Military Base Closures and the Impact Aid Program for Education

Order Code RL33137

Military Base Closures and

the Impact Aid Program for Education

Updated February 7, 2008

Rebecca R. Skinner

Specialist in Education Policy

Domestic Social Policy Division

Military Base Closures and

the Impact Aid Program for Education

Summary

Congress authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) to realign or close

military installations to meet the changing military requirements facing the United

States and to reduce the costs of maintaining excess military infrastructure. DOD

compiles a list of recommended Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions that

is then submitted to an independent BRAC Commission to review. The Commission

subsequently submits its list of recommended actions to the President. The most

recent BRAC Commission submitted its recommendations for base closures and

realignment to the President on September 8, 2005. After agreeing with the

recommendations, the President sent the Commission report to Congress on

September 15, 2005. Congress had 45 days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval;

otherwise, the recommendations become law. On October 27, 2005, the House voted

324-85 against a joint resolution to end the BRAC process. Thus, the BRAC

recommendations are required to be implemented.

The 2005 BRAC recommendations include the closure of 22 major military

installations and the realignment of 33 others. The effect of these changes includes

both an estimated savings of $35.6 billion for the military over the next 20 years and

socioeconomic impacts on the communities affected by the changes. Included in

these socioeconomic impacts are the effects on local educational agencies (LEAs)

serving children affected by the BRAC recommendations.

Under the Impact Aid program, the federal government provides financial

assistance to LEAs adversely affected by the activities of the federal government.

The program provides various types of payments, including compensation to LEAs

for the federal ownership of certain property, funds for school construction, and

compensation to LEAs enrolling federally connected children. Federally connected

children include, for example, children whose parents are in the Armed Forces, as

well as children whose parents are employed on federal property, such as a military

installation. Educating federally connected children imposes a service burden,

revenue burden, or both on an LEA, as the LEA may not receive the benefit of tax

revenues to support their education.

LEAs losing or gaining federally connected students as a result of the BRAC

recommendations may experience substantial challenges. These challenges may be

created by the significant changes required by the BRAC recommendations but may

also stem from the structure of the Impact Aid program. For LEAs experiencing a

decline in enrollment, the LEAs may need to release staff or consolidate students into

a smaller number of facilities. The structure of the Impact Aid program will provide

these LEAs with a relatively brief period of time to make necessary adjustments

without a loss of funding. For LEAs gaining federally connected students as a result

of the BRAC recommendations, the structure of the Impact Aid program delays these

LEAs from receiving immediate Impact Aid payments to adjust to the change in

enrollment.

This report will be updated as needed.

Contents

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Overview of the Impact Aid Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Overview of Base Realignment and Closure Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Possible Effects of Base Closure and Realignment on School Districts

Serving Federally Connected Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

LEAs Losing Federally Connected Students as a Result of BRAC . . . . . . . . 7

LEAs Gaining Federally Connected Students as a Result of BRAC . . . . . . . 8

Support Available from the Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

School Districts’ Responses to Troop Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

List of Tables

Table 1. Types of “Federally Connected” Children and Relevant Weights . . . . . 3

Table 2. Communities Expecting to Gain the Largest Number of Direct

Positions as a Result of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 3. Communities Expecting to Lose the Largest Number of Direct

Positions as a Result of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Military Base Closures and

the Impact Aid Program for Education

Introduction

Congress authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) to realign or close

military installations to meet the changing military requirements facing the United

States and to reduce the costs of maintaining excess military infrastructure. DOD

compiles a list of recommended Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions that

is then submitted to an independent BRAC Commission to review. The Commission

subsequently submits its list of recommended actions to the President. The most

recent BRAC Commission submitted its recommendations for base closures and

realignment to the President on September 8, 2005. After agreeing with the

recommendations, the President sent the Commission report to Congress on

September 15, 2005. Congress had 45 days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval;

otherwise, the recommendations become law. On October 27, 2005, the House voted

324-85 against a joint resolution to end the military base closure and realignment

process. Thus, the BRAC recommendations are required to be implemented.

