006-2012  currently exceed 168,000. The Army has reported significant dependent  growth for the communities surrounding Fort Bliss, Fort Belvoir, Fort  Riley, Fort Knox, Fort Lee, and Fort Carson, each of which is expected to  experience a greater than 50 percent increase in the number of military  dependents. It should be noted that the Army dependent numbers are  currently being reviewed by some communities and the Department of  Education, which is described later in this report. It should also be noted  that even with the best estimate, the number of dependents that will  actually relocate and when is not certain due to a number of factors, such  as the timing and duration of the military personnel’s next overseas  deployment.
In addition to the growth estimates depicted in tables 1 and 2, the  communities surrounding growth installations can expect additional  personnel growth from indirect economic development such as  employment opportunities created by defense support contractors.
Based on a series of presidential executive orders dating back to 1978 and  amended as recently as May 2005, it has been long-standing DOD policy  that DOD takes the leadership role within the federal government in  helping communities respond to the effects of defense-related activities.  The current version of the executive order, which is included in appendix  III, states that the Secretary of Defense, through the EAC, shall, among  other things, establish a Defense Economic Adjustment Program to assist  substantially and seriously affected communities from the effects of major  defense closures and realignments. The order identifies the 22 federal  agency members of the EAC and names the Secretary of Defense or the  Secretary’s designee as the Chair of the committee with the Secretaries of  Labor and Commerce as co-vice chairs. The order states that the EAC shall  advise, assist, and support the program and develop procedures for  ensuring that state and local officials are notified of available federal  economic adjustment programs. The order further states that the program  shall, among other things, identify problems of states and communities  that result from defense-related activities and that require federal  assistance; assure timely consultation and cooperation with federal, state,  and community officials concerning DOD-related impacts; assure  coordinated interagency and intergovernmental adjustment assistance;  prepare, facilitate, and implement cost-effective strategies and action  plans to coordinate interagency and intergovernmental economic  adjustment efforts; and serve as a clearinghouse to exchange information  among federal, state, and community officials involved in the resolution of  community economic adjustment problems including sources of public  and private financing. The order also states that all federal executive  agencies shall afford priority consideration to requests from defense- affected communities for federal assistance that are part of a  comprehensive plan used by the committee.
OEA, located in Arlington, Virginia, is a DOD field activity that reports to  the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment,  under the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and  Logistics. OEA is responsible for facilitating DOD resources in support of  local programs and providing direct planning and financial assistance to  communities and states seeking assistance to address the impacts of  DOD’s actions. The office has a fiscal year 2008 budget exceeding $57  million, $45 million of which is to fund its core programs—which include  assistance to closing and growing locations—and a staff of 35 civilians and  3 military liaisons. Currently, OEA is managing about 240 community  projects including closing, downsizing, and growth bases. OEA assistance  to growth communities is primarily focused on assisting local  communities to organize and plan for population growth due to DOD  activities.
section_title: Growth Communities Have Begun to Identify Infrastructure Needs, but Planning Has Been Hampered by a Lack of Consistent and Detailed Information about DOD Personnel Movements
paragraphs: Communities surrounding DOD growth installations have begun to  identify infrastructure needs in general terms, but planning efforts have  been hampered by a lack of consistent and detailed information about  anticipated DOD personnel movements. Due to the complexity of DOD’s  current growth activities, coupled with ongoing operations in Iraq and  Afghanistan, precise data about the magnitude and makeup of personnel  movements continue to evolve. However, until the military departments  begin to disseminate consistent and more detailed information about the  defense personnel moves they know about, it will be difficult for  community, state, and federal officials to plan for and provide necessary  infrastructure and quality-of-life support to members of the armed  services, their families, and other community residents.
subsections: section_title: Communities Have Begun to Plan for Expected Growth
paragraphs: Many of the 20 communities that OEA has determined will be substantially  and seriously affected by DOD growth have begun planning and taking  action on projects and programs that will help them accommodate the  expected influx of military and civilian personnel, military families, and  contractors over the next several years. DOD’s Base Redevelopment and  Realignment Manual states that mission and personnel increases at  military installations can place direct and significant demands on  surrounding community infrastructure and services. It further notes that  large, rapid influxes of personnel and changes in missions create the need  for an immediate partnership between community leaders and installation  leaders to manage the changes. Coordinated management of change  provides an opportunity to minimize the negative effects on the  community while enhancing the long-term quality of life for defense  personnel and community residents. Among other things, communities  must prepare roads, schools, and other infrastructure to accommodate the  expected growth, which can require significant lead time to plan, budget  for, finance, and construct.
According to our survey of 20 growth communities, 18 have established  planning processes to engage local stakeholders to consider potential  community impacts, determine priorities, and ultimately develop an action  plan. Although all communities are different and are in various planning  stages, most of these growth communities have begun developing growth  management plans, which are used to identify specific infrastructure  improvements such as, roads, schools, and housing that may be required  to support the expected growth. Of the 20 communities, 3 completed  growth management plans by the end of 2007 and 13 had started plans— the majority of which are scheduled to be completed by the end of 2008.  Two of the remaining 4 communities have opted not to develop a growth  management plan and instead are proceeding to develop studies targeted  toward issues that are already apparent. For example, Fort Belvoir, where  traffic congestion has been identified as an issue, will be using its OEA  planning grant to develop transportation models. At the time of our  review, the communities surrounding Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune  and Marine Corps air stations New River and Cherry Point in eastern  North Carolina were in the early stages of establishing a community  planning organization and were expected to apply for OEA planning  assistance soon.
Based on our survey, coupled with our analysis of community profiles  prepared by the growth communities for OEA’s December 2007 Growth  Summit, we found that transportation, schools, and housing were  identified by the communities as their top growth-management issues.  When asked to report their top infrastructure challenges, 16 of the 20  communities cited transportation, principally roads. Insufficient school  capacity was named by 11 communities. Six communities said affordable  housing was a major challenge. Other issues that were identified by at  least 1 growth community included water and sewerage, health services,  workforce development, child care, spousal employment, law  enforcement, and emergency services. Figure 2 illustrates our analysis of  the top issues identified by 2 or more of the 20 growth communities.
