Communities Have Used a Variety of Strategies to Deal with BRAC 2005 Closures and Select Local Economic Data Are Comparable to National Averages

Communities surrounding the 23 major DOD installations closed in  BRAC 2005 have used a variety of strategies to deal with the closures,  and economic data on unemployment and real per capita income growth  show the rates for these communities are comparable to national  averages. Our analyses of BLS annual  unemployment data for 2011, the most recent data available, showed that  11 (52 percent) of the 21 closure communities had unemployment rates  at or below the national average of 8.9 percent for the period from  January through December 2011. The other 10 communities had  unemployment rates that were higher than the national average (see  figure 5). Growth Has Occurred at 23 Major Installations and Communities Have Used a Variety of Strategies to Accommodate this Growth

Since 2005, DOD has implemented several major initiatives, including  BRAC realignment actions and Army Modularity, that have resulted in  growth in military and civilian personnel at 23 installations, and the  communities surrounding these installations, which also experienced  growth, have used a variety of practices and strategies to accommodate  this growth. As shown in table 2, these 23 installations had a combined  net growth of about 191,000 military and civilian personnel from fiscal  years 2006 through 2012, with their total population growing from about  526,000 to over 717,000, a 36.3 percent increase. The most common successful strategy, cited by DOD  officials, community representatives we interviewed, survey respondents,  and discussion group participants, was to form a regional working group  composed of representatives from all of the jurisdictions affected by the  growth at the installation. DOD Provides Assistance to Communities Surrounding Closure Installations, but Additional Army Guidance Is Needed to Improve Maintenance of Facilities

Community representatives we surveyed and spoke with indicated that  DOD provides good support to communities facing base closure through  its OEA, but representatives from communities surrounding closed Army  installations that took ownership of the facilities stated that in many  instances the Army facilities were not maintained at a sufficient level to  retain their value or facilitate reuse. If Army officials and community representatives do not  have a clear understanding as to the level of maintenance that should be  carried out, local redevelopment authorities and the Army will continue to  have differing expectations of the maintenance that should be provided to  closed facilities, hindering the transfer and reuse process. Finally, while the DOD  guidance states that the services have developed specific maintenance  levels, only the Navy and the Air Force have published service-specific  guidance to clearly describe their maintenance levels consistent with  factors outlined in DOD’s guidance. The Army has not issued any  guidance in this area. However, the DOD guidance does not  describe specific levels of maintenance. An official with the Army BRAC office told us that the Army makes an  effort to maintain closed facilities in accordance with their planned usage. Without clear guidance on the expected levels of maintenance for  closed facilities, the communities will not have a clear understanding of  what maintenance the Army will provide, hindering the transfer and reuse  process. DOD Provides Support to Communities Facing Installation Growth, but More Data and Long-Term Coordination Is Needed

Community representatives we surveyed or spoke with indicated that  DOD provides good support to communities facing base growth through  its OEA, but more data and long-term coordination could improve the  communities’ and DOD’s ability to respond to future force structure  changes. DOD  guidance states that maximum advance information and support should  be provided to state and local governments to plan for military growth  actions. However,  some community representatives noted that they would like more specific  information. For example, they told us that installations are unable to  provide communities with aggregate data on where servicemembers and  their families live while stationed at the local installation, because they do  not have a system that tracks this type of information. Installation and service officials did  note, however, that existing data systems could potentially be modified to  provide this information. In addition to the need for more data on where personnel live, community  representatives and installation officials we interviewed stated that  establishing a long-term civilian point of contact at the base installation  level is necessary to effectively plan for the long-term effects of growth on  the base and local community. Accurate and timely information on  such things as personnel residence areas and expected changes in  demand for public services could better facilitate communities’ efforts to  accommodate installation growth. To improve the ability of DOD and the local communities to respond to  future growth actions, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct  the Secretaries of the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force to consider  developing a procedure for collecting service members’ physical  addresses while stationed at an installation, annually updating this  information, and sharing aggregate information with community  representatives relevant for local planning decisions, such as additional  population per zip code, consistent with privacy and force protection  concerns. GAO-13-337. Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC  Rounds.
Why GAO Did This Study

Through BRAC and other growth initiatives, DOD has made significant changes to its force structure, affecting communities around DOD installations. To help transition toward a smaller, more agile force, DOD has requested new BRAC authority. House Report 112-479, accompanying the fiscal year 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, directed GAO to study the practices and strategies that communities have used to cope with installation closure or growth. This report (1) describes the practices and strategies communities have used in dealing with base closures and growth since 2005 and economic and population data in those communities and (2) presents information on communities' needs in adjusting to installation closure and growth. GAO interviewed DOD, service, and installation officials; interviewed and surveyed community representatives; reviewed relevant guidance; and visited select installations.

What GAO Found

The 21 communities surrounding the 23 Department of Defense (DOD) installations closed in the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round have used strategies such as forming a local redevelopment authority and seeking federal grants to deal with the closures. Some economic data for these communities are comparable to national averages, with some variation. For instance, GAO found that 52 percent (11 of 21) of communities had unemployment rates lower than the national average of 8.9 percent, although the rates ranged from a low of 6.1 percent to a high of 16.8 percent. Sixty-two percent (13 of 21) of the closure communities had real per capita income growth rates higher than the national average of 0.14 percent for the period from 2006 through 2011. Since 2005, 23 other installations have experienced population increases that have resulted in net growth of about 191,000 military and civilian personnel (a 36 percent increase), and their corresponding communities have used several strategies to accommodate this growth, including forming a regional working group composed of representatives from affected jurisdictions.
Community representatives stated that DOD's Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) provides good support to communities facing base closure, but some representatives from communities surrounding closed Army installations stated that facilities were not maintained at a high enough level for reuse. An Army official told GAO that the Army makes an effort to maintain closed facilities in accordance with their planned usage and that local redevelopment authorities have unrealistic expectations of maintenance levels. DOD guidance states that the services have developed specific maintenance levels for facilities during the transition process. The Air Force and the Navy have published this specific guidance, but the Army has not and instead relies upon DOD's guidance, which does not describe specific levels of maintenance. Without clear guidance on the expected levels of maintenance for closed facilities, the communities may not have a clear understanding of what maintenance the Army will provide.
Community representatives indicated that OEA provides good support to communities facing base growth, but that additional data and a civilian point of contact at the installation could improve their ability to respond to future growth. DOD has issued guidance that states communities should be provided maximum advance information to plan, and service guidance states that services will give communities information including military and personnel changes. However, community representatives told GAO that they would like additional aggregate information on where servicemembers live while stationed at the installation to facilitate planning for the impact of installation growth. Installations currently do not provide communities with this information because they do not have a system to track it, but officials noted that existing systems could potentially be modified to provide it. Installation officials and community representatives also stated that establishing a long-term civilian point of contact at the installation would help the community effectively plan for growth. Accurate and timely information on personnel residence areas and a civilian point of contact at the installation could better facilitate communities' efforts to accommodate installation growth.

What GAO Recommends

DOD concurred with GAO's recommendation that the Army issue guidance on maintenance levels to be provided during the base closure process. DOD partially concurred that it should establish procedures for sharing additional information with growth communities and designate a civilian point of contact at growth installations. GAO believes action by DOD prior to future installation growth will help forestall future challenges.