Since 1988, DOD has relied on the BRAC process as an important means of reducing excess infrastructure and realigning bases to meet changing force structure needs. The 2005 BRAC round was the fifth round of base closures and realignments undertaken by DOD since 1988, and it was the biggest, most complex, and costliest BRAC round ever.The 2005 BRAC process generally followed the legislative framework of previous BRAC rounds, providing for an independent Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission to review the Secretary of Defense’s closure and realignment recommendations, which were produced through the BRAC processes coordinated by the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and Environment.Commission assessed the Secretary’s recommendations, under its authority to approve, modify, reject, or add closure or realignment recommendations, before reporting its own recommendations to the President. The President then approved the Commission’s recommendations and forwarded them to Congress, and the recommendations became final in November 2005. Implementation of the recommendations was required to be complete by September 15, 2011. Figure 1 below is a timeline of the 2005 BRAC round. As specified in the BRAC statute, DOD has 6 years to complete all installation closures and realignments, although certain actions, such as the cleanup of environmentally contaminated property and the subsequent transfer of unneeded property to other users, may extend beyond the 6-year implementation period for each round. Once DOD officially closes an installation, the property is typically considered excess and offered to other federal agencies. As shown in figure 2, any property that is not taken by other federal agencies is then considered surplus and is disposed of through a variety of means to state and local governments, local redevelopment authorities, or private parties. The various methods used to convey unneeded property to nonfederal parties noted in figure 2 are targeted, in many cases, to a particular end use of the property. For example, under a public benefit conveyance, state and local governments and local redevelopment authorities acquire surplus DOD property for little or no cost for purposes such as schools, parks, and airports. Under an economic development conveyance, property is transferred for uses that promote economic recovery and job creation. Conservation conveyances provide for the transfer of property to a state, a political subdivision of a state, or a qualified not-for-profit group for natural resource and conservation purposes. Property can also be conveyed to nonfederal parties through other methods shown in figure 2 without regard, in many cases, to a particular end use. For example, property can be sold or special congressional legislation can dictate transfer to a particular entity. In recent years, the growth of installations has occurred as a result of both the 2005 BRAC round and other DOD initiatives. Under the 2005 BRAC round, DOD implemented 182 recommendations, many of which resulted in significant personnel movement across installations and the subsequent growth of some of those installations. In addition, DOD has undertaken other actions outside of BRAC that have resulted in the growth of installations. For example, the Army has undergone a major force restructuring through its force modularity effort, which has been referred to as the largest Army reorganization in 50 years. This effort created Stryker brigades, primarily located at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Washington. Finally, DOD’s Grow the Force initiative increased the end strength of the Army and the Marine Corps, affecting bases across the country. Although DOD has recently announced plans to downsize the Army and the Marine Corps, installations that experienced significant growth under these initiatives, and their surrounding communities, are still dealing with the impact of additional personnel and their dependents. 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—assists communities by providing technical and financial assistance in planning and carrying out adjustment strategies in response to defense actions. OEA is the primary DOD office responsible for providing assistance to communities, regions, and states affected by significant defense actions including base closures and realignments. Much of that assistance in the past was directed toward communities that lost military and civilian personnel because of the closure or major realignment of a base. However, because the 2005 BRAC round and other initiatives described above have created significant growth at many bases, OEA has also assisted affected communities with growth planning. We have reported on the impact of BRAC actions numerous times over the last several years. In particular in our 2005 report on BRAC, we reported that DOD had closed 97 major installations since the first BRAC round in 1988. Specifically DOD closed 16 bases in BRAC 1988, 26 bases in BRAC 1991, 28 bases in BRAC 1993, and 27 bases in BRAC 1995. (See appendix II for a list of the 97 bases and the year of closure for each.) In that report, we studied 62 affected communities and found that most of the surrounding communities were able to replace the jobs lost due to the installation closure with new jobs created by the reuse of the installation and that these communities generally had economic indicators that compared favorably with the U.S. national averages. Specifically, as of July 31, 2004, almost 70 percent of the 62 affected communities studied in that report (43 out of 62) had unemployment rates at or below the national average. Our analyses in that report of annual real per capita growth rates for the BRAC–affected communities showed mixed results. The latest available data at that time (1999-2001) showed that only 48 percent of the BRAC-affected communities (30 of the 62) had an estimated average real per capita income growth rate that was higher than the national average. This was a decline from when we reported these figures in our 2002 report, where we reported that 33 out of 62 communities (53 percent) matched or exceeded the national average for real per capita income growth rate for 1996 to 1999. Communities surrounding the 23 major DOD installations closed in BRAC 2005 have used a variety of strategies to deal with the closures, and economic data on unemployment and real per capita income growth show the rates for these communities are comparable to national averages. During the BRAC 2005 round, DOD closed 23 major installations in the United States, the majority of which were Army installations. Figures 3 and 4 show the number of major installations that were closed by military service and the locations of these installations. Communities affected by these installation closures faced a number of different challenges and developed strategies to deal with them. In particular, community representatives we spoke with or surveyed said that some of their greatest challenges in dealing with the installation closures were developing a plan for the reuse of the property, dealing with facilities that were in poor shape or not suitable for reuse, and obtaining funding for infrastructure improvements. Other challenges identified by community representatives included navigating the legal intricacies of property transfer, dealing with environmental cleanup, and replacing lost jobs. Based on our analysis, we found that community representatives have used a variety of strategies to deal with these challenges. For example, several representatives that responded to our survey cited forming a local redevelopment authority as an effective strategy for dealing with installation closure. One community representative said his local redevelopment authority was comprised of local and regional stakeholders to help build alliances and partnerships across the entire community spectrum. Another said his local redevelopment authority operates in a public forum where all meetings are open to the public and community input is solicited at every meeting. This was also reiterated by another community representative who said it was important to use an open process involving public meetings and outreach to accept input and gain community support in developing a plan for the reuse of the property. Community representatives also cited working closely with DOD as an effective strategy for dealing with installation closure. For example, one community representative said the local redevelopment authority worked with the Army to ensure there was an effective and acceptable plan for dealing with environmental remediation prior to and after installation closure. Another local representative worked with DOD to have many of the facilities that were in poor condition demolished prior to finding new tenants, thus saving the community maintenance and operation dollars. A third representative said it would have been impossible without assistance from DOD for the local redevelopment authority to make its way through the maze of federal regulations and available information to create redevelopment plans. In addition, another community representative said that the Army was extremely helpful in transferring knowledge from numerous years of operating the installation. He said this historical knowledge allowed the local redevelopment authority to utilize previously completed studies in lieu of committing taxpayer dollars to repeat those investigations and reports. Further, he noted that data the Army maintained on utility and infrastructure would be used to manage repair and maintenance of the property in the future. Finally, another local redevelopment authority worked with local and headquarters Air Force staff to find follow-on jobs for DOD civilians that did not relocate or retire when the installation closed. Some community representatives cited leveraging funds from state and federal agencies as a successful strategy. For example, one community representative said the local redevelopment authority was able to secure state-issued bonds to make the facilities more business-ready. Another local redevelopment authority secured federal funds to modify existing structures, and a third local redevelopment authority took advantage of a state tax benefit that allowed it to use state money to pay down improvement bonds. In addition, community representatives cited receiving grants from OEA as being helpful to their local redevelopment authority’s organizational, planning, and implementation efforts. For example, one representative said the funding OEA provided was used to hire personnel, maintain offices, and conduct planning. Another said OEA provided funding through a grant that permitted the local redevelopment authority to hire dedicated professional staff and contract with a consultant to prepare the redevelopment plan and assist with the property transfer application. Many other representatives told us that OEA provided resources to develop reuse plans or supporting studies or to hire specific consulting or legal services. Table 1 below displays the OEA grants provided to closure communities during calendar years 2005 through 2012.