Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by Employment Changes Due to Military Base Closures (BRAC)
Congressional research reportJan 18, 2011
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Economic Development Assistance for
Communities Affected by Employment
Changes Due to Military Base Closures
(BRAC)
(name redacted)
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
January 18, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-....
www.crs.gov
RL34709
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Summary
This report is intended to discuss the geographic impact of base closures and realignments;
provide an analysis of federal economic assistance programs for communities and individuals
affected by military base closures and realignments (BRAC); and analyze possible policy issues
for Congress.
Unlike previous rounds, the 2005 BRAC round is focused on creating the infrastructure needed to
support a transformed, expeditionary armed force—concentrated more on shifting forces and
installation assets to promote the centralization of units in places from which they can be
deployed rapidly. Thus, the 2005 BRAC round is characterized much more by realignment than
closure. In 20 communities, an estimated increase of 170,000 workers is expected. In addition,
estimated construction costs are anticipated to increase by 80% from $17 billion to $32 billion.
These communities identified transportation, schools and affordable housing as their top
infrastructure challenges. Some communities, however, will be affected by job losses, and job
creation and unemployment were cited as key concerns.
Economic development programs for communities affected by BRAC include the Office of
Economic Adjustment (OEA); the Economic Development Administration (EDA); the
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; Historically Underutilized Business
Zones (HUBZones) under the Small Business Administration (SBA); and programs such as the
Homeowner’s Assistance Program (HAP), the Defense Access Road (DAR) program, Recovery
Zone Economic Development Bonds, and Economic Development Conveyances (EDCs).
Understanding the process to access funding under these programs is important for communities
impacted by job losses and those affected by growth. EDA, for example, allocates funding to
groups of counties organized as Economic Development Districts (EDDs), based on a plan known
as a Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) and communities affected by
BRAC must contact an EDA regional office and EDD to understand if competitive grant funding
may be available. In contrast, CDBG allocates funding to one of over 1,100 entitlement
communities based on a formula and on a plan known as the Consolidated Plan; BRAC funding is
available primarily to help the homeless population near a base. The local communities must
establish a Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) to access assistance. The LRA serves as the
primary link between the Department of Defense, the current installation, the local community,
and the Federal and State agencies responsible for all BRAC matters.
In the 111th Congress, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA, P.L. 111-5)
provided $555 million for the Homeowner’s Assistance Fund under the Housing Improvement
Program (HAP), for military personnel affected by the 2005 BRAC round. P.L. 111-117 provided
an additional $323 million for the HAP program. ARRA also provided $10 billion for Recovery
Zone Economic Development Bonds for areas designated as economically distressed under
previous BRAC round closures.
The 112th Congress may consider amendments to federal economic development programs to
assist communities affected by the 2005 BRAC.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Contents
Background ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Spatial Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 2
Methodology ............................................................................................................................. 2
Employment Changes in Largest Facilities ............................................................................... 2
Employment Changes in Metropolitan Areas ........................................................................... 5
Employment Changes at the State Level................................................................................... 7
Net Employment Losses and Gains .................................................................................... 7
Inter- and Intra-State Employment Changes ....................................................................... 9
Employment Changes as a Share of Total Employment ..................................................... 9
Federal Economic Development Assistance to State and Local Governments ............................. 10
Office of Economic Adjustment ............................................................................................... 11
Overview ............................................................................................................................ 11
Type of Assistance ............................................................................................................ 12
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 12
Economic Development Administration ................................................................................. 12
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 12
Type of Assistance ............................................................................................................ 13
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 13
Community Development Block Grants ................................................................................. 14
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 14
Type of Assistance ............................................................................................................ 14
Funding ............................................................................................................................. 14
Other Assistance ...................................................................................................................... 15
Department of Defense ..................................................................................................... 15
Other Agencies .................................................................................................................. 16
Federal Assistance for Individual Workers Displaced by BRAC activities ................................... 16
DOD Worker Assistance Programs ......................................................................................... 16
Department of Labor Job Training Program for Dislocated Workers ..................................... 16
Overview ........................................................................................................................... 16
Formula Grants ................................................................................................................. 17
National Emergency Grants (NEGs)................................................................................. 17
Other Assistance ...................................................................................................................... 18
Issues for Congress ........................................................................................................................ 18
Impacts on Communities......................................................................................................... 19
Increase in BRAC Construction Costs .................................................................................... 19
BRAC Homeowners’ Assistance Program .............................................................................. 20
Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds ..................................................................... 21
Defense Access Road Program ............................................................................................... 21
Environmental Cleanup ........................................................................................................... 22
BRAC Facility Redevelopment for Refineries........................................................................ 22
Concluding Observations .............................................................................................................. 22
Congressional Research Service
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Figures
Figure 1. Employment Losses and Gains at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA)
Level ............................................................................................................................................. 6
Figure 2. Employment Losses and Gains at the State Level ......................................................... 10
Figure 3. EDA Funding FY1993-FY2008 ..................................................................................... 14
Tables
Table 1. Major Military Facilities to be Closed or Realigned, Ranked by Total Direct and
Indirect Employment Changes ..................................................................................................... 3
Table 2. Rank of States by Total Direct and Indirect Job Losses and Gains Resulting from
BRAC ........................................................................................................................................... 7
Table 3. Appropriations for Office of Economic Assistance FY2001-FY2008 ............................. 12
Appendixes
Appendix. List of Federal Economic and Community Development Programs ........................... 24
Contacts
Author Contact Information .......................................................................................................... 29
Congressional Research Service
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Background
On five occasions Congress has authorized the Department of Defense (DOD) to realign or close
military bases as part of the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process. Under the BRAC
process: (1) the Department of Defense prepares a list of military bases to be realigned or closed;
(2) an independent BRAC Commission reviews the list, makes changes and sends a revised list to
the President; (3) the President reviews the list and transmits the list without changes to Congress;
and (4) the Secretary of Defense implements the approved recommendations unless a joint
resolution of disapproval is passed by Congress. Following the actual base closings and
realignments, DOD develops an environmental remediation plan to enable the conveyance of
surplus federal land to other entities.1
Military facilities were closed and realigned in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995 under a BRAC
process.2 More than 350 installations have been closed in these four BRAC rounds. The objective
of these BRAC rounds was to promote cost-savings and efficiency, eliminate redundancy, and
adapt a Cold War military to a post-Soviet, post-Cold War world.3
The 2005 BRAC round, however, focused on creating the infrastructure needed to support a
transformed, expeditionary armed force—concentrated more on shifting forces and installation
assets to promote the centralization of units in places from which they can be deployed rapidly.