The 2005 BRAC recommendations include the closure of 22 major military

installations and the realignment of 33 others. The effect of these changes includes

both an estimated savings of $35.6 billion for the military over the next 20 years1 and

socioeconomic impacts on the communities affected by the changes. Included in

these socioeconomic impacts are the effects on local educational agencies (LEAs)

serving children affected by the BRAC recommendations.2

Under the Impact Aid program, the federal government provides financial

assistance to LEAs adversely affected by the activities of the federal government. It

provides various types of payments, including compensation to LEAs for the federal

1

The BRAC Commission and the General Accountability Office believe that DoD’s claimed

cost avoidances attributable to military personnel actions should be excluded from the cost

savings calculation, resulting in a savings of $15 billion over 20 years. (Defense Base

Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment

Commission Report, Executive Summary, September 2005. Available online at

[http://www.brac.gov]. (Hereafter cited as BRAC, Commission Report, Executive

Summary.)

2

For detailed information about the BRAC Commission’s final report and proposed

legislation, see CRS Report RS22061, Military Base Closures: The 2005 BRAC

Commission, by Daniel Else and David Lockwood. For additional information about

military base closures and the socioeconomic impacts of these closures, see CRS Report

RS22147, Military Base Closures: Socioeconomic Impacts, by Tadlock Cowan and Baird

Webel. (Herafter cited as CRS Report RS22147, Military Base Closures.)

CRS-2

ownership of certain property, funds for school construction, and compensation to

LEAs enrolling federally connected children. Federally connected children include,

for example, children whose parents are in the Armed Forces, as well as children

whose parents are employed on federal property, such as a military installation.

LEAs losing or receiving federally connected students as a result of the BRAC

recommendations may experience substantial challenges. These challenges may be

created by the significant changes required by the BRAC recommendations but may

also stem from the structure of the Impact Aid program.

The first part of this report provides a brief overview of the Impact Aid program,

including the calculation of Impact Aid payments to LEAs, and an overview of the

BRAC recommendations. This is followed by a discussion of the potential effects

of the BRAC recommendations on LEAs that will both lose and gain students as a

result of the changes. Following a brief discussion of DOD appropriations and other

actions focused specifically on students affected by BRAC and other rebasing

initiatives, the report concludes with a brief discussion of actions that have been

taken by LEAs in anticipation of large influxes of federally connected students.

Overview of the Impact Aid Program

The Impact Aid program was established in 1950 by P.L. 81-874 and P.L. 81815. P.L. 81-874 authorized financial assistance for maintenance and operations to

LEAs adversely affected by the activities of the federal government. The Improving

America’s School Act of 1994 (IASA, P.L. 103-382), which reauthorized the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), repealed P.L. 81-874 and

P.L. 81-815, and included the Impact Aid program in ESEA Title VIII. The Impact

Aid program was most recently reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of

2001 (P.L. 107-110), extending the program authorization through 2007.3

The Impact Aid program supports various types of payments, including

compensation to LEAs for the federal ownership of certain property (Section 8002),

funds for school construction and facilities upgrades (Section 8007), and

compensation to LEAs enrolling federally connected children (Section 8003). The

latter is the most relevant payment for the purposes of this report, as it provides

compensation to districts enrolling military students living on or off base. More

specifically, federally connected children are children who reside with a parent who

is a member of the Armed Forces living on or off federal property; reside with a

parent who is an accredited foreign military officer living on federal property; reside

on Indian lands; reside in low-rent public housing; or reside with a parent who is a

civilian working and/or living on federal property.

From the inception of the Impact Aid program, federally connected children

have been placed in different categories that are assigned corresponding weights

based on the burden they impose on LEAs. The burden imposed by federally

3

For additional information about the types of payments made under the Impact Aid

program, see CRS Report RL31885, Impact Aid for Public K-12 Education: General

Overview and Current Status, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Richard N. Apling.

CRS-3

connected children results from a service burden, a revenue burden, or both. The

service burden is a result of LEAs having to educate federally connected children

without receiving the benefit of tax revenues to support their education. The revenue

burden stems from the existence of federal property within the LEA that is not

subject to property taxes.

The burdens imposed by various categories of federally connected children are

reflected in the weights assigned to each type of child. Table 1 contains the current

weights for each category of federally connected children.

