Defense Infrastructure
High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth Gao ID: GAO-08-665 June 17, 2008Due 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-08-665, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-665
entitled 'Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth' which was
released on June 17, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
June 2008:
Defense Infrastructure:
High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities Address Challenges
Caused by DOD-Related Growth:
GAO-08-665:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-665, a report to congressional committees.
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO is making recommendations to improve the military personnel
relocation data provided to affected communities and to facilitate more
effective interagency and intergovernmental coordination and assistance
efforts. DOD agreed with our recommendations.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-665]. For more
information, contact Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or
leporeb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
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:
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:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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:
Appendix III: Executive Order 12788, as Amended through May 2005:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Tables:
Table 1: Estimated Growth in DOD Personnel (Military and Civilian Not
Including Dependents) at 20 Growth Installations over Fiscal Years 2006-
2012:
Table 2: Estimated Growth in DOD Dependents at 20 Growth Installations
over Fiscal Years 2006-2012:
Table 3: Office of Economic Adjustment Grants to 20 Growth-Impacted
Communities and Selected States (October 2005 through March 2008):
Figures:
Figure 1: Location of 20 DOD Communities Expecting Substantial DOD-
Related Growth over Fiscal Years 2006-2012:
Figure 2: Summary of Top Growth Challenges Identified by 20 Growth-
Impacted Communities:
Abbreviations:
BRAC: base realignment and closure:
DOD: Department of Defense:
EAC: Economic Adjustment Committee:
OEA: Office of Economic Adjustment:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 17, 2008:
Congressional Committees:
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.[Footnote 1] 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.[Footnote 2] 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[Footnote 3]
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.[Footnote 4] 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.[Footnote 5] 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.
Results in Brief:
Communities surrounding DOD growth installations have begun to identify
infrastructure needs in general terms, but precise planning efforts
have been hampered by a lack of consistent and detailed information
about anticipated DOD personnel movements. According to the communities
surrounding the 20 growth locations OEA expects will be substantially
and seriously affected by DOD-related growth, 18 have established
planning processes to engage local stakeholders to consider potential
community impacts, determine priorities, and ultimately develop an
action plan. When asked to report their top infrastructure challenges,
16 of the 20 communities cited transportation--principally roads--while
11 cited insufficient school capacity and 6 cited affordable housing.
Community planners told us they need more detailed information
regarding the numbers and demographics of expected DOD population
growth in order to prepare implementation plans and secure required
financing. DOD Directive 5410.12 requires each of the military services
to develop implementing guidance for providing planning information to
installations, communities, and OEA. However, we found that none of the
services had developed this guidance, either because service officials
did not know about the directive or did not consider it a priority.
Consequently, military personnel movement data provided to communities
by the military services vary widely not only between services, but
sometimes within the same service according to who is providing the
information. Among other things, the numbers vary in terms of what
populations (such as contractors and students) and time frames are
included, and what assumptions are used for the movement of personnel,
which oftentimes depend on other DOD actions being completed. In
addition, the numbers usually lack important demographic details
regarding dependents, such as the number of school-aged children. More
than half of the 20 communities we surveyed expressed concerns about
the completeness of personnel data received from the installations.
Detailed demographics such as the number and age of dependent children
are particularly important when planning school infrastructure, for
example. Until the military departments begin to disseminate consistent
and more detailed information about defense personnel moves, including
a description of what is included and what is excluded, and any other
limitations of these data, it will be difficult for community, state,
and federal officials to efficiently and effectively plan for and
provide the necessary infrastructure for members of the armed services,
their families, and current residents of the communities. We are
recommending that the Secretary of Defense direct the secretaries of
the military services, and the Commandant of the Marine Corps, to
develop and implement guidance consistent with DOD Directive 5410.12
for the dissemination of consistent, detailed personnel movement
information.
While OEA and other DOD, state, local, and federal agencies have
provided some assistance to communities expecting DOD growth, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense has not provided the high-level
leadership necessary to ensure effective interagency and
intergovernmental coordination to better leverage resources. DOD's
efforts to assist communities affected by base closures, realignments,
and other significant defense program changes are consolidated in OEA.
The office has been proactive in reaching out to the communities and
has provided grants to 18 of the 20 growth communities it has
identified as substantially and seriously affected by DOD growth
actions, as well as to three states--Virginia, Kansas, and Maryland.
Other DOD activities, such as the Defense Access Road program and the
DOD Education Activity, have also provided some assistance to growth
communities. Further, 11 of the 20 growth 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 lands in
support of the installations' missions. Although we did not find any
federal programs specifically designed to assist communities impacted
by DOD growth, the Department of Labor, for example, provided almost
$30 million in National Emergency Grants to communities affected by
BRAC for, among other things, expanding training in local communities
to better match the local job pool with the opportunities presented by
the expanding DOD activities. To ensure that communities adversely
affected by DOD actions receive assistance, the 22-agency Economic
Adjustment Committee (EAC) was created by a presidential executive
order[Footnote 6] to identify problems of states, regions, and
communities affected by defense-related activities and to serve as a
clearinghouse to exchange information. Executive Order 12788 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.