Thus, the 2005 BRAC round is characterized much more by realignment than closure.
This latest BRAC round includes the closure or realignment of 837 facilities and involves an
additional 160 facilities that will gain missions or resources due to the proposed closures and
realignments, for a total of 997 affected facilities nationwide. Most of these closures are on a
small scale, each involving less than 300 direct employment losses or gains each, including
military, civilian and contractor jobs. Twenty-two major military installations will be closed and
33 others will be realigned. According to GAO estimates, the 2005 BRAC round will entail
relocating over 123,000 personnel.4
In addition to BRAC-related actions that must be completed by September 15, 2011—under the
Global Defense Posture Realignment5 process—DOD is planning to transfer about 70,000
1
For a detailed examination of the BRAC process, For environmental remediation issues, see CRS Report RS21822,
Military Base Closures: DOD's 2005 Internal Selection Process, by (name redacted) and (name redacted) . A policy
challenge for Congress related to environmental cleanup is how to promote an appropriate environmental review of
military facilities within a reasonable time frame, since some facilities dating back to 1988 are still under
environmental review and remediation.
2
Prior to the 1988 BRAC round, military installations were closed, or their missions were altered by order of the
Secretary of Defense.
3
10 U.S.C. Section 2687 authorizes the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process for (1) military installations at
which at least 300 civilian personnel are authorized to be employed, or (2) the realignment of any military installation
where at least 300 civilian personnel are authorized to be employed and where the closure or realignment is intended to
reduce the work force by more than 1,000 or by more than 50% of the number of civilian personnel authorized to be
employed at the installation.
4
See U.S. Government Accountability Office, GAO Observations on DOD Funding for Military Infrastructure and
Road Improvements Surrounding Growth, GAO Report D08-602R, April 1, 2008, available at http://www.gao.gov/
new.items/d08602r.pdf.
5
The Global Defense Posture Realignment (GDPR) process refers to base realignments and closures at the
international level and is a process similar to BRAC, but at the international level. Although GDPR is not directly
related to BRAC, it will impact local communities in the United States seeking to adjust to increases in employment
and population as a result of military realignment overseas.
Congressional Research Service
1
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
military and civilian personnel to the United States by 2011.6 DOD also plans to increase the size
of the Army by 74,000 and the Marines by 27,000. These transfers and increases will also have
considerable economic development impacts. In 20 military facilities alone, these combined
changes will result in the net growth of 173,000 military and civilian personnel, not including
families and contractors.7
Spatial Analysis
Methodology
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) compiled a database with information on direct and
indirect military, civilian and employment changes for nearly 1,000 military facilities nationwide
to conduct an analysis of employment changes in communities throughout the country as a result
of BRAC. Data was obtained from Appendix O of the BRAC 2005 report to the President.8
Additional information was obtained from the head of the BRAC commission, former Secretary
of Veterans Affairs, Anthony J. Principi. A second database was developed using a Geographic
Information System (GIS) for analytical purposes to estimate and visualize information at
multiple geographic levels. This database includes information on employment changes for (1)
individual facilities; (2) metropolitan statistical areas; (3) counties; and (4) states. For each of
these geographic levels, information on employment gains and losses is available for six different
variables: direct military, civilian, and contractor losses or gains (3 variables); total direct
employment changes; indirect employment changes using an employment multiplier9 developed
by the BRAC commission; and total direct and indirect employment changes. In addition, reports
from government agencies such as GAO and DOD were compiled to review economic
development issues. The results of the compilation of this information are presented below.
Employment Changes in Largest Facilities
In general, DOD data show that a total of 21 major military facilities will be closed and 30 other
facilities will be realigned as part of the 2005 BRAC process. Table 1 includes a list of major
military installations that will be closed or realigned, based on final recommendations from the
2005 BRAC Commission.10 The table ranks the military facilities by the number of direct and
indirect employment losses and gains for military, civilian and contractor staff.
Two of the largest facilities affected by job losses are Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and Walter
Reed Army Medical Center in the District of Columbia. An estimated 5,200 jobs in Fort
6
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help
Communities Address Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth, GAO Report 08-665, June 2008, available at
http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/abstract.php?rptno=GAO-08-665.
7
Ibid.
8
BRAC Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to the President, Washington,
DC, September 8, 2005.
9
Multiplier effects, which measure the rate at which a direct effect (e.g., base job losses) creates indirect effects such as
additional jobs, are important elements in estimating the impacts of a base closing. If, for example, one assumes that a
base job has a large indirect employment multiplier (e.g., 2.5-3.0), then for each direct base job lost, indirectly related
jobs in some defined geographic area are also predicted to be lost as a result. Similarly, an income multiplier allows one
to estimate total income generated by a military base.