Table 1. Types of “Federally Connected” Children

and Relevant Weights

Children attending school in the LEA who:

reside on federal property with a parent

employed on federal property situated in whole

or in part within the boundaries of the LEA

[Section 8003 (a)(1)(A)(i)]

reside on federal property with a parent who is

an official of, and accredited by, a foreign

government and is a foreign military officer

[(Section 8003 (a)(1) A)(ii)]

reside on federal property and have a parent on

active duty in the uniformed services [Section

8003 (a)(1)(B)]

reside on Indian lands [Section 8003 (a)(1)(C)]

have a parent on active duty in the uniformed

services but do not reside on federal property

[Section 8003 (a)(1)(D)(i)]

have a parent who is an official of, and has been

accredited by, a foreign government and is a

foreign military officer but does not reside on

federal property [Section 8003 (a)(1)(D)(ii)]

reside in low-rent public housing [Section 8003

(a)(1)(E)]

reside on federal property and are not described

in Subparagraph (A) or (B) [Section 8003

(a)(1)(F)]

reside with a parent who works on federal

property situated —

(i) in whole or in part in the county in

which such LEA is located, or in whole or

in part in such LEA if such LEA is located

in more than one county; or

(ii) if not in such county, in whole or in

part in the same State as such LEA

[Section 8003 (a)(1)(G)]

Weight

1.0

Shorthand designation

“a” children

1.0

“a” children

1.0

“a” children

1.25

0.2

“a” children

“b” children

0.2

“b” children

0.1

“b” children

0.05

“b” children

0.05

“b” children

Note: “a” and “b” children refer to designations used for various eligibility categories of federally

connected children. While they no longer appear in current legislation, federally connected children

continue to be referred to as “a” or “b” children. As the table indicates, “a” children are those with

higher weights.

CRS-4

Thus, federally connected children whose parents are members of the Armed

Forces and live on federal property, whose parents live and work on federal property,

whose parents are officials of a foreign government that serve as foreign military

officers and live on federal property, or who reside on Indian lands carry the highest

weight in the Impact Aid payments for federally connected children. Lesser weights

are attributed to federally connected children whose parents are members of the

Armed Forces but do not live on federal property.

Currently, to calculate an Impact Aid payment to an LEA, the district first

identifies the number of students served in each category identified in Table 1. The

number of students in each category is then multiplied by the appropriate weight and

summed to create the school district’s weighted student count. This count is then

used to calculate the LEA’s maximum basic support payment and actual basic

support payment.4

Overview of Base Realignment and

Closure Recommendations

The first BRAC Commission was authorized by the Defense Authorization

Amendments and Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-256), leading

to the first round of BRAC in 1988. This was followed by the Defense Based

Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, which provided the authorization for

subsequent BRAC rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The first four rounds of BRAC

resulted in the closure or realignment of 97 bases. The current BRAC round was

authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-107). The

current BRAC Commission received a list of recommended actions from the

Secretary of Defense on May 13, 2005. It subsequently submitted its

recommendations to the Administration on September 8, 2005. After agreeing with

the Commission’s recommendations, the President sent the report to Congress on

September 15, 2005, for approval. Congress had 45 days to enact a joint resolution

of disapproval; otherwise, the recommendations become law. On October 27, 2005,

the House voted 324-85 against a joint resolution to end the military base closure and

realignment process, sponsored by Representative LaHood (IL). Thus, the BRAC

recommendations are required to be implemented.

Under the current BRAC recommendations, 22 major military installations

would be closed and 33 others would be realigned.5 Expected savings over the next

20 years resulting from the Commission’s recommendations are estimated at $35.6

billion. The timeline for implementing the Commission’s recommendations is six

4

When appropriations are insufficient to provide maximum basic support payments to

districts, Section 8003(b) specifies how payments are to be reduced to correspond with

appropriations.

5

BRAC, Commission Report, Executive Summary.

CRS-5

years beginning in 2006. “Communities will have until 2011 to adjust to the changes

and plan for transfer of the base to the community for redevelopment.”6

Table 2 lists the 10 communities gaining the largest numbers of direct positions

as a result of the BRAC recommendations. The number of new positions includes

net job gains for direct military, civilian, and mission support contractor positions.