The Secretary of Defense or his designee is required as the chair of
the EAC to lead interagency and intergovernmental efforts. We reported
in October 2005 that leadership is a necessary element for sustaining
collaboration among federal agencies.[Footnote 7] However, we found
that DOD has not provided the necessary leadership. For example, the
Office of the Secretary of Defense delegated the chairmanship of the
EAC to the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Installations and
Environment) who has essentially left the EAC operations to OEA, a
field office that cannot guide interagency operations at a high enough
level to promote interagency cooperation. Consequently, the executive-
level committee has met rarely and not at all in 2007 and 2008, and has
no plans to reconvene periodically. Although OEA has convened meetings
at the subgroup level, policy and budgetary decisions can only be made
by the executive-level committee. A fully functional EAC at the
executive level could help ensure information sharing and other forms
of cooperation among its members for the benefit of all communities
affected by DOD activities and better leverage resources by providing a
conduit through which member agencies could (1) share information on
community needs, as well as ongoing and planned efforts to match
resources to meet those needs, and (2) contribute to a clearinghouse of
comprehensive, targeted, and timely information on funding programs to
all communities. We are recommending that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics to implement the presidential order by developing and
implementing a clearinghouse function for sharing information regarding
DOD-related impacts, community problems, and resources for providing
economic adjustment assistance to communities affected by DOD
activities.
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD agreed with our
recommendations. However, it is unclear from its comments and stated
actions as to whether DOD is fully responsive to the intent of our
recommendations. Specifically, DOD was not explicit as to what steps it
intends to take to ensure that the military services have implemented
DOD Directive 5410.12 by the end of fiscal year 2008. Further, DOD was
not explicit as to what steps it intends to take to call and
periodically hold meetings of the full executive-level, interagency
Economic Adjustment Committee to assure the successful implementation
of Executive Order 12788. DOD's comments are discussed in more detail
at the end of this report and are reproduced in full in appendix IV.
Background:
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.
Figure 1: Location of 20 DOD Communities Expecting Substantial DOD-
Related Growth over Fiscal Years 2006-2012:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a map of the United States depicting the location of 20
DOD communities expecting substantial DOD-related growth over fiscal
years 2006-2012, as follows:
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland (Army);
Camp Lejeune/Air Station Cherry Point/Air Station New River, North
Carolina (Marine Corps);
Cannon AFB, New Mexico (Air Force);
Eglin AFB, Florida (Air Force);
Fort Belvoir, Virginia (Army);
Fort Benning, Georgia (Army);
Fort Bliss, Texas (Army);
Fort Bragg, North Carolina (Army);
Fort Carson, Colorado (Army);
Fort Drum, New York (Army);
Fort Knox, Kentucky (Army);
Fort Lee, Virginia (Army);
Fort Lewis, Washington (Army);
Fort Meade, Maryland (Army);
Fort Riley, Kansas (Army);
Fort Sam Houston, Texas (Army);
Fort Sill, Oklahoma (Army);
National Naval Medical Center, Maryland (Navy);
Quantico, Virginia (Marine Corps);
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama (Army).
Source: Army, Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Office of Economic
Adjustment, Map Resources (maps).
[End of figure]
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.
Table 1: Estimated Growth in DOD Personnel (Military and Civilian Not
Including Dependents) at 20 Growth Installations over Fiscal Years 2006-
2012:
Army[A]:
Service and installation: Fort Bliss, TX;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 19,500;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 46,500;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 27,000;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 138.
Service and installation: Fort Belvoir, VA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 19,600;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 45,200;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 25,600;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 130.
Service and installation: Fort Riley, KS;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 14,900;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 25,200;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 10,300;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 69.
Service and installation: Fort Lee, VA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 13,000;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 20,100;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 7,100;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 55.
Service and installation: Fort Sam Houston, TX;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 21,400;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 31,400;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 10,000;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 46.
Service and installation: Fort Carson, CO;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 23,000;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 32,800;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 9,800;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 43.
Service and installation: Fort Benning, GA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 39,800;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 55,700;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 15,900;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 40.
Service and installation: Fort Lewis, WA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 34,700;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 47,500;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 12,800;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 37.
Service and installation: Fort Bragg, NC;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 55,800;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 72,000;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 16,200;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 29.
Service and installation: Fort Meade, MD;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 33,400;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 40,000;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 6,600;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 20.
Service and installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 16,600;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 19,600;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 3,000;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 18.
Service and installation: Redstone Arsenal, AL;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 26,000;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 29,800;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 3,800;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 14.
Service and installation: Fort Drum, NY;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 20,500;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 22,500;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 2,000;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 10.
Service and installation: Fort Sill, OK;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 26,200;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 28,100;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 1,900;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 8.
Service and installation: Fort Knox, KY;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 22,900;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 20,100;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: (2,800);
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: (12).
Navy/Marine Corps[B]:
Service and installation: Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 16,400;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 22,700;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 6,300;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 38.
Service and installation: Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, MD;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 5,200;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 7,000;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 1,800;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 35.
Service and installation: Eastern North Carolina (Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, and Marine Corp Air Station New River and Cherry Point,
NC);
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 70,000;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 83,800;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 13,800;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 20.
Air Force[C]:
Service and installation: Eglin Air Force Base, FL;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 16,300;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 19,900;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 3,600;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 22.
Service and installation: Cannon Air Force Base, NM;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 4,300;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 2,800;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: (1,500);
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: (35).