In the summary profiles prepared for the OEA Growth Summit, the  communities described some of the impacts these issues would have on  their communities if they were not addressed prior to the arrival of the  new personnel. The impacts ranged from increased usage and associated  congestion on local roads to concerns about the adequacy of schools and  questionable quality of healthcare facilities which are likely to be  stretched to accommodate the expected increased demand. Communities  also expressed concerns about obtaining funding to implement the plans  that call for new infrastructure to be built in order to accommodate  expected growth. Funding issues are discussed later in this report.
section_title: Precise Planning Efforts Have Been Hampered by a Lack of Consistent and Complete Information about Military Growth
paragraphs: Although communities have made progress in planning for growth in  general terms, community planners told us that they need more detailed  information regarding the numbers and demographics of expected DOD  population growth in order to prepare more refined implementation plans  and secure required financing. DOD Directive 5410.12 requires the services  to provide maximum advance information and support to state and local  governments to allow planning for necessary adjustments in local facilities  and public services, workforce training programs, and local economic  development activities. Further, the directive requires each of the military  services to develop implementing guidance for providing planning  information to installations, communities, and OEA. However, our review  found that none of the services have developed implementing guidance as  required by the directive, and senior officials from each of the services  acknowledged that this guidance has not been prepared. Senior military  officials we interviewed either did not know about the directive or did not  see it as a priority for implementation. As a result, information that has  been provided to communities regarding planned DOD personnel  movements has been inconsistent and lacks important demographic  details.
The Army has established its centralized Army Stationing and Installation  Plan database as the official source of Army personnel numbers. However,  we recently reported that these numbers were often inconsistent with  personnel information received from installation officials—the primary  source of personnel data used by community planners. To the Army’s  credit, most of the installation-level officials we spoke with said that the  consistency of the data being provided to communities is improving.
Nevertheless, in our survey and during follow-up discussions with the 20  communities, more than half expressed concerns about the consistency  and completeness of the personnel information they were provided. For  example, one community representative from the Fort Belvoir, Virginia  area indicated that the planning numbers being discussed at the  installation level differed from those being discussed at the headquarters  level by nearly 5,000 personnel due to the omission of mission-related  contractors. According to this official, the Army was notified of the  omission, but had not included them in subsequent briefings. Another  community representative from the Fort Bragg, North Carolina community  told us that the planning numbers they used during a public meeting were  disputed by a senior military installation official. According to this official,  the difference was so great (nearly 1,500 military personnel due to the  omission of another military service using the base) that the community  had to go back and revise its plans, duplicating an already complicated  effort, wasting valuable time and money in the process. This situation  could have been avoided if the installation had prepared and disseminated  complete information to the community in a more timely manner.
Other communities also expressed concerns regarding the timeliness of  the data. For example, a community leader responsible for leading  community development efforts near Fort Knox, Kentucky indicated that  his organization did not have timely access to the detailed population  information needed to plan effectively. He noted that understanding the  size and the timing of the population movements was essential to his  planning efforts and for ensuring that the state budget was sufficient to  address the expected growth needs. He indicated that growth information  was obtained through multiple sources including the installation,  discussions with Pentagon officials, and by proactively monitoring  Pentagon growth announcements. Without timely access to information he  noted that it was difficult to know if his organization was making the best  decisions about the development of supporting infrastructure. He  indicated that when changes happen, the Army does not share much  information, which places a lot of stress on the community, which must  then work with rumors and wait until the Army arrives at a final decision  before any official information is released. A community leader from the  Fort Bliss, Texas area expressed similar concerns regarding the timeliness  of information and suggested that receiving the planning information on a  regular (quarterly) schedule would help reassure the community that it  has the best and most up-to-date information so that planning efforts  remain realistic. He also noted that he did not have much confidence in  the civilian personnel numbers that the Army has provided because they  do not match the ratio of civilian personnel to military personnel that is  seen across the Army for similar capabilities. While he complimented the  Army’s transition office for providing quick updates and information on  projected increases, regular, quarterly updates would give the community  confidence that it has the most up-to-date information. This community  leader also remained unclear as to why Fort Bliss civilian personnel  numbers appear to be understated.
Most of the community representatives we interviewed were quick to  point out how helpful local installations have been to their planning efforts  and acknowledged that military actions continue to change and complete  personnel predictions are uncertain. Nevertheless, several communities  expressed concerns about the lack of information regarding dependents,  particularly regarding the number of school-aged children expected to  accompany arriving military personnel. According to community planners,  detailed demographic data, such as the number and ages of dependent  children expected to accompany incoming service members, are  particularly important when planning to meet future demands for  education and housing. For instance, a community official from the Fort  Riley, Kansas area indicated that Fort Riley is receiving a greater number  of younger, single soldiers than originally expected, resulting in fewer  school-aged children and higher demand for rental housing than the  community initially anticipated. Community officials from the Fort  Benning, Georgia area have had long-standing disagreements with Army  officials regarding the number of school-aged children that are expected to  arrive. Although the Army and local officials have recently reached an  agreement regarding the projected number of children the Fort Benning  community should use for planning purposes, this example raises  questions about the reliability of dependent data being provided to other  communities. The Air Force and the Navy do not centralize their  personnel movement data and have, thus far, not attempted to calculate  the number of school-aged children that will accompany their relocating  service members. Neither service could provide detailed information  regarding dependents.
OEA, as part of its duties under executive order 12788, is to serve as a  clearinghouse of DOD planning information to the public, but without  consistent data and timely updates from all military services, it cannot  effectively perform this function. As a result, communities—as well as  state and federal agencies—have been left to their own devices to obtain  needed information. Several community officials told us that they have  resorted to gathering their own demographic data in order to obtain the  detailed dependent information required for their planning. For instance,  community officials from San Antonio, Texas have visited the units that  are expected to relocate to Fort Sam Houston and have interviewed  personnel within these units to determine key demographic information  that might aid them in their community planning efforts. While these  methods allow communities to obtain some of the detailed planning  information they require, these communities must often resort to diverting  resources from planning and implementation to developing information  that the services should have already provided them.