The number of positions gained at a single location may exceed the number of new

positions for an economic area or region of influence due to decreases in positions

at other installations in the same area. Thus, for example, San Antonio, Texas will

gain 2,813 positions overall, but Fort Sam Houston will gain more than 9,000

positions.

Table 2. Communities Expecting to Gain

the Largest Number of Direct Positions as a Result

of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations

Economic area/region of

influence

Jacksonville, FL

Military installation

gaining positions (gains

at specific installation)

Number of direct

positions gained in

economic area/region of

influence

Cecil Field (10,198) and

Naval Air Station

Jacksonville (2,193)

12,819

El Paso, TX

Fort Bliss (11,501)

11,395

Columbus, GA-AL

Fort Benning (9,895)

9,830

Richmond, VA

Fort Lee (7,344)

7,019

Colorado Springs, CO

Fort Carson (4,377)

4,374

Lawton, OK

Fort Sill (3,547)

3,547

Baltimore-Towson, MD

Aberdeen Proving Ground

(1,185) and Fort Meade

(5,361)

6,210

Little Rock-North Little

Rock, AR

Little Rock Air Force Base

(2,752)

2,575

San Antonio, TX

Fort Sam Houston (9,339)

2,813

Bethesda-FrederickGaithersburg, MD

National Naval Medical

Center Bethesda (2,829)

2,787

Source: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commission Report, Appendix O, Sept. 2005. Available online at [http://www.brac.gov].

Note: The number of new positions includes net job gains for direct military, civilian, and mission

support contractor positions. The number of indirect job changes of local non-government jobs that

support activities on military installations has not been included. This table represents anticipated

changes. As more data become available, areas affected by the BRAC recommendations and other

organizations may develop new estimates of the potential impact of the recommendations.

6

CRS Report RS22147, Military Base Closures.

CRS-6

While many economic areas will experience substantial increases in personnel,

many will also experience substantial decreases in personnel. Table 3 lists the 10

communities losing the largest number of direct positions as a result of the BRAC

recommendations. The number of positions lost includes net job changes for direct

military, civilian, and mission support contractor positions.

Table 3. Communities Expecting to Lose the Largest Number

of Direct Positions as a Result of the 2005 BRAC

Recommendations

Economic area/region of

influence

Military installation

losing positions (losses at

specific installation)

Number of direct

positions lost in

economic area/region of

influence

Virginia Beach-NorfolkNewport News, VA-NC

Naval Air Station Oceana

(-11,173) and Fort Monroe

(-3,564)

-13,528

Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MDWV

Leased space in VA

(-18,750), Crystal City

lease in VA (-3,321), and

Hoffman lease in VA

(-2,620)

-12,180

Atlanta-Sandy SpringsMarietta, GA

Fort McPherson (-4,141),

Naval Station Atlanta

(-1,498), and Fort Gillem

(-1,081)

-6,772

Edison, NJ

Fort Monmouth (-5,272)

-5,565

Portland-South PortlandBiddeford, ME

Naval Air Station

Brunswick (-3,275)

-3,275

Corpus Christi, TX

Naval Station Ingleside

(-2,037) and Naval Air

Station Corpus Christi

(-1,025)

-3,154

Clovis, NM

Cannon Air Force Base

(-2,769)

-2,769

St. Louis, MO-IL

Leased space in MO

(-2,093)

-2,711

Wichita Falls, TX

Sheppard Air Force Base

(-2,620)

-2,620

Elizabethtown, KY

Fort Knox (-2,582)

-2,582

Source: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and

Realignment Commission Report, Appendix O, Sept. 2005. Available at [http://www.brac.gov].

Note: The number of new positions includes net job gains for direct military, civilian, and mission

support contractor positions. The number of indirect job changes of local non-government jobs that

support activities on military installations has not been included. This table represents anticipated

changes. As more data become available, areas affected by the BRAC recommendations and other

organizations may develop new estimates of the potential impact of the recommendations.

CRS-7

Possible Effects of Base Closure and Realignment

on School Districts Serving

Federally Connected Students

While it is not clear at what point (in the six-year period available to implement

the recommended changes) military and civilian staff will move, when they do leave,

LEAs losing or receiving families as a result of the BRAC Commission’s

recommendations may experience substantial changes.7 This section discusses

possible effects of the loss of military children on LEAs, followed by a discussion of

the challenges LEAs receiving large numbers of students may face.