Service and installation: Total;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 499,500;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 672,700;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 173,200;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 35.
Source: GAO analysis of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force data.
Notes: These U.S.-based installations have been identified by OEA as
locations where surrounding communities are expected to experience
substantial and serious impacts due to DOD growth activities. Although
Fort Knox and Cannon AFB show a negative net growth over time, OEA
determined that the expected change in personnel demographics (e.g.,
changing from primarily military to primarily civilian) could cause
significant challenges to the surrounding communities. These numbers do
not include family members and nonmission-related contractors.
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
[A] The Army estimates are based on March 2008 Army Stationing and
Installation Plan data. As presented, these personnel figures consist
of Army and other active military, civilian, and mission contractors,
as well as military and civilian students and trainees. Army Reserve
personnel are not included.
[B] The Navy and Marine Corps data were obtained from the installation
level and consist of Navy and Marine Corps and other active military,
civilian, and mission contractors, as well as military and civilian
students and trainees. The data are current as of March 2008 with the
exception of Bethesda, which provided data current as of January 2008
that reflect the beginning of fiscal year 2008, not fiscal year 2006 as
indicated for the column.
[C] The Air Force data were obtained from the installation level and
consist of Air Force and other active military, civilian, and mission
contractors, as well as military and civilian students and trainees.
Both the Eglin and Cannon Air Force Base estimates are as of March
2008.
[End of table]
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.
Table 2: Estimated Growth in DOD Dependents at 20 Growth Installations
over Fiscal Years 2006-2012:
Army:
Service and installation: Fort Bliss, TX;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 17,300;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 59,200;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 41,900;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 242.
Service and installation: Fort Belvoir, VA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 10,400;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 25,500;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 15,100;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 145.
Service and installation: Fort Riley, KS;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 15,800;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 30,300;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 14,500;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 92.
Service and installation: Fort Knox, KY;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 10,400;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 16,600;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 6,200;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 60.
Service and installation: Fort Lee, VA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 5,800;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 9,000;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 3,200;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 55.
Service and installation: Fort Carson, CO;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 28,700;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 43,600;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 14,900;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 52.
Service and installation: Fort Lewis, WA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 40,200;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 57,800;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 17,600;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 44.
Service and installation: Fort Sam Houston, TX;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 13,100;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 18,700;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 5,600;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 43.
Service and installation: Fort Bragg, NC;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 66,200;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 83,300;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 17,100;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 26.
Service and installation: Fort Benning, GA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 19,900;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 24,900;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 5,000;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 25.
Service and installation: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 6,000;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 7,500;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 1,500;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 25.
Service and installation: Fort Meade, MD;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 20,200;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 24,100;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 3,900;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 19.
Service and installation: Fort Drum, NY;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 26,300;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 29,000;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 23,700;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 10.
Service and installation: Fort Sill, OK;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 16,300;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 18,000;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 1,700;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 10.
Service and installation: Redstone Arsenal, AL;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 7,400;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 8,000;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 600;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 8.
Navy/Marine Corps:
Service and installation: Marine Corps Base Quantico, VA;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 9,200;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 10,600;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 1,400;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 15.
Service and installation: Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, MD;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 2,800;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 3,700;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 900;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 32.
Service and installation: Eastern North Carolina (Marine Corps Base
Camp Lejeune, and Marine Corp Air Station New River and Cherry Point,
NC);
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 87,600;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 99,600;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 12,000;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 14.
Air Force:
Service and installation: Eglin Air Force Base, FL;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 29,300;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 35,100;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 5,800;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 20.
Service and installation: Cannon Air Force Base, NM;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 9,100;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 5,700;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: (3,400);
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: (37).
Service and installation: Total;
Beginning population for fiscal year 2006: 442,000;
Estimated ending population for fiscal year 2012: 610,200;
Estimated net gain (loss) in population: 168,200;
Percentage of estimated net gain (loss) in population: 38.
Source: GAO analysis of Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force data.
Note: Army dependent information is based on the March 2008 Army
Stationing and Installation Plan data and includes estimates of the
military dependent population (all family members including spouse as
well as school-aged and nonschool-aged children) and DOD civilian
dependent school-aged children, but excludes spouses and nonschool-aged
children of DOD civilians, as well as all dependents for mission-
related contractors. Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force dependent
estimates were provided at the installation level and could not be
broken down by military and civilian school-aged children and include
all military family members. Data regarding non-Marine Corps military
and civilian dependent estimates were unavailable. All estimates are as
of March 2008 with the exception of Bethesda, which are the most recent
available as of January 2008 and are for the beginning of fiscal year
2008, not fiscal year 2006 as indicated for the rest of the column.
Estimates have been rounded to the nearest hundred.
[End of table]
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[Footnote 8] 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.[Footnote 9] 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.
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:
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.
Communities Have Begun to Plan for Expected Growth:
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[Footnote 10] 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,[Footnote 11] 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.
Figure 2: Summary of Top Growth Challenges Identified by 20 Growth-
Impacted Communities:
[See PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data:
Community Issue: Transportation and public transit;
Number of communities citing as a top issue: 16.
Community Issue: Education/school capacity;
Number of communities citing as a top issue: 11.
Community Issue: Housing;
Number of communities citing as a top issue: 6.
Community Issue: Public infrastructure and utilities;
Number of communities citing as a top issue: 5.