Information on school-aged children is also important to the Department  of Education, which uses this information for providing assistance to  federally impacted school districts. During our review, the Department of  Education expressed frustration with the Army’s inconsistent and  incomplete information in this area. According to OEA officials, the Army,  the Department of Education, and OEA had begun negotiating a  memorandum of understanding to establish a framework for addressing,  among other things, issues involved in reporting actual or projected  numbers of school-aged dependents. The memorandum would require the  Army to develop, monitor, and share projections of dependent student  data associated with military, civilian, and mission-support contractors  and to establish a system for sharing historical and actual military  dependent student data by installation. In commenting on a draft of this  report, the office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Military Community  and Family Policy) noted that this effort had been expanded beyond the  Army to encompass all of DOD. At the time of our review the  memorandum had not been finalized.
Without high-level DOD direction to the military services to establish and  implement guidance in accordance with the DOD directive regarding how  and when information related to DOD personnel movements will be  distributed to affected communities and what types of data will be  included, information that the services provide the installations,  communities, and other federal agencies will likely continue to be  inconsistent and incomplete. Furthermore, OEA’s efforts to establish a  centralized clearinghouse for this information, which could greatly  improve the consistency and availability of personnel planning data, will  continue to be hampered. The complexity of DOD’s current growth  activities, coupled with ongoing operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,  creates a situation where precise data about the magnitude and makeup of  personnel movements are continuing to evolve. Nevertheless, until the  military departments begin to disseminate consistent and detailed  information about defense personnel moves, including a description of  what is included in the data and any uncertainties such as timing of  personnel movements, it will be difficult for community, state, and federal  officials to plan for and provide the necessary infrastructure to support  members of the armed services, their families, and current residents of  surrounding communities.
section_title: OEA and Other Agencies Are Providing Some Assistance to Communities, but the Office of the Secretary of Defense Has Not Provided the High-Level Leadership Necessary to Help Ensure Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination
paragraphs: While OEA, other DOD agencies, and some state, local, and federal  government agencies have provided some assistance to DOD growth  communities, the Office of the Secretary of Defense has not provided the  high-level leadership necessary to help ensure interagency and  intergovernmental coordination at levels that can make policy and  budgetary decisions to better leverage resources through the EAC. The  EAC was established over 30 years ago for the purpose of sharing  information and coordinating assistance to communities adversely  affected by DOD activities—including growth, closures, and other actions.  Although the Secretary of Defense, or his designee, is directed by  presidential executive order to chair the EAC and lead efforts to share  information within the federal government and among state and local  agencies, OSD has not provided the leadership necessary to make this  happen effectively. However, in the absence of a fully functioning EAC at  the executive level, OEA has been proactive in working with communities  it believes will be substantially and seriously affected by DOD growth  activities and in reaching out to other federal agencies at the working  level. In addition, other DOD agencies, non-DOD federal agencies, and  state and local agencies have also provided various kinds of assistance to  growth communities.
subsections: section_title: OEA Has Provided Planning and Technical Assistance to Affected Communities
paragraphs: DOD’s efforts to assist communities affected by base closures,  realignments, or expansions are consolidated in OEA, which has been  proactive in working with communities it believes will be substantially and  seriously impacted by DOD activities. To assist growth communities, OEA  has identified those communities expected to be impacted by DOD growth  activities and have expressed a need for planning assistance. This planning  assistance has helped many of those communities hire planners or  consultants to undertake studies to identify gaps in their existing local  infrastructure that must be filled in order to accommodate the expected  population growth. During our survey of the 20 growth-impacted  communities, we found that the representatives were complimentary of  OEA’s role in supporting their planning process through grants and  technical support. Many communities referred to OEA as their only source  of federal assistance. As table 3 shows, OEA provided grants to 18 of the  20 communities and to three states—Virginia, Kansas, and Maryland. Both  Virginia and Maryland are using their grants for transportation planning,  and Maryland is also using its grant to plan for environmental impacts to  the Chesapeake Bay. Kansas used its OEA grant to hire a state coordinator  to help communicate DOD-related community impacts to state  policymakers.
section_title: Other DOD Agencies Have Provided Some Assistance to Affected Communities
paragraphs: In addition to OEA, other DOD agencies have provided some assistance to  growth communities. For example, the Defense Access Road program  administered by the Military Surface Deployment and Distribution  Command provides a method for DOD to pay for public highway  infrastructure improvements required as a result of sudden or unusual  defense-generated traffic impacts if certain criteria are met. When the  commander of an installation determines that improvements to a public  road are needed, it is the commander’s responsibility to bring the  deficiencies to the attention of the appropriate state or local  transportation authority. In cases where the owning transportation  authority cannot or will not correct the deficiency, the installation  commander can request the improvements under the Defense Access  Road program. We recently reported that in March 2008, the DOD had  requested $36.2 million for a new access road in the Fort Belvoir, Virginia  area. If the funds are appropriated by Congress, this project is expected to  be completed by the end of fiscal year 2010.
Another DOD agency that has provided assistance to some growth  communities is the DOD Education Activity. This activity, located within  the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and  Family Policy, operates over 200 schools worldwide, 57 of which are  located in the continental United States. This activity recently published  an update to a report on assistance to local educational agencies for  defense dependents education. This report, required by the John Warner  National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007, directed the  Secretary of Defense to update the DOD plan to provide assistance to local  educational agencies that experience growth and/or decline in the  enrollment of military students as a result of the force structure changes,  relocation of military units, or the closure or realignment of military  installations. The DOD Education Activity also established a directorate in  October 2007 to help provide quality education opportunities for military  children and to assist military-connected school systems. This assistance  is geared toward issues unique to military children, such as helping them  keep up with changing curriculum requirements as they are moved from  base to base. Although some off-base schools that may receive assistance  are among those experiencing DOD growth, the program does not  specifically focus on growth communities.