LEAs Losing Federally Connected Students

as a Result of BRAC

In calculating payments to LEAs, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) uses

student enrollment data from the prior school year [Section 8003(a)(1)].8 Therefore,

LEAs that experience a decline in enrollment as a result of BRAC will continue to

receive Impact Aid funding for students leaving the LEA for the school year

following their departure. Essentially, this provides the LEA with one year to adjust

to the decrease in enrollment, allowing time for the district to make decisions related

to changes in student enrollment.9 For example, the decline in student enrollment

may necessitate releasing staff or consolidating students into a smaller number of

facilities. Beyond this one-year “hold harmless” period, LEAs losing federally

connected students as a result of BRAC will not receive Impact Aid payments for the

students no longer enrolled in the district.

In some instances, the loss of a military facility may be translated into new

economic development opportunities for the surrounding community as communities

explore base redevelopment potential.10 Depending on the ultimate use of the

facility, such as an airport, port facility, or educational facility, new families may be

attracted to the area, increasing student enrollment and potentially generating the

need for more teachers and possibly school facilities. These changes may take

7

For example, the Army estimates that 55,000 Army children in kindergarten through grade

12 will be relocated due to global restationing, base closures and realignments, and other

actions by 2013. (Army Times, October 2, 2006, “DoD Databank to Ease Kids’ School

Transition.”)

8

For heavily affected LEAs, ED uses data from the third fiscal year preceding the fiscal year

for which the LEA is applying for assistance [Section 8003(b)(2)(F)].

9

For some LEAs the decline in enrollment may be more gradual, depending on the timeline

for implementing the Commission’s recommendations for the associated military base.

10

Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, Community Reaction Guide:

2005 Military Base Closure Recommendations. Available online at

[http://www.oea.gov/OEAWeb.nsf/FA61549067CAD9DA85256ED1005221E7/$File/5_

6%20React-TB1%20Update.pdf].

CRS-8

several years to materialize — thus, potentially failing to generate new student

enrollment quickly enough to replace the loss of students to the BRAC process.11

LEAs Gaining Federally Connected Students

as a Result of BRAC

Since basic support payments to LEAs are based on prior-year student

enrollment data, LEAs that gain students as a result of BRAC will not receive Impact

Aid funding for those new students until they have been enrolled in the district for

at least part of a school year. That is, the LEA will not immediately receive

additional Impact Aid funding as a result of the increase in enrollment. While

receiving LEAs have been provided with some advance notice of potential changes

through the BRAC process, LEAs receiving large numbers of students may

experience a substantial financial burden for the first school year in which the

students are enrolled. In addition, decisions that the LEA needs to make that are

dependent on Impact Aid payments, such as staffing decisions, may be complicated

by the timing of the data collection process used to determine subsequent payments

and the timing of actual payments.

LEAs experiencing large increases in the number of students as a result of the

BRAC recommendations may also need to hire several new teachers to meet the

educational needs of these students. LEAs may experience problems in finding

enough highly qualified teachers as required under the No Child Left Behind Act,12

hiring them to coincide with the shift in student population, and finding funds for

their salaries. As previously mentioned, Impact Aid funding for students arriving in

the LEA as a result of the BRAC will not be available until the following school year

at the earliest.13 This puts the burden of supporting new staff on the LEA for at least

the short term.

It should be noted that P.L. 81-874 included provisions for “sudden and

substantial increases in attendance” that are not included in current law. Under

Section 4 of P.L. 81-874, LEAs that experienced at least a 5% increase in student

enrollment from one school year to the next as a direct result of activities of the

11

Several communities surrounding military facilities slated for closure, such as Fort

Monroe, Virginia; Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; and Fort Gillem, Georgia, which have

already begun to plan local redevelopment authorities (LRA) to start the reuse process as

quickly as possible. The Department of Defense’s Office of Economic Adjustment will not

recognize the LRAs, however, until the BRAC recommendations become law. National

Association of Installation Developers/Association of Defense Communities, BRAC

Communities Launch Redevelopment Efforts, October 13, 2005. Available online at

[http://www.defensecommunities.org].