Community Issue: Health services;
Number of communities citing as a top issue: 5.
Community Issue: Workforce;
Number of communities citing as a top issue: 5.
Community Issue: Social services;
Number of communities citing as a top issue: 3.
Community Issue: Childcare;
Number of communities citing as a top issue: 2.
Community Issue: Water and sewer;
Number of communities citing as a top issue: 2.
Source: GAO analysis of community profiles prepared for OEA.
[End of figure]
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.
Precise Planning Efforts Have Been Hampered by a Lack of Consistent and
Complete Information about Military Growth:
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[Footnote 12] 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.[Footnote 13] 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.
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:
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.
OEA Has Provided Planning and Technical Assistance to Affected
Communities:
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[Footnote 14] 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.
Table 3: Office of Economic Adjustment Grants to 20 Growth-Impacted
Communities and Selected States (October 2005 through March 2008):
Growth communities: Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $3,565,254.
Growth communities: Bethesda National Naval Medical Center, MD;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $119,238.
Growth communities: Cannon Air Force Base, NM;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $506,498.
Growth communities: Eastern North Carolina [A];
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: 0.
Growth communities: Eglin Air Force Base, FL;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $1,364,923.
Growth communities: Fort Belvoir, VA;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $1,663,190.
Growth communities: Fort Benning, GA;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $3,468,714.
Growth communities: Fort Bliss, TX;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $1,229,886.
Growth communities: Fort Bragg/Pope Air Force Base, NC;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $1,725,006.
Growth communities: Fort Carson, CO;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $517,830.
Growth communities: Fort Drum, NY;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $737,579.
Growth communities: Fort Knox, TN;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $565,867.
Growth communities: Fort Lee, VA;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $303,329.
Growth communities: Fort Lewis/McChord Air Force Base, WA;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: 0.
Growth communities: Fort Meade, MD;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $1,447,630.
Growth communities: Fort Riley, KS;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $829,400.
Growth communities: Fort Sam Houston, TX;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $931,709.
Growth communities: Fort Sill, OK;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $744,606.
Growth communities: Quantico Marine Corps Base, VA;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $163,545.
Growth communities: Redstone Arsenal, AL;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $722,438.
States: Commonwealth of Virginia;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $1,900,000.
States: State of Kansas;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $345,125.
States: State of Maryland;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $4,059,906.
Growth communities and states: Total;
Total grants for October 2005 through March 2008: $26,911,673.
Source: Office of Economic Adjustment, DOD.
Note: According to OEA, the Fort Lewis and Eastern North Carolina
communities had not requested assistance at the time of our review, but
are expected to do so in the future.
[A] Eastern North Carolina consists of the Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune and Marine Corps air stations New River and Cherry Point.
[End of table]
Other DOD Agencies Have Provided Some Assistance to Affected
Communities:
In addition to OEA, other DOD agencies have provided some assistance to
growth communities. For example, the Defense Access Road program
[Footnote 15] 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[Footnote
16] 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[Footnote
17] 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.[Footnote 18]
This report, required by the John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007,[Footnote 19] 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.
Some Assistance Has Been Provided to Communities by State, Local, and
Federal Agencies:
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 Fort 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[Footnote 20] 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.[Footnote 21] 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[Footnote 22] 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.
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:
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.[Footnote 23] 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[Footnote 24] 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,[Footnote
25] 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.
Conclusions:
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.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
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.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
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 [hyperlink, 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.
Signed by:
Brian J. Lepore, Director:
Defense Capabilities and Management:
List of Congressional Committees:
The Honorable John P. Murtha:
Chairman:
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye:
Chairman:
The Honorable Ted Stevens:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Defense:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Ike Skelton:
Chairman:
The Honorable Duncan Hunter:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Carl Levin:
Chairman:
The Honorable John McCain:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Armed Services:
United States Senate:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
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[Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote
27] 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,
Arlington, Virginia:
* 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:
* Army Office of the Assistant Secretary for Installations &
Environment, Arlington, Virginia:
* 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:
* Navy Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Installations &
Facilities, Arlington, Virginia:
* Navy Base Realignment and Closure Program Management Office,
Arlington, Virginia:
Air Force:
* Air Force Deputy Assistant Secretary for Installations, Arlington,
Virginia:
* Air Force Office of Manpower and Personnel, Arlington, Virginia:
Marine Corps:
* Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps, Arlington, Virginia:
Other federal agencies:
* 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.
Associations:
* Association of Defense Communities, Washington, D.C.
* National Governors Association, Washington, D.C.
States:
* 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 Miami,
Florida:
* Town Hall Meeting, Fort Belvoir Virginia, in Mount Vernon, Virginia:
* Fort Bragg, BRAC Regional Task Force Annual Meeting, Fayetteville,
North Carolina:
* Committee for a Sustainable 2030 Emerald Coast, Fort Walton Beach,
Florida:
* 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.
[End of section]
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:
Federal agency: Defense;
Program:
* DOD Supplemental Impact Aid provides financial assistance to Local
Educational Agencies (LEAs) that are heavily impacted by the presence
of military or DOD civilian dependent students. Eligible LEAs must have
at least 20 percent military or civilian dependent students in average
daily attendance in their schools, as counted on their Federal Impact
Aid application for the preceding year;
* Impact Aid for Children with Severe Disabilities is available to any
LEA that has at least two military dependent children with severe
disabilities that meet certain special education cost criteria. DOD
works with LEAs and the Department of Education to clarify or resolve
any funding or disbursement eligibility issues.