DOD, through its supplement to the Department of Education’s Impact Aid  Program, provides financial assistance to local educational agencies that  are impacted by the presence of military or DOD civilian dependent  students and DOD children with severe disabilities. In fiscal year 2007, the  total appropriation for the DOD supplement to the Department of  Education’s Impact Aid Program was $43 million.
section_title: Some Assistance Has Been Provided to Communities by State, Local, and Federal Agencies
paragraphs: Other federal agencies as well as the state and local agencies of  jurisdiction have provided some assistance to growth communities. Since  there is currently no centralized mechanism for collecting information on  all of the types of assistance provided to DOD communities, the  information we collected should not be viewed as complete. Furthermore,  although our survey of the 20 growth communities completed in April 2008  did not necessarily identify all of the funding that has been provided to  these communities and we did not validate the responses, it did reveal the  magnitude and variety of resources that may be available to them. For  example, 11 communities reported receiving a total of $131.7 million in  state-sponsored funding to support a range of initiatives including building  roads, conducting needs assessments, developing business plans, and  acquiring easements in support of the installations’ missions. Five  communities indicated that they have received a total of $167.2 million in  local funding. The majority of local funding came from communities near  Fort Carson, Colorado and Fort Riley, Kansas. Fort Carson instituted a  special purpose tax through a rural transportation authority which raised  $78.8 million in local funding to improve roads. Communities outside of Ft.  Riley raised $87.3 million through local bonds for the construction of two  schools and the expansion of a community hospital. Three communities  received a total of $212,500 from private funding sources. For example, the  community surrounding Fort Benning, Georgia received $160,000 in 2003  from the Fort Benning Futures Partnership, a community action group, to  study the impact of BRAC.
In an attempt to identify some of the federal assistance that may have been  provided or that may be available to growth communities, we obtained  information from structured questions administered to seven federal  agencies and from information provided by DOD. Although we did not  find any federal programs in these agencies specifically designed to assist  communities impacted by DOD-related growth, officials from those  agencies we contacted told us that there are numerous programs that  growth communities can apply and be considered for if they meet specific  eligibility requirements. For example, the Department of Labor reported  that it had provided more than $65 million in Workforce Innovation in  Regional Development grants to expand employment and advancement  opportunities for workers, and it has given almost $30 million in National  Emergency Grants to communities affected by BRAC, including growth  communities. In addition, our analysis shows that for fiscal year 2008, the  Department of Education estimates that over $428 million in Federal  Impact Aid grants will be provided for the operational support of local  schools based on the number of federally connected children who are in  attendance in specific local school districts in states with growth  installations. This assistance is not provided to DOD growth communities  only, but to any community where federally connected children are  attending school. Appendix II provides a list of the assistance programs  identified by the eight federal agencies we contacted (including DOD), for  which DOD growth communities may be eligible.
In April 2006, OEA, in its capacity to provide administrative support to the  EAC, published a compendium of federal assistance programs for  communities, businesses, and workers affected by BRAC closures or  realignments and other DOD actions. The compendium—which provided  federal points of contact, internet addresses, and telephone numbers—was  a helpful first step. However, the compendium did not provide important  details on available assistance programs, such as eligibility requirements,  application procedures, and deadlines—information that could have been  easily gathered through a fully functioning EAC.
section_title: The EAC Is Intended to Assist Communities Adversely Affected by DOD Actions, but the Office of the Secretary of Defense Has Not Provided the High-Level Leadership Necessary to Ensure Interagency and Intergovernmental Coordination
paragraphs: The EAC was established over 30 years ago for the purpose of sharing  information and coordinating assistance to communities adversely  affected by DOD activities—including growth, closures, and other actions.  Although the Secretary of Defense, as chair of the EAC, is directed by  executive order to provide a forum for sharing information within the  federal government and among state and local agencies, the Office of the  Secretary of Defense has not provided the high-level leadership necessary  to make this happen effectively.
To ensure that communities substantially and seriously affected by DOD  actions receive assistance, the 22-agency EAC was created by presidential  executive order. Executive order 12788 designated the Secretary of  Defense, or his designee, to chair the committee and designated the  Secretaries of Labor and Commerce, or their designees, to serve as  committee co-vice-chairs. The order also directs the EAC to identify  problems of states and communities that result from defense-related  activities and that require federal assistance. The order directs all  executive agencies to afford priority consideration to requests from  defense-affected communities for federal technical, financial, or other  assistance that are part of a comprehensive plan used by the EAC. In  addition, the committee was tasked with making communities that are  substantially and seriously affected by DOD actions—including both  closings and growth activities—aware of available federal economic  adjustment programs. The executive order further requires the EAC to  serve as a clearinghouse to exchange information among its member  agencies for the benefit of all communities affected by DOD activities.  Such interagency and intergovernmental coordination is important to  more effectively leverage resources, and our prior work has concluded  that successful collaboration requires commitment by senior officials in  respective federal agencies to articulate their agreements in a formal  document such as a memorandum of understanding, interagency  guidance, or interagency planning documents.
Although staff-level working group meetings have been held, the  executive-level committee has not met since November 2006 and  committee leadership currently has no plans to convene periodic  meetings. Furthermore, the EAC has not developed a plan to ensure  information sharing and other forms of cooperation among its member  agencies for the benefit of all communities affected by DOD activities.  While the Secretary of Defense is required to lead interagency and  intergovernmental efforts to assist communities most affected by its  activities, OSD delegated this function to the Deputy Under Secretary  (Installations and Environment), who has not held regular meetings of the  executive-level EAC. According to representatives of key EAC federal  agencies with whom we spoke with, they have not been fully engaged in  the committee process and DOD has not kept them entirely informed of  department activities that might better help them provide assistance to  affected DOD communities. Furthermore, one executive-level EAC  representative we spoke with was unaware that the executive order  requires her agency to afford priority consideration to requests from  defense-affected communities for federal assistance as part of a  comprehensive plan used by the EAC.