12

See Section 1119 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as amended

by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) for the qualifications of high-qualified teachers.

For more information, also see CRS Report RL30834, K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and

Legislative Action, by Jeffrey J. Kuenzi.

13

As discussed later in this report, the availability of Impact Aid funding for the following

school year for these students is dependent upon when in the school year they arrive relative

to student count dates for the Impact Aid program.

CRS-9

United States and met certain other requirements, would have been eligible to receive

compensation for serving these new students. The increase in enrollment had to

result in a “substantial and continuing financial burden” on the LEA and the LEA had

to be making “a reasonable tax effort and ... exercising due diligence in availing itself

of State and other financial assistance but (be) unable to meet the increased

educational costs involved” [Section 4(a)].

If these conditions were met, LEAs were eligible to receive funding for the

fiscal year in which the increase in enrollment occurred equal to the product of the

number of new children enrolled in the LEA that the Commissioner of Education14

(Commissioner) determined to be the direct result of the activities of the United

States — multiplied by the amount determined by the Commissioner to constitute the

current expenditure level required to provide a free public education, minus the

amount determined by the Commissioner to be available from state, local, and federal

sources for the purpose of providing a free public education. In the subsequent fiscal

year, LEAs were still entitled to receive extra support for any of these students for

whom the LEA would not receive compensation under an Impact Aid payment for

federally connected children. These provisions are not included in current Impact

Aid statutory language.

Another potential problem facing LEAs receiving large influxes of new students

as a result of BRAC may be related to facilities. Some LEAs may receive more

students than can be accommodated in existing facilities. The Impact Aid program

provides payments related to school construction and repair under Section 8007.

These funds are used to make formula grants and competitive grants for the

construction program.15 Of the total funds appropriated for this section, 40% are

distributed to LEAs that receive funds through Section 8003 and meet specific

criteria. The remaining funds are used to award competitive grants for emergency

repairs and modernization. Emergency repair grants may be used to repair or

renovate a facility due to health or safety hazards. Modernization grants may be used

to alter a facility to alleviate overcrowding or to provide more modern services (e.g.,

telecommunications). Statutory language currently gives higher priority to emergency

repair grants than to modernization grants, and requires emergency repair grants to

be awarded based on the severity of the emergency. Construction grants may only

be awarded to LEAs that are eligible to receive support under Section 8003. LEAs

experiencing large increases in student enrollment as a result of BRAC may consider

applying for a Section 8007 grant if they can demonstrate they meet the criteria to

receive funding. However, there will potentially be a delay between when the

students arrive and when major adjustments to facilities can be made. In addition,

the total Section 8007 appropriation for FY2008 ($17.5 million), for example, might

not be sufficient to adequately assist all of the LEAs experiencing a large influx of

new students with facility issues. No other federal program would currently provide

14

P.L. 81-874 was signed into law prior to the establishment of the U.S. Department of

Education. At the time, there was a Commissioner of Education who was subsequently

replaced by the Secretary of Education when Education was elevated to a cabinet-level

position. The reference to the Commissioner in P.L. 81-874 was not updated.

15

The FY2008 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 110161) restricts the allocation of Section 8007 funds to competitive grants only.

CRS-10

a dedicated source of funding to address facility-specific issues requiring immediate

or near term attention as a result of an increase in student enrollment due to BRAC.

Another issue that may affect LEAs receiving students as a result of BRAC is

the student count process. Student counts for the Impact Aid program are due to the

ED by January 31 each school year. The counts must be taken no earlier than the 4th

day of the regular school year and before January 31 of that school year. If students

transfer into the LEA after January 31, these students will not be included in the

student count used to calculate Impact Aid programs for the subsequent school year.

Based on instructions provided to LEAs by ED for FY2009 Impact Aid payments,

LEAs were permitted to conduct a second student count after January 31, 2008, but

before May 14, 2008.16 LEAs conducting second counts were also required to

resubmit their Impact Aid applications by September 30, 2008. FY2009 payments

will be based on an average of the two counts. LEAs that receive students after

January 31 will need to take steps to ensure that this second count occurs. While they

may not receive full compensation during the next school year for any additional

federally connected students received as a result of the BRAC due to the averaging

of the first and second counts, failure to conduct the second count and the associated

paperwork could result in LEAs receiving no Impact Aid payments for federally

connected students enrolling after the January 31 count date.