Federal agency: Education;
Program:
* Impact Aid Program provides technical assistance and disburses
payments to local educational agencies that are financially burdened by
federal activities based on a statutory formula for students reported
annually in section 8003 applications to the Department.
Federal agency: Commerce;
Program:
* Economic Adjustment Assistance Program is the primary vehicle for
BRAC-related assistance to communities. The program provides technical,
planning, and infrastructure assistance;
* Public Works and Economic Development Program is available to
communities impacted by "sudden and severe" changes in economic
conditions. This program provides for construction or rehabilitation of
essential public infrastructure facilities.
Federal agency: Housing and Urban Development;
Program:
* Community Development Block Grant Program provides annual grants on a
formula basis to entitled communities to carry out a wide range of
community development activities directed towards neighborhood
revitalization, economic development, and improved community facilities
and services;
* The Home Program provides grants to states and local governments to
implement local housing strategies designed to increase home ownership
and affordable housing for low-and very low-income Americans.
Federal agency: Labor;
Program:
* National Emergency Grant Program grants are discretionary awards that
temporarily expand service capacity at the state and local levels
through time-limited funding assistance in response to significant
dislocation events;
* High Growth Job Training identifies industries in need of talent
development, connects businesses to the workforce system, and creates
programs designed to meet their specific workforce needs;
* Community-Based Job Training Grants address the need for a
partnership between the workforce system and the vocational education
system and increase the capacity of community colleges to meet employer
demands by providing grants to colleges;
* Workforce Innovation in Regional Economic Development (WIRED)
Initiative stresses the critical role talent development plays in
creating effective regional economic development strategies. The
initiative goes beyond traditional strategies for worker preparation by
bringing together state, local, and federal entities; academic
institutions (including K-12, community colleges, and universities);
investment groups; foundations; and business and industry to address
the challenges associated with building a globally competitive and
prepared workforce.
Federal agency: Small Business Administration;
Program:
* Patriot Express Program provides lending partners with a government-
guaranteed loan program tailored to active duty and reserve personnel
and their immediate family members; Business Development Program,
section 8 (a), is a program designed by Congress to provide socially
and economically disadvantaged businesses with the requisite management
and technical assistance to enhance their ability to compete in the
American marketplace. The program utilizes set-aside and limited
competition federal contracts, assistance through SBA's Mentor-Protégé
Program, and management and technical assistance through 7(j)
designated funds to provide business development assistance to 8(a)
firms;
* Management and Technical Assistance Program, section 7(j), is one of
the forms of business development assistance provided to more than
8,800 firms that participate in the 8(a) Business Development Program,
as well as other 7(j) eligible concerns. SBA has been able to leverage
the assistance provided through the 7(j) program with other forms of
management and technical assistance. Additional agency-sponsored
workshops, seminars, and conferences have augmented the 7(j)
assistance. The training is conducted nationwide and focuses on
marketing strategies, doing business with the federal government, how
to write winning proposals, crafting an effective cost proposal,
maximizing cash flow management, and cost and pricing training.
Federal agency: Transportation;
Program:
* Highway Trust Fund, Title 23, U.S.C., authorizes funding of broad
categories of transportation programs from the Highway Trust Fund,
which is the main source of federal transportation funding to the
states. Priorities are set at the state/local level.
Federal agency: Agriculture;
Program:
* Business & Industry Guaranteed Loan Program provides financial
backing for rural businesses. Commercial loan guarantees are available
up to 80 percent of the loan amount;
* 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.
Source: DOD and the Departments of Education, Commerce, Labor,
Transportation. Agriculture, Housing and Urban Development, and the
Small Business Administration.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Executive Order 12788, as Amended through May 2005:
The President:
Executive Order 12788, As Amended:
Defense Economic Adjustment Program:
By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the
laws of the United States of America, including 10 U.S.C. 2391 and the
Defense Economic Adjustment, Diversification, Conversion, and
Stabilization Act of 1990, enacted as Division D, section 4001 et seq.,
of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991, Public
Law 101-510, and to provide coordinated Federal economic adjustment
assistance necessitated by changes in Department of Defense activities,
it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Function of the Secretary of Defense. The Secretary of
Defense shall, through the Economic Adjustment Committee, design and
establish a Defense Economic Adjustment Program.
Sec. 2. The Defense Economic Adjustment Program shall (1) assist
substantially and seriously affected communities, businesses, and
workers from the effects of major Defense base closures, realignments,
and Defense contract-related adjustments, and (2) assist State and
local governments in preventing the encroachment of civilian
communities from impairing the operational utility of military
installations.