10
BRAC Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to the President, Washington,
DC, September 8, 2005.
Congressional Research Service
2
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Monmouth will be transferred to other facilities and a total of 9,700 jobs will be lost directly or
indirectly at this New Jersey facility, according to estimates developed by the BRAC
Commission.11 Most of these employment losses in Fort Monmouth will be civilian jobs, with
more than 4,600 civilian job losses, but a large majority of these positions will be transferred to
other facilities. Specifically, nine other military facilities would gain jobs transferred from Fort
Monmouth. Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland will gain several thousand positions as a
result of transfers from Fort Monmouth, and the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, New York,
will gain 421 jobs. Once the overall job transfers in Maryland, New Jersey, and New York are
accounted for, the net employment change is estimated to be a total reduction of 589 positions.
Table 1. Major Military Facilities to be Closed or Realigned, Ranked by Total Direct
and Indirect Employment Changes
Net Job Changes
Facility
State
Military
Civilian
Contractor
Direct
Employment
Changes
Indirect
Employment
Changes
Total
Employment
Changes
Facilities with Net Job Losses
1. Fort Monmouth
NJ
-620
-4,652
0
-5,272
-4,464
-9,736
2. Walter Reed
Medical Center
DC
-2,668
-2,373
-622
-5,663
-3,869
-9,532
3. Fort Monroe
VA
-1,393
-1,948
-223
-3,564
-4,418
-7,982
4. Pope Air Force
Base
NC
-4,792
812
-132
-4,112
-3,472
-7,584
5. Naval Air
Station Brunswick
ME
-2,880
-395
0
-3,275
-3,808
-7,083
6. Fort McPherson
GA
-2,260
-1,881
0
-4,141
-2,705
-6,846
7. Brooks City
Base
TX
-1,297
-1,268
-358
-2,923
-2,799
-5,722
8. Lackland Air
Force Base
TX
-2,168
-416
-116
-2,700
-2,282
-4,982
9. Cannon Air
Force Base
NM
-2,388
-381
0
-2,769
-2,002
-4,771
10. Naval Station
Great Lakes
IL
-2,059
-68
-10
-2,137
-2,560
-4,697
11. Naval Station
Ingleside
TX
-1,726
-254
-57
-2,037
-2,558
-4,595
12. Sheppard Air
Force Base
TX
-2,464
-156
0
-2,620
-1,740
-4,360
13. Naval Base
Ventura County
CA
-221
-1,421
-375
-2,017
-1,523
-3,540
14. Naval Support
New Orleans
LA
-1,270
-603
-62
-1,935
-1,325
-3,260
15. Naval Center
San Diego
CA
-1,596
-33
-1
-1,630
-1,469
-3,099
11
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Net Job Changes
Facility
State
Military
Civilian
Contractor
Direct
Employment
Changes
Indirect
Employment
Changes
Total
Employment
Changes
Facilities with Net Job Gains
1. Fort Belvoir
VA
4,162
6,375
2,058
12,595
8,726
21,322
2. Fort Bliss
TX
11,354
147
-
11,501
8,884
20,385
3. Fort Sam
Houston
TX
7,625
1,622
92
9,339
8,354
17,693
4. Fort Benning
GA
9,274
621
-
9,895
4,034
13,929
5. Fort Lee
VA
6,139
1,149
56
7,344
4,419
11,763
6. Fort Meade
MD
682
2,915
1,764
5,361
4,870
10,231
7. Fort Carson
CO
4,178
199
-
4,377
3,309
7,686
8. Fort Bragg
NC
3,425
238
-
3,663
2,509
6,172
9. Fort Sill
OK
3,445
105
-3
3,547
2,110
5,657
10. Marine Corps
Base Quantico
VA
446
1,357
1,210
3,013
2,109
5,122
11. Bethesda Naval
Medical Center
MD
1,418
674
737
2,829
2,049
4,878
12. Naval Station
China Lake
CA
176
1,645
493
2,314
2,485
4,799
13. Little Rock Air
Force Base
AK
2,576
176
-
2,752
1,993
4,745
14. Fort Riley
KS
2,415
334
-
2,749
1,737
4,486
15. Eglin Air Force
Base
FL
2,201
147
-
2,348
4,279
Source: CRS estimates based on BRAC Commission 2005 report.
Notes: Owing to space limitations only the top 30 military facilities—ranked by employment losses or gains—
are listed. A complete database and list of military facilities is available from the author.
The realignment of Walter Reed Army Medical Center will result in a net reduction of 9,500 jobs
in this facility in the District of Columbia. Many of these jobs, however, will be transferred to
nearby Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland, 5.5 miles away. The Bethesda facility will
gain 2,800 jobs as a result of these transfers. In addition, personnel from Walter Reed will be
transferred to a community hospital that will be built at Fort Belvoir, Virginia, which will result in
a gain of 3,800 jobs in Fort Belvoir. An additional four military sites in Maryland and Virginia
will gain medical personnel as a result of staff transferred from Walter Reed Army Medical
Center. After accounting for job transfers, a total of 3,000 jobs in the Washington, DC,
metropolitan area will be loss instead of the original 9,500.
Other major facilities that will be realigned include Fort Monroe in Virginia, with total direct and
indirect job losses of 7,900. Each of the following facilities will lose more than 5,000 jobs: Pope
Air Force base in North Carolina; the Naval Air Station in Brunswick, Maine; and Fort
McPherson in Texas.