Finally, unlike other federal education programs, the Impact Aid program is not

forward-funded, meaning that the earliest that appropriations could be made available

to LEAs is the first day of the fiscal year.17 For example, the earliest FY2009

appropriations could be provided to LEAs would be October 1, 2008. Thus, even

LEAs that enrolled large numbers of federally connected students as a result of the

BRAC recommendations, and were able to submit enrollment data to ED that

included those pupils, would not have Impact Aid payments for those students on the

first day of the new school year. In practice, Impact Aid payments are often not made

as a single payment with LEAs receiving multiple payments throughout the school

year. In addition, depending on the budget appropriations process in Congress,

payments could be further delayed if Congress does not pass the Labor-Health and

Human Services-Education appropriations bill that funds the Impact Aid program by

the start of the new fiscal year.

Support Available from the Department of Defense

Historically, DOD appropriations have provided additional funding for LEAs

serving significant numbers of military dependent students (at least 20% of students

16

U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Section

8003 Instructions. Available online at [http://www.ed.gov/programs/8003/applicant.html].

17

Education programs that are forward-funded generally have funds made available for a

15-month period, starting nine months into a fiscal year. For example, for forward-funded

programs, FY2007 funds became available on July 1, 2007, and will remain available

through September 30, 2008. On the other hand, current funded programs, including Impact

Aid, have funds available for the 12-month fiscal year. That is, funds become available on

October 1 of a given year and remain available through September 30 of the following year.

CRS-11

in average daily attendance), and have provided additional impact aid funding for

children with severe disabilities.18 For FY2006, $30 million and $5 million were

appropriated, respectively, for these activities. For FY2007, $35 million was

appropriated to assist LEAs serving significant numbers of military dependent

students, and $5 million was appropriated for children with severe disabilities. For

FY2008, $30 million and $5 million were appropriated, respectively, for these

activities.19

The DOD FY2006 appropriations also included funding for assistance to

schools with enrollment changes due to base closures, force structure changes, or

force relocations. These funds are available to LEAs that experienced an overall

increase or reduction in student enrollment of not less than 5% of military dependent

students or not less than 250 military dependent students in daily attendance.

Eligible LEAs have to meet two additional criteria: (1) military dependent students

constituted at least 20% of the average daily attendance (or would have if not for the

reduction in students), and (2) the change in military student enrollment was due to

DOD’s global rebasing plan, the official creation or activation of one or more new

military units, the realignment of forces as a result of BRAC, or a change in the

number of housing units on a military installation. No LEA is permitted to receive

more than $1 million in assistance in a fiscal year under this provision. For FY2006,

$10 million was provided for this purpose. FY2007 and FY2008 appropriations also

included $10 million for this purpose.

The DOD FY2007 Authorization Act (P.L. 109-364) included additional

provisions related to military dependent student relocations. The Secretary of

Defense was required to submit a report by January 1, 2007, to the congressional

defense committees outlining a plan to provide assistance to LEAs that experience

increased student enrollment as a result of force structure changes, the relocation of

a military unit, or the closure or realignment of military installations as a result of the

BRAC process. The report must identify the number of military dependent students

who are expected to be relocated, the specific military installations affected by these

departures and arrivals, an estimate of the number of students departing or arriving

at each installation, and the anticipated schedule of these departures and arrivals. It

must also include recommendations made by the Office of Economic Adjustment of

the DOD related to providing assistance to LEAs affected by increases in student

enrollment, and an outreach plan involving affected LEAs, commanders of military

18

An LEA may receive funding for this purpose if it serves at least two students who are

military dependent students [ESEA, Section 8003(B) or (D)(i)] or who have a parent who

is a foreign military officer [ESEA, Section 8003(a)(ii) or (D)(ii)].