Sec. 3 Functions of the Defense Economic Adjustment Program. The
Defense Adjustment Program shall:
(a) Identify problems of States, regions, metropolitan areas, or
communities that result from major Defense base closures, realignments,
and Defense contract-related adjustments, and the encroachment of the
civilian community on the mission of military installations and that
require Federal assistance;
(b) Use and maintain a uniform socioeconomic impact analysis to justify
the use of Federal economic adjustment resources prior to particular
realignments;
(c) Apply consistent policies, practices, and procedures in the
administration of Federal programs that are used to assist Defense-
affected States, regions, metropolitan areas, communities, and
businesses;
(d) Identify and strengthen existing agency mechanisms to coordinate
employment opportunities for displaced agency personnel;
(e) Identify and strengthen existing agency mechanisms to improve
reemployment opportunities for dislocated Defense industry personnel;
(f) Assure timely consultation and cooperation with Federal, State,
regional, metropolitan, and community officials concerning Defense-
related impacts on Defense-affected communities' problems;
(g) Assure coordinated interagency and intergovernmental adjustment
assistance concerning Defense impact problems;
(h) Prepare, facilitate, and implement cost-effective strategies and
action plans to coordinate interagency and intergovernmental economic
adjustment efforts;
(i) Encourage effective Federal, State, regional, metropolitan, and
community cooperation and concerted involvement of public interest
groups and private sector organizations in Defense economic adjustment
activities;
(j) Serve as a clearinghouse to exchange information among Federal,
State, regional, metropolitan, and community officials involved in the
resolution of community economic adjustment problems. Such information
may include, for example, previous studies, technical information, and
sources of public and private financing;
(k) Assist in the diversification of local economies to lessen
dependence on Defense activities;
(l) Encourage and facilitate private sector interim use of lands and
buildings to generate jobs as military activities diminish;
(m) Develop ways to streamline property disposal procedures to enable
Defense-impacted communities to acquire base property to generate jobs
as military activities diminish; and;
(n) Encourage resolution of regulatory issues that impede encroachment
prevention and local economic adjustment efforts.
Sec. 4. Economic Adjustment Committee.
(a) Membership. The Economic Adjustment Committee ("Committee") shall
be composed of the following individuals or a designated principal
deputy of these individuals, and such other individuals from the
executive branch as the President may designate. Such individuals shall
include the:
(1) Secretary of Agriculture;
(2) Attorney General;
(3) Secretary of Commerce;
(4) Secretary of Defense;
(5) Secretary of Education;
(6) Secretary of Energy;
(7) Secretary of Health and Human Services;
(8) Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
(9) Secretary of Interior;
(10) Secretary of Labor;
(11) Secretary of State;
(12) Secretary of Transportation;
(13) Secretary of Treasury;
(14) Secretary of Veterans Affairs;
(15) Secretary of Homeland Security;
(16) Chairman, Council of Economic Advisers;
(17) Director of the Office of Management and Budget;
(18) Director of the Office of Personnel Management;
(19) Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
(20) Administrator of General Services;
(21) Administrator of the Small Business Administration; and;
(22) Postmaster General.
(b) The Secretary of Defense, or the Secretary's designee, shall chair
the Committee.
(c) The Secretaries of Labor and Commerce shall serve as Vice Chairmen
of the Committee. The Vice Chairmen shall co-chair the Committee in the
absence of both the Chairman and the Chairman's designee and may also
preside over meetings of designated representatives of the concerned
executive agencies.
(d) Executive Director. The head of the Department of Defense's Office
of Economic Adjustment shall provide all necessary policy and
administrative support for the Committee and shall be responsible for
coordinating the application of the Defense Economic Adjustment Program
to Department of Defense activities.
(e) Duties. The Committee shall:
(1) Advise, assist, and support the Defense Economic Adjustment
Programs;
(2) Develop procedures for ensuring that State, regional, and community
officials, and representatives of organized labor in those States,
municipalities, localities, or labor organizations that are
substantially and seriously affected by changes in Defense
expenditures, realignments or closures, or cancellation or curtailment
of major Defense contracts, are notified of available Federal economic
adjustment programs; and;
(3) Report annually to the President and then to the Congress on the
work of the Economic Adjustment Committee during the preceding fiscal
year.
Sec. 5. Responsibilities of Executive Agencies.
(a) The head of each agency represented on the Committee shall
designate an agency representative to:
(1) Serve as a liaison with the Secretary of Defense's economic
adjustment staff;
(2) Coordinate agency support and participation in economic adjustment
assistance projects; and
(3) Assist in resolving Defense-related impacts on Defense-affected
communities.
(b) All executive agencies shall:
(1) Support, to the extent permitted by law, the economic adjustment
assistance activities of the Secretary of Defense. Such support may
include the use and application of personnel, technical expertise,
legal authorities, and available financial resources. This support may
be used, to the extent permitted by law, to provide a coordinated
Federal response to the needs of individual States, regions,
municipalities, and communities adversely affected by necessary Defense
changes; and;
(2) Afford priority consideration to requests from Defense-affected
communities for Federal technical assistance, financial resources,
excess or surplus property, or other requirements, that are part of a
comprehensive plan used by the Committee.
Sec. 6. Judicial Review. This order shall not be interpreted to create
any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law by
a party against the United States, its agencies, its officers, its
agents, or any person.
Sec. 7. Construction. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed as
subjecting any function vested by law in, or assigned pursuant to law
to, any agency or head thereof to the authority of any other agency or
officer or as abrogating or restricting any such function in any
manner.
(b) This order shall be effective immediately and shall supersede
Executive Order No 12049.
George Bush:
The White House:
January 15, 1992.