Although considerable job losses will occur in certain facilities, other military installations will
have an increase in military and civilian personnel. For example, the following military facilities
will gain more than 10,000 direct and indirect jobs, based on estimates developed by the BRAC
Congressional Research Service
4
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Commission: Fort Belvoir in Virginia will gain an estimated 21,000 jobs; Fort Bliss and Fort Sam
Houston in Texas will see an increase of 20,000 and 17,600, respectively; Fort Benning in
Georgia is forecast to gain nearly 14,000 jobs; Fort Lee in Virginia is scheduled to gain an
estimated 11,700 jobs; and Fort Meade in Maryland will gain more than 10,000 jobs.
Communities that gain employment will see a need for access roads, schools, affordable housing,
business facilities, and infrastructure to accommodate the increase in military and civilian
personnel and their families. Some of these military facilities will also be affected by the
relocation of U.S. military and civilian personnel stationed abroad who are scheduled to move to
the United States. This will have an additional impact over the economic development of these
areas.12
Employment Changes in Metropolitan Areas
In addition to an analysis of individual facilities, it is useful to understand the impact of base
realignments and closures at the metropolitan level. As has been discussed, some facilities will
experience considerable job losses, but many of these employees will be transferred to nearby
facilities within the same metropolitan area. Figure 1 shows the location of military facilities—at
the Metropolitan Statistical (MSA) level—affected by employment changes related to BRAC. As
shown in the map, MSAs vary in size, with a greater geographic area in the West, in states such as
California, and relatively smaller sizes in the East.
The MSA-level map helps to illustrate that although some cities such as Boulder, Colorado will
see decreased employment as a result of base realignments, other nearby jurisdictions—such as
Colorado Springs—will gain jobs and help offset the changes. In states such as Colorado,
facilities that will lose employment are adjacent to metropolitan areas that will gain jobs.
12
Additional information on the relocation of overseas military and civilian personnel, see U.S. Government
Accountability Office, Defense Infrastructure: High-Level Leadership Needed to Help Communities Address
Challenges Caused by DOD-Related Growth, GAO Report 08-665, June 2008.
Congressional Research Service
5
Figure 1. Employment Losses and Gains at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Level
Source: CRS estimates based on BRAC Commission 2005 Report.
CRS-6
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
In particular, the metropolitan areas that are projected to experience the greatest decrease in
employment, shown in Figure 1, include the following: Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport News,
VA; Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Marietta, GA; Portland-South Portland-Biddeford ME; Corpus
Christi, TX; St. Louis, MO-IL; Clovis, NM; Wichita Falls, TX; Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura,
CA; and Charleston-North Charleston, SC. The following MSAs, which are projected to
experience an increase in employment, with more than 4,000 new jobs, include Jacksonville, FL;
El Paso, TX; Columbus, GA-AL; Baltimore-Towson, MD; Richmond, VA; Colorado Springs,
CO; Lawton, OK; San Antonio, TX; Bakersfield, CA; Manhattan, KS.
A complete list of changes at the Metropolitan and Micropolitan13 level is available in Appendix
O of the BRAC Commission Report.
Employment Changes at the State Level
Net Employment Losses and Gains
At a state level, a geographic analysis shows that absolute job losses will be greatest in states such
as Virginia, the District of Columbia, Missouri, New Jersey, Maine and Illinois (ranked by
greatest number of total direct and indirect job losses). Table 2 presents the direct and indirect
employment gains and losses, ranked by state job losses, and based on data compiled by the
BRAC Commission. The table shows that Virginia will reassign an estimated 40,000 jobs, which
represents 3% of the total employment in the affected metropolitan areas in the state. Virginia is
followed by the District of Columbia, which will see a reduction of nearly 14,000 jobs, which
represents a 0.5% decrease of jobs in the city. Alternatively, states such as Texas, Maryland and
Florida are expected to gain 14,000, 16,000 and 28,000 jobs, respectively.
Table 2. Rank of States by Total Direct and Indirect Job Losses and Gains Resulting
from BRAC
Direct Job Gains or Losses
State and Rank by
Total Employment
Losses
United States
Military
Civilian
Contractor
Direct
Indirect
Total
Gains
and
Losses
8,687
-15,874
-833
-8,023
-13,613
-21,322
Sub-total
Percent of
MSA
Employment
Lost and Rank
1
Virginia
-5,570
-10,838
-2,362
-18,770
-20,940
-39,509
-3.00%
6
2
D.C.
-3,314
-3,145
-948
-7,407
-5,873
-13,272
-0.50%
17
3
Missouri
-1,187
-2,492
-296
-3,978
-3,129
-7,107
-0.20%
25
4
New Jersey
104
-3,783
0
-3,679
-3,216
-6,895
-0.40%
21
5
Maine
-2,880
-94
0
-2,974
-3,587
-6,561
-0.80%
14
6
Illinois
-2,074
-832
76
-2,830
-3,092
-5,922
-2.30%
7
7
New Mexico
-2,414
-217
1
-2,630
-1,836
-4,466
-2.04%
8
8
Alaska
-2,145
-301
-41
-2,487
-1,900
-4,387
-6.10%
2
9
Pennsylvania
-1,530
-990
-14
-2,534
-1,757
-4,291
0.00%
29
10
Kentucky
-5,290
1,667
326
-3,297
-394
-3,691
-4.90%
3
13
A Micropolitan area has less than 10,000 inhabitants; a complete definition is available at http://www.census.gov/
population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html.
