Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help	 
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth	 
(17-JUN-08, GAO-08-665).					 
                                                                 
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.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-665 					        
    ACCNO:   A82397						        
  TITLE:     Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to  
Help Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth 
     DATE:   06/17/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Agency missions					 
	     Civilian employees 				 
	     Community development				 
	     Critical infrastructure				 
	     Defense operations 				 
	     Department of Defense contractors			 
	     Facility construction				 
	     Federal facilities 				 
	     Federal facility relocation			 
	     Government facility construction			 
	     Government information dissemination		 
	     Military facilities				 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Mission essential operations			 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Population growth					 
	     Public assistance programs 			 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Federal/state relations				 
	     Clearinghouses (information)			 
	     Impacted areas					 
	     Interagency relations				 
	     Facility improvements				 
	     Federal facility planning				 
	     Information sharing				 
	     DOD Base Realignment and Closure Program		 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-08-665

   

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 [email protected]. 

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 DODï¿½s actions have identified their infrastructure needs, 
and (2) assessed DODï¿½s 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 DODï¿½s 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 
[email protected]. 

[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 [email protected]. 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-Protï¿½gï¿½ 
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 [email protected]: 

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, ï¿½ 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, ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 2391. 

[15] 23 U.S.C. ï¿½ 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, ï¿½ 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, ï¿½ 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. ï¿½ 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: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***