[Amended 2/28/03 by President George W. Bush, E.O. 13286]
[Amended 5/12/05 by President George W. Bush, E.O. 13378]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
Acquisition Technology And Logistics:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
June 4, 2008:
Mr. Brian J. Lepore:
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Lepore:
Thank you for the opportunity for the Department of Defense (DoD) to
review and provide comment on the GAO Draft Report "Defense
Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities
Address Challenges Caused by DoD-Related Growth," dated May 6, 2008
(GAO Code 350970/GAO-08-665).
The Department concurs with the recommendation to improve the military
personnel relocation data provided to affected communities in order to
help them be responsive to the needs of their local installations,
incoming warfighters and their dependents, and greater civilian
population. We also concur with the recommendation that high-level
senior leadership would facilitate more effective inter-agency and
inter-governmental coordination of assistance. The Department takes
great care to work with these communities and will continue to help
them address challenges caused by DoD-related growth. Detailed comments
on this report's recommendations and efforts currently underway to
address them are enclosed.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Wayne Amy:
Deputy Under Secretary (Installations and Environment):
Enclosure: As stated:
GAO Draft Report - Dated May 6, 2008:
GAO Code 350970/GAO-08-665:
"Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DoD-Related Growth"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommends 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 FY 2008, that is consistent with DoD Directive 5410.12 for the
timely, complete, and consistent dissemination of DoD planning
information such as estimated timelines, numbers of personnel
relocating, and demographic data, such as numbers of school age
children, and to update this information quarterly.
DOD Response: Concur. While the available information has been
improving to assist the local response in many of these communities,
the Department will continue to work with the cognizant DoD components
to ensure consistent compliance with DoD Directive 5410.12.
Furthermore, the information derived through this effort should be
available to all Federal, state, and local interests who need to work
with the same set of facts in responding to mission growth.
Accordingly, we are establishing a clearinghouse to provide this
information as referenced in Recommendation 2 of this report.
Not all data for this clearinghouse is conducive to quarterly updates.
For example, we need the flexibility to establish a data update
protocol in collaboration with the local school districts that
coincides with the school calendar. Additionally, given the need to
interact extensively with the affected communities concerning certain
information, quarterly updates may burden rather than assist a locale.
We expect that a responsive clearinghouse will be developed with this
flexibility.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommends 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 Economic Adjustment Committee so as to develop 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 personnel
relocation data from all Services, as well as information regarding any
available resources at the Federal, state, local and private sector
levels that can help address potential infrastructure gaps at the
affected communities.
* Update this information at least quarterly and make it easily
available to all interested stakeholders at the local, state and
Federal levels.
DOD Response: Concur. The clearinghouse we discuss in our response to
Recommendation 1 will also: identify Federal programs and resources
available to the affected communities; present successful state and
local responses; and provide Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC)
members with a basis to resource their responsive Federal programs of
assistance. Again, we need flexibility in the update of this
information. For instance, Federal programs of assistance do not change
on a quarterly basis so we will be striving to ensure current program
information is available.
Once local needs for Federal adjustment assistance are identified and
validated, EAC members must coordinate resources among the cognizant
Federal agencies and allocate resources accordingly, affording priority
consideration to requests consistent with Executive Order 12788, as
amended. Given the fiscally-constrained environment, senior EAC
leadership across all member agencies must be fully engaged with the
Defense Economic Adjustment Program. Senior leadership will be
necessary to assist inter-agency and inter-governmental coordination at
levels that can make policy and budgetary decisions to better leverage
resources through the effort. Many of the affected communities are
still identifying needs for Federal assistance and DoD, through the
Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), is working with them to articulate
these needs and their responsiveness to mission growth.
[End of section]
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Brian J. Lepore, (202)512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov:
Acknowledgments:
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.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding for Infrastructure and Road
Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-602R]. Washington, D.C.: April
1, 2008.
State and Local Governments: Growing Fiscal Challenges Will Emerge
during the Next 10 Years. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-
1015]. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 2007.
Military Base Realignments and Closures: Estimated Costs Have Increased
and Estimated Savings Have Decreased. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?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 Implementation Plans.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-745]. Washington,
D.C.: September 6, 2006.
Defense Infrastructure: DOD's Overseas Infrastructure Master Plans
Continue to Evolve. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-
06-913R]. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2006.
Force Structure: Capabilities and The Cost of Army Modular Force Remain
Uncertain. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-548T].
Washington, D.C.: April 4, 2006.
Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Selection Process and
Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-785]. Washington, D.C.: July
1, 2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Pub. L. No. 109-163, § 2836(b) (2006).
[2] GAO, Defense Infrastructure: Challenges Increase Risks for
Providing Timely Infrastructure Support for Army Installations
Expecting Substantial Personnel Growth, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1007] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.
13, 2007).
[3] H.R. Rep. No. 109-504, at 46 (2006).
[4] The 10 combined installation and surrounding community site visits
included Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; Fort Belvoir, Virginia; Fort
Bliss, Texas; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort Lee,
Virginia; Fort Meade, Maryland; Fort Riley, Kansas; Fort Sam Houston,
Texas; and Fort Sill, Oklahoma.
[5] These seven agencies included 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.
[6] Exec. Order No. 12049, 43 Fed. Reg. 13363 (Mar. 27, 1978), as
superseded by Exec. Order No. 12788, 57 Fed. Reg. 2213 (Jan. 21, 1992),
as amended.