In the absence of a fully functioning EAC, OEA has proactively organized  ad hoc outreach visits with senior federal officials for education issues.  Officials representing the Department of Education, the Army, the Office  of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and  Family Policy, and OEA met with leaders representing states, installations,  communities, and local education activities at Forts Drum, Riley, Bliss,  and Benning between September 2007 and January 2008. The purpose of  these visits was to provide stakeholders with information involving  student population growth issues, improve communication among all  partners, identify gaps or lags in capacities, and to more extensively  document specific requests for federal action to assist communities and  states responding to student growth. In addition, OEA has sponsored  conferences attended by state, local, and federal agencies and affected  community representatives, providing an opportunity for communities to  discuss issues with officials from OEA and participating federal entities  that are members of the EAC. The most recent conference, a 3-day Growth  Summit, was held in December 2007. During our conversations with  representatives of the 20 growth communities, several communities  volunteered how helpful the summit was to them in that they could  exchange lessons learned with other communities facing similar  challenges. At the summit, OEA announced plans to work with  communities to prepare a list of projects that could not be undertaken to  address DOD-related growth activities due to a lack of funding. Once these  projects are identified and validated by OEA project managers, OEA plans  to present this information to the Office of Management and Budget and  cognizant federal agencies sometime during the summer of 2008 for  possible budget consideration.
OEA can not guide interagency operations at a high enough level to  promote effective interagency cooperation. Only high-level leadership  from the Secretary of Defense can marshal the resources of the executive  federal agency EAC members and only these high-level federal officials  can affect possible policy and budget decisions that may be required to  better assist the communities. Without high-level DOD leadership, the EAC  will continue to function at the working group level and communities  affected by all types of DOD actions (growth and closure) will lack an  important source of information and support. Conversely, a functional  EAC could better leverage resources by providing a conduit through which  member agencies could share any ongoing and planned efforts that could  assist DOD-affected communities, better match available resources to  community needs, identify and avoid redundancies and serve as a  clearinghouse for providing comprehensive, targeted, and timely  information about funding programs to all DOD-affected communities.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although the long-term outlook for communities surrounding growing  DOD facilities is generally encouraging, the very real challenges many  communities face to accommodate the expected influx of personnel will  require carefully targeted investments and judicious use of local, state, and  federal resources. Communities that are unable to provide needed  infrastructure improvements by the time DOD executes its planned  personnel movements could face overcrowded schools, clogged roadways,  and overburdened public services. Conversely, some communities could  make substantial investments or incur large debts only to find that new  residents will be longer in coming or fewer in number than expected.  Hence, accurate, detailed, and timely planning information is vital to both  maximize the efficient use of resources and to ensure the highest quality of  life possible for relocating DOD personnel and their families. Unless DOD  shares its best available information regarding personnel movements— including demographics as well as information on the limitations of the  data and when to expect updates—in the timeliest practical manner, some  communities surrounding growing installations may bear unnecessary  burdens as they strive to accommodate growth that they have little or no  ability to control. Furthermore, without a centralized and user-friendly  source for obtaining such information, many communities, especially  small towns and rural areas that lack the experience or planning personnel  to effectively research and compete for grant opportunities, may be  disadvantaged.
By executive branch policy, federal agencies have a shared responsibility  with local and state governments in growth areas for providing affected  communities with assistance, but have done so in a generally  uncoordinated fashion. In addition, as the instigating force behind the  growth initiatives—the 2005 BRAC, overseas rebasing, force modularity,  and Grow the Force—and the body accountable for implementing BRAC  recommendations, DOD is charged by presidential executive order and  DOD directive to lead federal efforts to alleviate the impact of its actions.  Without providing the leadership necessary to fully implement the  presidential executive order to provide consistent and complete  information and be fully engaged in the high-level cooperation of other  federal agencies, DOD risks allowing the needs of affected communities to  go unfulfilled in an inefficient, hit-or-miss search for assistance. Until DOD  begins to fully leverage the interagency resources of the EAC and achieve  unity of effort aimed at maximizing assistance to affected communities,  state and local governments may not be able to provide expanded  infrastructure and services for DOD personnel while maintaining existing  amenities. As a result, quality of life for both military and civilian  residents, along with military readiness, could be degraded.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: In order to assist communities in planning to provide the infrastructure  necessary to support defense-related growth and to ensure quality of life  for members of the armed forces, their families, and other members of  surrounding communities, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense    direct the Secretaries of the military services and the Commandant of  the Marine Corps to develop and implement guidance, no later than the  end of fiscal year 2008, that is consistent with DOD Directive 5410.12  for the timely, complete, and consistent dissemination of DOD planning  information such as estimated timelines and numbers of personnel  relocating, as well as demographic data such as numbers of school- aged children, and to update this information quarterly.
In order to better coordinate and leverage federal resources to assist  communities affected by DOD activities, we recommend that the Secretary  of Defense    direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and  Logistics to implement Executive Order 12788 by holding regular  meetings of the full executive-level EAC and by serving as a  clearinghouse of information for identifying expected community  impacts and problems as well as identifying existing resources for  providing economic assistance to communities affected by DOD  activities. This clearinghouse would provide a centralized source for  information from all military services regarding personnel planning  information, as well as information regarding any resources available at  the federal, state, local, and private-sector levels that can help address  potential infrastructure gaps at the affected communities. In addition,  this information should be updated at least quarterly and made easily  available to all interested stakeholders at the local, state, and federal  levels.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our  recommendations. However, while DOD indicated concurrence, it is  unclear from its comments and stated actions as to what actions, if any,  DOD plans to take to meet the intent of our recommendations. DOD’s  comments are reprinted in their entirety in appendix IV. DOD, as well as  several other federal agencies cited in this report, also provided technical  comments on a draft of this report which we incorporated as appropriate.