Congressional Research Service
7
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Direct Job Gains or Losses
State and Rank by
Total Employment
Losses
Military
Civilian
Contractor
Direct
Indirect
Total
Gains
and
Losses
Sub-total
Percent of
MSA
Employment
Lost and Rank
11
California
-812
-1,387
0
-2,199
-1,353
-3,552
0.20%
37
12
Mississippi
-1,256
-429
-58
-1,743
-1,493
-3,236
-4.20%
4
13
North Dakota
-1,434
-70
0
-1,504
-1,299
-2,803
-4.20%
5
14
Louisiana
-689
-549
-107
-1,345
-947
-2,292
-0.20%
26
15
Hawaii
-313
-357
0
-670
-788
-1,458
-0.70%
16
16
Idaho
-669
-98
0
-767
-557
-1,324
-8.00%
1
17
Oregon
-46
-625
0
-671
-645
-1,316
-1.40%
10
18
Massachusetts
-94
-672
0
-766
-501
-1,267
-0.50%
18
19
Wisconsin
-444
-278
22
-700
-451
-1,151
-1.60%
9
20
Arizona
-203
-387
1
-589
-433
-1,022
-0.50%
19
21
Washington
-462
-74
-7
-543
-450
-993
0.80%
46
22
Utah
262
-930
212
-456
-346
-802
-0.30%
23
23
North Carolina
-955
951
-141
-145
-647
-792
0.20%
38
24
Nebraska
-145
-232
-19
-396
-282
-678
-0.40%
22
25
Connecticut
-131
-235
0
-366
-311
-677
-0.20%
27
26
Minnesota
-138
-124
0
-262
-157
-419
0.00%
30
27
Puerto Rico
-113
-48
0
-161
-124
-285
0.00%
31
28
Guam
-64
-31
0
-95
-79
-174
-0.30%
24
29
West Virginia
-105
0
0
-105
-52
-157
-0.50%
20
30
N. Hampshire
-39
-5
0
-44
-29
-73
0.00%
32
31
South Carolina
1,487
-728
-425
334
-403
-69
2.10%
49
32
Wyoming
-42
0
0
-42
-20
-62
-1.00%
11
33
Vermont
1
51
0
52
38
90
0.10%
33
34
South Dakota
28
27
32
87
63
150
0.10%
34
35
Montana
-23
114
0
91
70
161
0.30%
40
36
Iowa
-193
247
0
54
207
261
0.40%
41
37
Delaware
105
126
0
231
241
472
0.60%
44
38
Michigan
-117
730
-76
537
423
960
-0.20%
28
39
New York
71
514
-6
579
445
1,024
0.70%
45
40
Tennessee
207
314
3
524
516
1,040
0.20%
39
41
Indiana
-38
813
-314
461
639
1,100
-0.97%
13
42
Rhode Island
675
229
-89
815
952
1,767
0.10%
35
43
Alabama
-1,370
1,405
1,050
1,085
893
1,978
0.40%
42
44
Nevada
1,029
75
248
1,352
1,004
2,356
0.50%
43
45
Ohio
291
1,347
-39
1,599
1,485
3,084
-0.80%
15
Congressional Research Service
8
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Direct Job Gains or Losses
State and Rank by
Total Employment
Losses
Military
Civilian
Contractor
Direct
Indirect
Total
Gains
and
Losses
Sub-total
Percent of
MSA
Employment
Lost and Rank
46
Arkansas
2,478
173
0
2,651
1,906
4,557
1.00%
47
47
Georgia
5,890
-2,254
695
4,331
886
5,217
1.22%
48
48
Oklahoma
3,436
-45
-3
3,388
2,010
5,398
8.10%
53
49
Kansas
3,305
306
-159
3,452
2,535
5,987
5.10%
51
50
Colorado
4,168
-687
-64
3,417
2,717
6,134
2.10%
50
51
Texas
9,718
-919
-644
8,155
5,588
13,848
-1.00%
12
52
Maryland
-1,180
7,773
2,307
8,900
6,937
15,837
0.10%
36
53
Florida
12,911
1,120
6
14,037
13,923
27,960
5.70%
52
Source: CRS estimates based on BRAC Commission 2005 Report.
Note: For the purposes of this table, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico and Guam are included.
Inter- and Intra-State Employment Changes
Although Virginia and the District of Columbia will experience losses, nearby states such as
Maryland will benefit from considerable increases in employment. For example, Fort Meade in
Maryland will receive an influx of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs as a result of the BRAC
process. While Walter Reed Medical Center in the District of Columbia will close many of its
facilities and experience a direct and indirect loss of 9,500 jobs, the National Naval Medical
Center Bethesda will have a total direct and indirect gain of 4,900 jobs, which would result in a
net loss of 4,600 jobs in the Washington Metropolitan region.
In addition to interstate job changes, there will be considerable intra-state gains. In the case of
Virginia, for example, Fort Belvoir will gain 21,000 jobs and Fort Lee will gain an estimated
12,000 jobs. This direct and indirect net increase in jobs will help to offset the closure of Fort
Monroe, located in Virginia. However, Virginia will still lose almost 40,000 jobs as shown in
Table 1.
Employment Changes as a Share of Total Employment
The last column of Table 2 also presents a ranking of states by the share of jobs lost in
metropolitan statistical areas. Total job losses as a share of total employment will be primarily
focused in rural areas. Some communities in Idaho will lose an estimated 8% of jobs. In
particular, the Mountain Home, Micropolitan Statistical Area in Idaho will be one of the most
affected regions in the nation, with a loss of nearly 1,200 jobs out of the total 14,000 jobs in the
area.
Another state that would have experienced considerable job losses as a share of total
employment—had it not been removed from the list of bases to be closed—was Alaska. The
Fairbanks MSA, and Yukon-Anchorage MSA, were expected to see employment losses of more
than 6%. In these areas, however, the BRAC Commission and the Department of Defense decided
not to close several military bases. This will result in job losses that are not as considerable as
those envisioned in the original BRAC Commission report.