[7] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct.
21, 2005).
[8] With the issuance of executive order 12049 in March 1978, the
President recognized that changes in DOD activities necessitated a
coordinated approach for federal economic assistance. The order
specified that DOD, working with the EAC, had the lead role in
conducting various efforts designed to assist in the alleviation of
serious economic adjustment impacts that result from major defense
realignments. Executive order 12788, issued in January 1992,
subsequently superseded the prior order but continued the intent for
the federal government to play a role through the EAC in providing
assistance to defense-impacted communities. Executive order 13286 was
issued in February 2003 to update the membership while executive order
13378 was issued in May 2005 to change the EAC chair from rotating
among DOD, Labor, and Commerce to only be chaired by DOD.
[9] DOD Directive 3030.01 (Mar. 5, 2006).
[10] DOD, Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, DOD 4165.66M
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2006).
[11] OEA hosted a Growth Summit in St. Louis, Missouri, in December
2007. All 20 growth communities participated in informational sessions,
workshops, and peer networking opportunities, and provided feedback to
OEA on local growth experiences to date, including techniques or
services that have assisted these affected communities to better
respond to the anticipated growth.
[12] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1007].
[13] In making its calculations, the Army uses a planning factor that
is multiplied against the number of military and DOD civilian personnel
expected to arrive at a given installation. This aggregate number
provides a gross estimate of the number of dependent school-aged
children but lacks details, such as grade levels. Also, the Army data
do not include an estimate of school-aged children that might accompany
mission contractors. The Army has asked each of the military
installations to provide better estimates of school-aged dependents to
the communities. As of March 31, 2008, only Fort Benning had responded
to this request.
[14] The Secretary of Defense may provide economic adjustment
assistance to any community located near a military installation being
closed or realigned as part of the 2005 BRAC round. Pub. L. No. 101-
510, Title XXIX, § 2905, as amended by Pub. L. No. 107-107, Title XXX
(2001). The Secretary of Defense may also provide adjustment assistance
to communities meeting specific criteria for being affected by certain
DOD activities. 10 U.S.C. § 2391.
[15] 23 U.S.C. § 210.
[16] Projects are eligible for funding if they meet one of the
following criteria: (1) a new access road to a facility is needed to
accommodate a defense action, (2) a defense action causes traffic to
double, (3) a new or improved access road is needed to accommodate a
temporary surge in traffic to or from an installation due to a defense
action, (4) a new or improved access road is needed to accommodate
special military vehicles such as heavy equipment transport vehicles,
and (5) a replacement road is required for one closed due to military
necessity.
[17] GAO, Defense Infrastructure: DOD Funding of Infrastructure and
Road Improvements Surrounding Growth Installations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-602R] (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
1, 2008).
[18] The Department of Defense Update to the Report on Assistance to
Local Educational Agencies for Defense Dependents Education
(Washington, D.C.: March 2008).
[19] Pub. L. No. 109-364, § 574 (2006).
[20] We selected the following seven federal agencies based on
recommendations by OEA project managers familiar with the needs of the
communities: 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.
[21] The Impact Aid program provides section 8003 assistance to school
districts that educate children living on Indian reservations, military
bases, low-rent housing properties, or other federal lands. School
districts use Impact Aid for various purposes, including salaries of
teachers and teacher aides, textbooks, after-school and special
enrichment programs, and remedial tutoring.
[22] The President's Economic Adjustment Committee, Federal Assistance
for Impacted Communities (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2006).
[23] Exec. Order No. 12049, 43 Fed. Reg. 13363 (Mar. 27, 1978), as
superseded by Exec. Order No. 12788, 57 Fed. Reg. 2213 (Jan. 21, 1992),
as amended.
[24] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-15].
[25] Although the full executive-level committee has not met recently,
OEA has convened subgroups at the working level. However, the subgroups
have focused primarily on issues other than expected growth impacts.
[26] The Secretary of Defense may provide economic adjustment
assistance to any community located near a military installation being
closed or realigned as part of the 2005 BRAC round. Pub. L. No. 101-
510, Title XXIX, § 2905, as amended by Pub. L. No. 107-107, Title XXX
(2001). The Secretary of Defense may also provide adjustment assistance
to communities meeting specific criteria for being affected by certain
DOD activities. 10 U.S.C. § 2391. To be eligible under the section 2391
authority, an affected community must meet one of the following
thresholds: (1) more than 2,000 direct military, civilian, and
contractor DOD personnel (i.e., net additional) will be added to the
installation; or (2) more military, civilian, and contractor personnel
than the number equal to 10 percent of the number of persons employed
in counties or independent municipalities within 15 miles of the
installation, whichever is less; and (3) federal, state, or local
community impact planning assistance is not otherwise available.
Additionally, OEA must make a finding that the affected community will
experience a "direct and significantly adverse consequence" based on
the direct DOD impacts in light of community-specific needs and
resources.
[27] The 10 combined installation and surrounding community site visits
included Eglin Air Force Base, Florida; Fort Belvoir, Virginia; Fort
Bliss, Texas; Fort Benning, Georgia; Fort Carson, Colorado; Fort Lee,
Virginia; Fort Meade, Maryland; Fort Riley, Kansas; Fort Sill,
Oklahoma; and Fort Sam Houston, Texas.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room LM:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