DOD concurred with our recommendation to direct the military services to  develop and implement guidance that is consistent with DOD Directive  5410.12, which provides overall policy for minimizing economic impacts  on communities resulting from defense activities. Although DOD indicated  it would continue to work with the cognizant DOD components to ensure  compliance with the directive, actions taken to date have not resulted in  the military services’ development and implementation of guidance which  we believe is necessary for providing more complete and consistent  personnel relocation planning data for impacted communities. Moreover,  DOD was not explicit in its comments as to what steps it intends to take to  ensure that the military services have implemented such guidance by the  end of fiscal year 2008. With respect to our recommended action to  provide information updates on a quarterly basis, DOD indicated that not  all situations are conducive to quarterly updates. The primary basis for  recommending quarterly updates was because the Army, which has the  majority of growth activities affecting local communities, updates its  centralized personnel movement database on a quarterly basis and could  therefore provide quarterly updates. The other services do not have  centralized databases and currently provide the information on an             as-needed basis. While we agree that some flexibility in the update process  may be warranted so as to not create burdensome situations, we continue  to believe that it is critical that updated data important for community  planning be disseminated on a regular basis to community entities in a  manner that is timely, complete, and consistent to provide assurance to  the communities that they have the best and most accurate DOD  information possible for planning purposes.
DOD also concurred with our recommendation directing the Under  Secretary of Defense for Acquisitions, Technology, and Logistics to  implement Executive Order 12788 to better coordinate and leverage  federal resources by holding regular meetings and by developing a  centralized clearinghouse of information to provide, among other things, a  centralized source for personnel relocation data and available resources to  address potential community infrastructure gaps. As noted in its  comments, DOD stated that it will develop an information clearinghouse  which will identify federal programs and resources to affected  communities, present successful state and local responses, and provide  EAC members with a basis to resource their assistance programs.   Although we believe this to be a step in the right direction, we continue to  believe that the EAC, as the senior-level federal committee established by  presidential executive order to assist interagency and intergovernmental  coordination in support of defense-impacted communities, needs to meet  on a regular basis to exercise its responsibilities and assure the successful  implementation of Executive Order 12788. However, based on DOD’s  comments, it is unclear as to whether DOD, as chair of the EAC, intends to  call and periodically hold meetings of the full executive-level committee to  provide the high-level federal leadership that we believe is necessary to  more effectively coordinate federal agency assistance to impacted  communities. As our review has shown, the full committee has not met  since November 2006. While DOD has left the workings of the EAC to the  Office of Economic Adjustment, we do not believe that this office can  effectively guide interagency operations at a high enough level to promote  interagency cooperation and provide priority considerations to defense- affected communities and therefore we reiterate our recommendation to  hold regular meetings of the executive-level EAC.
We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional  committees; the Secretaries of Defense, Army, Air Force, and Navy and the  Commandant of the Marine Corps; and the Director, Office of Management  and Budget. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff has any questions concerning this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-4523 or at leporeb@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the  last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To examine the extent to which communities affected by defense actions  arising from the implementation of the base realignment and closure  (BRAC) 2005 round recommendations, the Global Defense Posture  Realignment, Army force modularity, and Grow the Force initiatives have  identified necessary infrastructure requirements to meet anticipated  growth projections, we collected and analyzed available Department of  Defense (DOD) data regarding the expected personnel growth at selected  communities within the United States. We selected all 20 communities that  DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) had determined to be  growth locations expected to be substantially and seriously impacted  based on OEA criteria as of January 2008. (See table 1 for a full listing of  these locations.) We interviewed OEA project managers designated to  work with each of these communities to obtain background and insight  into the challenges these communities were facing and their progress in  identifying needed infrastructure within their communities as a result of  the military growth. In order to present information regarding expected  growth at each military installation, we analyzed Army and Air Force  headquarters-level data, and Navy and Marine Corps installation-level  population data. We obtained and analyzed the estimated installation  population between fiscal years 2006 and 2012 for military, civilian, and  mission contractor personnel as well as their families for the 20 growth  communities that OEA identified to be substantially and seriously  impacted. Installation and dependent population data for the Army were  obtained from the centralized Army Stationing and Installation Plan  database. To obtain consistent data from the Navy, Marine Corps, and the  Air Force—none of which maintain a centralized database for this  information—we developed and administered a data collection instrument  using the Army database categories. The Navy and Marine Corps provided  data directly from the installation level, while the Air Force provided data  through its headquarters Office of Manpower and Personnel. We made  numerous contacts with cognizant Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air  Force officials both at the headquarters and installation level in order to  gather and explain these data. We conducted a survey with OEA’s  designated point of contact at each of the 20 communities and periodically  followed up to ascertain, among other things, their progress in identifying  growth issues and the status of plans to identify needed support  infrastructure. We received completed questionnaires from all 20 locations  and conducted follow-up interviews with all 20 to ensure that our  information was current. We further interviewed senior officials from each  of the military services regarding their practices in providing installation  growth projections to growth-impacted communities and OEA in  accordance with DOD policy. We also visited 1 location representing each  of the top three growth challenges as determined by our survey. These  locations and their corresponding growth challenges were Eglin Air Force  Base, Florida (transportation); Fort Benning, Georgia, (schools); and Fort  Sill, Oklahoma (housing). At each location we interviewed cognizant  installation and local community officials regarding the communities’  planning issues and analyzed impact and planning data. In addition, we  used information collected from site visits during our 2007 review of Army  growth installations for a total of 10 location visits. We also attended  numerous workshops involving military growth communities—an  Association of Defense Communities Conference in August 2007 in Miami,  Florida; a December 2007 OEA-sponsored growth summit in St. Louis,  Missouri; a Forth Belvoir town hall meeting in Fairfax County, Virginia, in  April 2007; a meeting of the Committee for a Sustainable Emerald Coast in  Fort Walton Beach, Florida, in August 2007; and the second annual  meeting of the Fort Bragg and Pope Air Force Base BRAC Regional Task  Force in Fayetteville, North Carolina, in October 2007. Attending these  meetings provided us with more detailed perspectives on community  issues and the efforts of selected federal agencies to provide needed  assistance. The OEA-sponsored growth summit was particularly helpful in  that all 20 communities attended and presented information briefs on their  top issues, which we gathered and summarized for this report. We also  interviewed officials from the National Governors Association and the  Association of Defense Communities who were familiar with  infrastructure and financing issues facing military growth communities.