In addition to Idaho and Alaska, states such as Kentucky (ranked third in job losses by
employment share), Mississippi (4th), and North Dakota (5th) will also experience considerable
Congressional Research Service
9
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
job losses as a share of total employment. In Kentucky, the Elizabethtown Metropolitan Statistical
Area will experience direct and indirect job losses of 2,500 workers. In Mississippi, the
Pascagoula, Metropolitan Statistical Area will see job losses of 1,800 workers. The GulfportBiloxi area will be affected by the realignment of Keesler Air Force Base. The closure of the
Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota will result in direct and indirect job losses of 2,800
jobs.
Figure 2 shows employment losses and gains as a result of BRAC aggregated at the state level.
States such as Alaska, Hawaii and Louisiana will suffer considerable net job losses.
Figure 2. Employment Losses and Gains at the State Level
Source: CRS estimates based on BRAC Commission 2005 Report.
In terms of job gains, the states of Florida, Maryland, Texas, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma and
Georgia (ranked by greatest gain in employment) will benefit from the transfer of military
employees and facilities. Eglin Air Force Base in Florida will gain an estimated 4,200 jobs as a
result of the development of the Joint Strike Fighter Initial Joint Training Site. In addition, the
Army’s 7th Special Forces Airborne Group will relocate to Eglin from Fort Bragg.
Federal Economic Development Assistance to State
and Local Governments
The federal government provides aid to local communities affected by military base closures and
realignments. Federal economic assistance covers a wide range of activities and agencies,
including, but not limited to
Congressional Research Service
10
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
planning and economic adjustment assistance provided by the Office of
Economic Adjustment of Department of Defense (DOD);
the Economic Development Administration (Department of Commerce);
the Rural Development Administration (Department of Agriculture);
environmental cleanup at military bases (DOD, EPA and other agencies);
disposal of surplus federal properties (DOD);
the Federal Airport Improvement Program (DOD and Department of
Transportation);
Community Development Block Grants (Department of Housing and Urban
Development); and
Community Service Grants (Department of Health and Human Services).
Although only some federal economic assistance programs provide a preference for BRAC
activities, communities affected by BRAC changes can access other economic development funds
available through their state and local governments.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimates that total federal aid to states and local
communities was $444 billion in FY2008, and will be $467 billion in FY2009.14 Federal funds
can be used by states and local communities to offset certain economic losses, including the
closure of military bases. According to OMB, state and local governments have a constitutional
responsibility to promote economic development, and the federal government has played an
important role in providing economic development assistance:
The Federal Government provides grants, loans, and tax subsidies to State and local
governments. Federal grants help State and local governments finance programs covering
most areas of domestic public spending, including income support, infrastructure,
education, and social services.15
Funds specifically targeted for community and regional development are estimated to be $17.1
billion in 2009.16 Several of these economic assistance and development programs, such as those
funded by DOD through the Office of Economic Adjustment, the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) in the Department of Commerce and Community Development Block
Grants (CDBG) in the Department of Housing and Urban Development, give priority to BRAC
related projects because legislation specifically authorizes funding for BRAC activities. These
entities and programs are discussed in more detail below.
Office of Economic Adjustment
Overview
The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) is the primary source of federal assistance in the
Department of Defense to assist communities affected by employment losses and gains as a result
14
Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government Fiscal Year 2009, February 2008, p.
107. About half of the $476 billion in federal funds to state and local governments is used to cover Medicaid payments
under the Department of Health and Human Services. Report available at http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/
fy2009/pdf/apers/crosscutting.pdf.
15
Ibid.
16
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
11
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
of BRAC.17 The OEA also serves as a coordinating agency to channel economic assistance for
communities affected by BRAC. Since 1988, the OEA has provided a total of $280 million in
funding for previous BRAC rounds, primarily to help communities prepare strategies for local
development efforts.
Type of Assistance
The Office of Economic Adjustment has provided assistance for communities, regions and states
to develop and implement plans to alleviate serious economic impacts that result from defense
program changes, including
base closings, expansions, and openings;
contract changes affecting firms; and
personnel reductions or increases at military facilities.
The OEA has also maintained close working relationships with other federal agencies that have
programs that can be utilized to assist communities adversely affected by defense cutbacks or
realignments. By design, the OEA plays a facilitating role in the economic adjustment process.
The affected community, however, must exercise the principal role in initiating and carrying out
the adjustment and conversion plan.
Funding
Currently, the OEA operates with a staff of 45 civilian and 3 military personnel. Funding for the
office has been provided in the Defense Appropriations bill under the general operations and
maintenance account. In previous budget estimates, the OEA has indicated that most communities
affected by a BRAC round receive assistance averaging $400,000 to $500,000 a year for three to
five years depending on individual circumstances. In addition, there have been a number of
congressional adjustments for specific sites over the years, in amounts as high as $10,000,000 in a
single year.18 Table 3 lists the amounts appropriated for FY2001-FY2008.
Table 3. Appropriations for Office of Economic Assistance FY2001-FY2008
(in millions of $)
Appropriated
FY2001
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
FY2005
FY2006
FY2007
FY2008
56.8
46.6
49.6
60.2
88.8
161.6
141.4
168.7
Source: Successive OEA budget estimates FY2001-FY2008, available at http://www.defenselink.mil/comptroller/
defbudget/fy2009/fy2009_o1.pdf under Operation and Maintenance Programs.
Economic Development Administration
Overview
The Public Works and Economic Development Act (PWEDA) of 1965 P.L. 89-136 (42 U.S.C. §
3121, 79 Stat 552), extended through 2004, authorizes economic adjustment grants to help
17
For more information, see http://www.oea.gov.
For example, in the latest defense appropriations act, Congress authorized additional construction funds for facilities
affected by BRAC.