19

Each fiscal year, Congress generally passes a DOD appropriations act and an

authorization act. The DOD appropriations acts generally authorize funding for additional

funding to LEAs serving military children, additional impact aid for children with severe

disabilities, and special assistance to LEAs in broad statutory language that provides funding

for operation and maintenance expenses defense-wide. The DOD authorization acts

provide substantially more information about funding requirements. For more information

about DOD FY2006 appropriations and authorizations, see P.L. 109-148 and P.L. 109-163,

respectively. For more information about DOD FY2007 appropriations and authorizations,

see P.L. 109-289 and P.L. 109-364, respectively. For more information about DOD FY2008

appropriations and authorizations, see P.L. 110-116 and P.L. 110-181, respectively.

CRS-12

installations, and members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel. An updated

report is required to be submitted by March 1, 2008, and annually thereafter to

coincide with the submission of the President’s budget request.

The FY2007 DOD Authorization Act also requires the Secretary of Defense to

work collaboratively with the Secretary of Education through September 30, 2011,

to ease the transition of military dependent students from attendance in Department

of Defense dependent schools to attendance in LEA schools. Funds may be used

from the DOD Education Activity (DODEA) to share information related to easing

these transitions, including transitions resulting from the BRAC process, global

rebasing, and force restructuring.

DOD is currently building a databank for schools that will be affected by base

closures and realignments.20 While the databank will contain estimates of how many

students will be arriving at military installations each year, it will not provide specific

information on where students will live.21 This may limit the usefulness of the

databank, particularly when multiple LEAs serve a single military installation, as

enrollment changes in a specific LEA will depend on where the military dependent

students’ families reside.

School Districts’ Responses to Troop Increases

Little information is readily available about how LEAs have adjusted to sudden

increases in federally connected student enrollment as a result of BRAC or how

LEAs are planning for BRAC 2005.22 As this is the fifth round of BRAC since 1988,

LEAs may be able to seek guidance from LEAs that have already experienced large

student increases resulting from previous BRAC rounds. While a few examples of

activities undertaken by LEAs are presented below, it should be noted that there are

no dedicated funds, such as Impact Aid funds, to assist with the transition process.

One relevant example of an LEA response to a sudden influx of military

children (though not related to BRAC) occurred as a result of 850 additional soldiers

being stationed at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, located near the Tennessee border.23

20

DoD has also developed “tool kits” for schools, parents, and commanders to assist with

student relocations. The toolkits can be ordered online at [http://www.militaryonesource.

com]. (Army Times, October 2, 2006, “DoD Databank to Ease Kids’ School Transition.”)

In addition, DoD has compiled a list of useful information and websites for service members

and their families affected by BRAC. The information is available online at

[http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/pdf/Family-Resources.pdf].

21

Army Times, October 2, 2006, “DoD Databank to Ease Kids’ School Transition.”

22

DOD is asking school officials to provide information on strategies they have

implemented to help students through the transition process, such as taking prerequisite

courses to help ensure timely high school graduation. (Army Times, October 2, 2006, “DoD

Databank to Ease Kids’ School Transition.”)

23

National Association of Installation Developers/Association of Defense Communities,

(continued...)

CRS-13

In response to the shift in troops, the Clarksville-Montgomery School System, which

is located in Tennessee, expected to receive an additional 1,000 students. The school

system received a $4 million earmark in the FY2005 defense appropriations bill to

help defray the costs of educating these children.

Some information is also available about actions being taken by school systems

in communities expecting to receive a large influx of students as a result of the 2005

BRAC recommendations.24 For example, Fort Riley in Kansas was expecting 3,400

troops to arrive in early 2006. School districts in the surrounding area have already

hired additional teachers to handle the anticipated increase in student enrollment.

School districts located near Fort Benning in Georgia have also begun to make plans

to accommodate new student enrollment. School officials are working with other

community officials to determine where new schools should be built in relation to

expected growth patterns for housing. The school districts are seeking state and

federal aid to build the schools prior to students’ arrival. They anticipate that they

have four to five years to complete the new construction.

23

(...continued)

When an Installation Grows: The Impact of Expanding Missions on Communities. January

2005. Available online at [http://www.defensecommunities.org/Downloads/Expanding_

Mission.pdf].

24

National Association of Installation Developers/Association of Defense Communities,

Ready, Set, Grow: Defense Communities Make Plans to Accommodate New Missions,

September 22, 2005. Available online at [http://www.defensecommunities.org].