To assess DOD’s efforts and the efforts of other government agencies to  provide resources and other assistance to affected communities, we  reviewed applicable DOD directives and executive orders to determine  what role DOD and other agencies have in this process. To ascertain the  extent to which communities were receiving state and local funds, we  asked the communities to estimate the amount received as part of our  survey of the 20 communities. To determine the extent and type of federal  assistance being provided, we first conducted interviews with senior OEA  officials because OEA serves as a key DOD activity in assisting  communities in addressing growth challenges. To determine the extent of  non-DOD federal assistance which might be available to growth-impacted  communities, we administered a structured data collection instrument  (structured questions which we e-mailed) to seven federal agencies—the  Department of Transportation, the Department of Education, the  Department of Labor, the Department of Commerce, the Small Business  Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of  Housing and Urban Development—identified by OEA as key federal  agencies that, based on the community issues, may be the most helpful.  We asked questions regarding what assistance they had provided the DOD- impacted communities and what programs they could suggest that might  provide assistance to these communities. The results of these interviews  were summarized and included in the report. We conducted follow-up  interviews with senior officials at the Department of Transportation  Federal Highway Program and Federal Transit Administration; the  Department of Education Elementary and Secondary Education and  Impact Aid Program; and the Department of Labor Employment and  Training Administration to better understand their knowledge about DOD  activities and what plans they had, if any, to assist the impacted  communities. We further interviewed senior DOD officials responsible for  military community and family; military housing; education; and  transportation policies and practices to determine the types and extent of  assistance that DOD was providing to impacted communities in those  specific areas of interest.
During the course of our review, we contacted the following offices with  responsibility for planning, managing, studying, or overseeing growth at  defense impacted communities:  Office of the Secretary of Defense    Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations & Environment,    Office of Economic Adjustment, Arlington, Virginia    Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family  Policy, Arlington, Virginia    Department of Defense Education Activity, Arlington, Virginia    Military Surface Deployment and Distribution Command, Defense  Access Road Program, Newport News, Virginia    Army Office of the Assistant Secretary for Installations & Environment,    Army Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army for  Installation Management, Arlington, Virginia    Army Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Installations &  Environment, Housing Division, Arlington, Virginia    Army Installation Management Command, Arlington, Virginia   Navy Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Installations &  Facilities, Arlington, Virginia    Navy Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office,    Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for Installations, Arlington,    Air Force Office of Manpower and Personnel, Arlington, Virginia   Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Arlington, Virginia    Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Program and Federal  Transit Administration, Washington, D.C.
Department of Education, Office of the Assistant Secretary for  Elementary and Secondary Education and the Office of the Impact Aid  Program, Washington, D.C.
Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration,  Washington, D.C.
Department of Agriculture, Office of Rural Development, Washington,  D.C.
Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration,  Washington, D.C.
Small Business Administration, Office of Financial Assistance and  Office of Business Development, Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of  Community Planning and Development, Washington, D.C.
Association of Defense Communities, Washington, D.C.    National Governors Association, Washington, D.C.
Georgia Military Affairs Coordinating Committee, Atlanta, Georgia    North Carolina Eastern Region, Kinston, North Carolina Conferences, town hall meetings, and workshops attended    Association of Defense Communities 2007 summer conference in    Town Hall Meeting, Fort Belvoir Virginia, in Mount Vernon, Virginia    Fort Bragg, BRAC Regional Task Force Annual Meeting, Fayetteville,    Committee for a Sustainable 2030 Emerald Coast, Fort Walton Beach,    DOD, Office of Economic Adjustment 2007 Growth Summit, in St.
Louis, Missouri.
We conducted our work from February 2007 through May 2008 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. Obtaining installation and  family population data from the Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force  required numerous follow-ups by telephone and e-mail and still the data  were not complete for our needs. Unlike the Army, these military services  do not have a centralized database for this information, and were required  to draw from various databases and from the installations themselves in  order to fulfill our request. For its part, the Army maintains a centralized  database which is updated on a quarterly basis. However, these data have  their own shortcomings as described in this report. We found these  estimates by nature are not precise and rounded them to the nearest  hundreds to provide a sense of the growth in personnel and families  communities have to use for planning purposes. Overall, we believe that  the evidence obtained for this report provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix II: Types of Federal Assistance Available to All Domestic Communities, Including DOD- Affected Growth Communities, as Identified by 8 of the 22 EAC-Member Agencies
paragraphs: Program DOD Su (LEAs) tha students. E average da the preced Impact  military de criteria. DO or disburse pplemental Impact Aid provides financial assistance to Local Educational Agencies t are heavily impacted by the presence of military or DOD civilian dependent  ligible LEAs must have at least 20 percent military or civilian dependent students in  ily attendance in their schools, as counted on their Federal Impact Aid application for ing year.
Aid for Children with Severe Disabilities is available to any LEA that has at least two pendent children with severe disabilities that meet certain special education cost  D works with LEAs and the Department of Education to clarify or resolve any fundin ment eligibility issues.
Aid Program provides technical assistance and disburses payments to local  l agencies that are financially burdened by federal activities based on a statutory   students reported annually in section 8003 applications to the Department.
Econom assistan assistance Public  “sudden rehabilitati ic Adjustment Assistance Program is the primary vehicle for BRAC-related  ce to communities. The program provides technical, planning, and infrastructure  .
Works and Economic Development Program is available to communities impacted  and severe” changes in economic conditions. This program provides for construction on of essential public infrastructure facilities.  nity Development Block Grant Program provides annual grants on a formula basis to  communities to carry out a wide range of community development activities directed  ighborhood revitalization, economic development, and improved community facilities es.
ME Program provides grants to states and local governments to implement local   strategies designed to increase home ownership and affordable housing for low- and come Americans.