18
Congressional Research Service
12
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
eligible communities respond to sudden changes in economic conditions, including those
resulting from natural disasters, changing trade patterns and military base closures.
Type of Assistance
The Economic Development Administration (EDA), has provided grants in excess of $640
million since the first BRAC round in 1988, and administered $274 million of DOD funds and $8
million from the Department of Energy, for defense adjustment projects involving closed military
bases. EDA grants are competitive and are made on a cost-share basis with local governments,
redevelopment agencies, and private or non-profit organizations. The grants include monies for
planning and technical assistance, infrastructure improvement, and revolving loan funds for
private business development.
Funding
PWEDA’s 2004 legislation (P.L. 108-373) authorizes the following amounts for economic
development assistance programs: $400 million in FY2004; $425 million in FY2005; $450
million in FY2006; $475 million in FY2007; and $500 million in FY2008. The statute also
authorizes $33.4 million in FY2004 and such sums as are necessary thereafter for salaries and
expenses. A minimum funding level of $27 million was established in the 2004 amendment for
the planning program.
Appropriations for EDA have declined as shown in Figure 3, with total funding falling below
$300 million in recent years. For FY2009, the Administration budget request included $40
million for economic adjustment assistance, $2.3 million less than appropriated in FY2008, and a
total of $132.8 million for EDA assistance, which is significantly less than the FY2008 enacted
amount of $279.9 million. On June 23, 2008, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommended
$232.8 million in funding for EDA activities ($200 million) and salaries and expenses ($32.8
million).19 This is $100 million more than requested by the Administration, but $47 million less
than appropriated in FY2008. In June 2008, the House Appropriations Committee also took
action on the appropriations measure. The Committee approved draft bill recommends an
appropriation of $282.8 million for EDA.20
19
CRS Report RL34540, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, coordinated by
(name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted)
.
20
Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
13
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Figure 3. EDA Funding FY1993-FY2008
EDA Funding FY1993-FY2008
Millions of Dollars
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
FY
19
FY 9 3
19
FY 9 4
19
FY 9 5
19
FY 9 6
19
FY 9 7
19
FY 9 8
19
FY 9 9
20
FY 0 0
20
FY 0 1
20
FY 0 2
20
FY 0 3
20
FY 0 4
20
FY 0 5
20
FY 0 6
20
FY 0 7
20
08
0
Source: EDA annual appropriations, OMB Budget of the United States for FY2009.
Community Development Block Grants
Overview
The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program was first authorized under Title I of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, P.L. 93-393, as amended (42 USC 5301).
It is one of the largest and longest-standing federal block grants in existence. Billions of dollars in
federal assistance to state and local governments have been allocated through CDBG.21
Type of Assistance
The program allows states and eligible local government grantees to fund 25 eligible activities
related to housing, community development, neighborhood revitalization, economic development,
and the provision of public services. One of the eligible activities is related to “the proposed or
actual establishment, realignment, or closure of a military installation.”22
Funding
Excluding mandatory grants to state and local governments, the CDBG program’s $3.6 billion
regular appropriation for FY2008 makes it one of the largest sources of grant assistance to state
and local governments. In addition to its regular appropriations, Congress has used the program to
21
CRS Report RL34504, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2009 Appropriations, by (name r
edacted) et al.
22
See 42 USC 5305 and 42 USC 5307 (b) (6).
Congressional Research Service
14
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
provide federal supplemental assistance to state and communities in their disaster recovery
efforts. This has included $3.483 billion in supplemental funding for September 11, 2001
recovery efforts in New York City, and $19.7 billion in supplemental assistance to the five states
(Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas) affected by the Gulf Coast hurricanes of
2005.23
Other Assistance
Department of Defense
In addition to activities funded by the Office of Economic Assistance, the Department of Defense
has responsibility for environmental reviews, land transfers and improvements in military
facilities. For example, Economic Development Conveyances (EDC) 24 are a vehicle for the
transfer of legal title to federal real and personal property located at a military installation that is
to be closed under the provisions of the Defense Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990
(DBCRA, or the BRAC law).25 The transfer of property at no-cost has resulted in revenues that
are not as high as originally anticipated by DoD, according to several reports by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO). 26 In 1994, GAO reviewed land disposal plans at 37 of the 120
bases closed in the 1988 and 1991 BRAC rounds.27 GAO reported less than $100 million in sales
and pending sales. Although DoD has not obtained fair market value for properties in the past,
GAO has reported that the majority of DoD savings are the result of not operating the bases.
As an economic development strategy, conveying the property at a lower cost than fair market
value may aid DoD in expediting the transfer of this property and may contribute to cost savings.
According to GAO, “DoD generated substantial net estimated savings (estimated total savings
minus costs) of about $29 billion through fiscal year 2003 from the previous four BRAC rounds,
and it expects to save about $7 billion annually thereafter. GAO estimates that these savings
actually reflect cost avoidances, or funds that DOD would likely have needed to operate BRAC
bases had they remained open.”28
Other DOD programs include
DOD responsibility and funding for environmental review and cleanup at closing
military facilities, which may support local jobs after a base is designated for
closure but before federal land is actually transferred.
23
See CRS Report RL33330, Community Development Block Grant Funds in Disaster Relief and Recovery, by (name r
edacted)
.
24
10 U.S.C. § 2687 note § 2905(b)(4).
25
10 U.S.C. § 2687 note, as amended. BRAC is the acronym for Base Realignment and Closure, the popular name
given to the process by which military installations are closed or realigned. The name comes from the Commission on
Base Realignment and Closure, a panel chartered by the Secretary of Defense in the late 1980s to recommend military
installations for significant downsizing or shuttering whose recommendation were subsequently authorized by
Congress for implementation (Defense Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1988,
P.L. 100-526, Sec. 201 et seq.). The four BRAC rounds initiated since 1991 have been carried out under the Defense
Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990.
