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. 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. 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. When asked to report their top infrastructure challenges, 16 of the 20  communities cited transportation, principally roads. Further, the directive requires each of the military  services to develop implementing guidance for providing planning  information to installations, communities, and OEA. 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. 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. 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 ensure that communities substantially and seriously affected by DOD  actions receive assistance, the 22-agency EAC was created by presidential  executive order. 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. 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 selected all 20 communities that  DOD’s Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) had determined to be  growth locations expected to be substantially and seriously impacted  based on OEA criteria as of January 2008.
Why GAO Did This Study

Due to several simultaneous Department of Defense (DOD) force structure and basing initiatives, 20 installations are expecting a combined net growth of over 173,000 military and civilian personnel, not including family members and all contractors, over fiscal years 2006-2012. Although communities surrounding these installations can expect to realize economic benefits in the long term, DOD has identified these 20 to be substantially and seriously impacted in terms of being able to provide infrastructure to accommodate the growth. In response to the House report to the fiscal year 2007 defense appropriations bill, GAO (1) examined the extent to which communities affected by DOD's actions have identified their infrastructure needs, and (2) assessed DOD's efforts and those of other agencies to assist affected communities. GAO reviewed applicable directives and executive orders, surveyed the 20 growth communities, and met with community and agency officials to discuss growth issues.

What GAO Found

Communities surrounding DOD growth installations have begun to identify infrastructure needs to help support expected personnel growth in general terms, but planning efforts have been hampered by a lack of consistent and detailed information about anticipated DOD personnel movements. When asked to identify their top infrastructure challenges, 16 of the 20 communities identified by DOD as substantially and seriously impacted cited transportation, 11 named school capacity, and 6 said affordable housing. However, communities lack the detailed planning information, such as the growth population demographics, necessary to effectively plan and obtain financing for infrastructure projects. A DOD directive requires the military services to develop guidance for providing planning information to installations, communities, and DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA), but GAO found that none had done so. While the consistency of the personnel relocation data DOD provides has improved, over half of the communities we surveyed expressed concerns about the completeness of the personnel data they receive and the lack of detailed demographic data, such as the number and ages of dependent children expected to accompany incoming service members and attend school. Until the military departments begin to disseminate consistent and more detailed information about planned defense personnel moves, it will be difficult for community, state, and federal officials to effectively plan for and provide necessary infrastructure to accommodate DOD personnel and their families relocating to growth-impacted communities. OEA, other DOD agencies, and some state, local, and federal agencies have provided grants and technical assistance to DOD growth communities, but the Office of the Secretary of Defense has not provided the high-level leadership critical to achieving effective interagency and intergovernmental coordination. To ensure that DOD-impacted communities receive assistance, the 22-agency Economic Adjustment Committee (EAC) was created by executive order over 30 years ago and amended as recently as 2005. The Secretary of Defense, or his designee, chairs the committee that is required to lead efforts to assist communities most affected by its activities and serve as a clearinghouse for sharing information about expected DOD impacts on the communities surrounding military growth installations, as well as information regarding possible government resources that could mitigate some of those impacts. As chair of the EAC, DOD could regularly convene full committee meetings and exercise the high-level leadership needed to help ensure that federal agencies are affording certain priority considerations to defense-affected communities. However, the full committee has not met since November 2006. Instead, DOD has left the workings of the EAC to OEA, which has been proactive in assisting impacted communities but can not guide interagency operations at a high enough level to promote effective interagency cooperation. Consequently, in the absence of high-level DOD leadership, the committee has not developed a clearinghouse for information sharing which could more effectively match government resources with the needs of DOD-impacted communities.