Commu entitled  towards ne and servic The HO housing very low-in Nationa service  response t High Gr busines workforce  Commu workfor colleges to Workfo critical r strategies. together st colleges, a address th l Emergency Grant Program grants are discretionary awards that temporarily expand  capacity at the state and local levels through time-limited funding assistance in  o significant dislocation events.  owth Job Training identifies industries in need of talent development, connects ses to the workforce system, and creates programs designed to meet their specific  needs.  nity-Based Job Training Grants address the need for a partnership between the  ce system and the vocational education system and increase the capacity of community   meet employer demands by providing grants to colleges.  rce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED) Initiative stresses ole talent development plays in creating effective regional economic development   The initiative goes beyond traditional strategies for worker preparation by bringing  ate, local, and federal entities; academic institutions (including K-12, community  nd universities); investment groups; foundations; and business and industry to  e challenges associated with building a globally competitive and prepared workforce.
Express Program provides lending partners with a government-guaranteed loan  ilored to active duty and reserve personnel and their immediate family members. Development Program, section 8 (a), is a program designed by Congress to provide   and economically disadvantaged businesses with the requisite management and  ssistance to enhance their ability to compete in the American marketplace.  The  tilizes set-aside and limited competition federal contracts, assistance through SBA tégé Program, and management and technical assistance through 7(j) designated  ovide business development assistance to 8(a) firms.  ent and Technical Assistance Program, section 7(j), is one of the forms of  evelopment assistance provided to more than 8,800 firms that particip ate in the 8(a)  s Development Program, as well as other 7(j) eligible concerns.  SBA has been able to  e assistance provided through the 7(j) program with other forms of management and ssistance. Additional agency-sponsored workshops, seminars, and conferences have  the 7(j) assistance. The training is conducted nationwide and focuses on marketing   doing business with the federal government, how to write winning proposals, c e cost proposal, maximizing cash flow management, and cost and pricing traini rafting  ng.  rust Fund, Title 23, U.S.C., authorizes funding of broad categories of transportation from the Highway Trust Fund, which is the main source of federal transportation   to the states. Priorities are set at the state/local level.
Business  businesse Cooperative Extension through Land Grant Universities that provide resource descriptions to  communities and annually seeks input on needed services.  Community Facilities Direct Loans and Grants Program provides guaranteed loans to  develop essential community facilities in rural areas and towns of up to 20,000 in population.  Single-Family Housing Program guarantees housing loans to help low and moderate-income  individuals or households purchase homes in rural areas.  Multi-Family Housing Program provides loans to develop and/or rehabilitate rural rental  housing under two direct loan programs, one for farm labor tenancy and one loan-guaranteed  program.  Rural Rental Assistance Program provides support for very-low and low-income households  to assist in paying rent in Rural Development-financed properties.  Rural Development Electric Program provides direct loans and loan guarantees to help  finance the construction of electric distribution, transmission, and generation facilities.  Rural Development Telecommunications Loan Program offers loans for infrastructure  improvement and expansion.  Rural Business Enterprise Grant Program provides grants for rural projects that finance and  facilitate development of small and emerging rural business, help distance learning networks,  and help fund employment-related adult education programs.  Rural Business Opportunity Grant Program promotes sustainable economic development in  rural communities with exceptional needs.  Intermediary Relending Program is to help alleviate poverty and increase economic activity  and employment in rural communities.  Rural Economic Development Loan and Grant Program provides funding to rural projects  through local utility organizations.  Section 9006 Guaranteed Loan Program encourages commercial financing of renewable  energy and energy efficiency projects.  Section 9006 Grant Program provides grants for agricultural producers and rural small  businesses to purchase renewable energy systems.  Rural Development Water and Wastewater Program provides direct loans, grants, and loan  guarantees to help finance the construction of drinking water, sanitary sewer, solid waste, and  storm drainage facilities in rural areas and cities and towns of 10,000 or less.  & Industry Guaranteed Loan Program provides financial backing for rural  s. Commercial loan guarantees are available up to 80 percent of the loan amount.
section_title: Appendix III: Executive Order 12788, as Amended through May 2005
section_title: Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
section_title: Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Jim Reifsnyder, Assistant  Director; Karen Kemper, Analyst-in-Charge; Bob Poetta; Kurt Burgeson;  Susan Ditto; Ron La Due Lake; Julia Matta; Anna Russell; David Adams;  and Nancy Lively made key contributions to this review.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road  Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. GAO-08-602R.  Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2008.
State and Local Governments: Growing Fiscal Challenges Will Emerge  during the Next 10 Years. GAO-08-317. Washington, D.C.: January 22,  2008.
Defense Infrastructure: Realignment of Air Force Special Operations  Command Units to Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. GAO-08-244R.  Washington, D.C.: January 18, 2008.
Force Structure: Need for Greater Transparency for the Army’s Grow the  Force Initiative Funding Plan. GAO-08-354R. Washington, D.C.: January  18, 2008.
Force Structure: Better Management Controls Are Needed to Oversee the  Army’s Modular Force and Expansion Initiatives and Improve  Accountability for Results. GAO-08-145. Washington, D.C.: December 14,  2007.
Defense Infrastructure: Overseas Master Plans Are Improving, but DOD  Needs to Provide Congress Additional Information about the Military  Buildup on Guam. GAO-07-1015. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have  Increased and Estimated Savings Have Decreased. GAO-08-341T.  Washington, D.C.: December 12, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have  Increased and Are Likely to Continue to Evolve. GAO-08-159. Washington,  D.C.: December 11, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Transfer of Supply, Storage,  and Distribution Functions from Military Services to Defense Logistics  Agency. GAO-08-121R. Washington, D.C.: October 26, 2007.
Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for Providing Timely  Infrastructure Support for Army Installations Expecting Substantial  Personnel Growth. GAO-07-1007. Washington, D.C.: September 13, 2007.
Force Structure: Army Needs to Provide DOD and Congress More  Visibility Regarding Modularity Force Capabilities and Impleme Plans. GAO-06-745. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2006.
Defense Infrastructure: DOD’s Overseas Infrastructure Master Plans  Continue to Evolve. GAO-06-913R. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2006.
Force Structure: Capabilities and The Cost of Army Modular Force  Remain Uncertain. GAO-06-548T. Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2006.