26
For a compilation of all GAO studies related to BRAC, see http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/brac.html.
27
GAO, Reuse Plans for Selected Bases Closed in 1988 and 1991, GAO/NSIAD-95-3, Washington, November 1994.
p.5. Available at http://www.gao.gov/archive/1995/ns95003.pdf.
28
See http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05614.pdf, page 2.
Congressional Research Service
15
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
The transfer of military airports to civilian use under the Federal Airport
Improvement Program of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Other Agencies
There are a number of other federal agencies and activities that may help communities adversely
affected by base closures and realignments. For example, the federal government has established
programs to promote economic development in rural communities with populations of less than
50,000, administered by the Rural Development Administration of the Department of Agriculture.
Such assistance includes community facilities loans, rural business enterprise grants, business and
industrial guaranteed loans, and intermediary relending programs.
The Appendix includes a list of these programs, including information on FY2008 funding,
eligible entities and method for distribution of funds. Federal assistance and economic
development programs are available within the Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD), the Department of Commerce, Department of Agriculture and Department of Health and
Human Services.
Federal Assistance for Individual Workers
Displaced by BRAC activities
DOD Worker Assistance Programs
DOD has the authority to provide numerous incentives and transition benefits to departing
military personnel. These include early retirement incentives, temporary continuation of medical
care benefits, pre-separation counseling for separating service members, employment counseling
and placement assistance, relocation assistance, and special education benefits. In addition, the
Pentagon is also authorized to provide special benefits and incentives to civilian personnel
displaced by a defense drawdown. These include
advance notification of a reduction in force;
pre-separation counseling;
a hiring preference system with federal agencies to re-employ qualified displaced
DOD employees;
financial incentives to encourage early retirement of eligible employees; and
continued health insurance coverage for up to 18 months following involuntary
separation.29
Department of Labor Job Training Program for Dislocated Workers
Overview
The Workforce Investment Act of 199830 (WIA) provides assistance specifically for dislocated
workers. Dislocated workers are generally characterized as workers with an established work
29
For more information, see DOD’s webpage on assistance for civilian employees at http://www.cpms.osd.mil/
bractransition.
Congressional Research Service
16
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
history who have lost their jobs as a result of structural changes in the economy—including
employment loss as a result of military base closures—and who are not likely to find new jobs in
their former industries or occupations.
Formula Grants
Of the funds appropriated for the dislocated worker program for FY2008, approximately 88% are
for formula grants to states and 12% are for a national reserve, which primarily funds National
Emergency Grants (NEGs), discussed below.31 The governor can reserve not more than 15% of
the state’s formula grant for state level activities, and not more than 25% for “rapid response”
activities. At least 60% must be allocated to local workforce investment boards (WIBs) by a
formula prescribed by the governor. Rapid response activities are provided by specialists in the
state’s dislocated worker unit32 in the state’s workforce agency as soon as possible after learning
of a projected permanent closure or mass layoff. Activities include establishing onsite contact
with employers and employee representatives, providing information and access to available
employment and training activities, and providing assistance to the local community in
developing a coordinated response and in obtaining access to state economic development
assistance.
In addition to rapid response activities, there are three levels of services available to dislocated
workers: core, intensive, and training. To be eligible to receive intensive services, such as
comprehensive assessments and development of individual employment plans, an individual must
first receive at least one core service, such as job search assistance, and have been unable to either
obtain employment or retain employment that allows for self-sufficiency. To be eligible to receive
training services, such as occupational skills training and on-the-job training, an individual must
have received at least one intensive service, and must have been unable to obtain or retain
employment.
National Emergency Grants (NEGs)
NEGs, which are funded through the dislocated worker appropriation allotted to the national
reserve, provide supplemental dislocated worker funds to state workforce agencies and local
WIBs in order to meet the needs of dislocated workers and communities affected by significant
dislocation events that cannot be met with the formula allotments. In its May 24, 2005 Training
and Guidance Letter,33 DOL announced the availability of NEG funds to initiate planning for
workers expected to be effected by base closings or realignments, and to supplement WIA
formula funds for implementing a plan to provide employment-related services for workers. As of
February 27, 2008, DOL has awarded nearly $55 million in planning and implementation grants
to 38 states, the District of Columbia, and Guam.34
(...continued)
30
P.L. 105-220, 29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.
31
The statute at 29 U.S.C. 2862 [or WIA Section 132] species that of the funds appropriated for the dislocated worker
program, 80% are for formula grants to states and 20% are for a national reserve; the statutory language, however, is
overridden by the appropriations bills which specify the amounts allotted to the formula grants and to the national
reserve.
32
For a list of state rapid response unit coordinators, see http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/rapid_coord.cfm.
33
For more information, see http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL16-03_Ch2.pdf.
34
Source: Information provided by DOL on NEG funding from FY2003 though FY2007 and from
http://www.doleta.gov/neg/BRAC_awards.cfm updated February 27, 2008. In addition to these grants, DOL also
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Other Assistance
In addition to these federal programs designed to provide transition assistance to displaced
workers, a variety of other programs might also provide assistance to those affected by base
closure. These include the following:
Post-secondary education and training assistance for students under Title IV of
the Higher Education Act35; and vocational education programs under the Carl D.
Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act,36
Benefits related to past employment: Unemployment Compensation37 and
temporary health insurance continuation, and
Benefits related to financial need: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families,38
Food Stamps, subsidized school meals,39 Medicaid40 and housing assistance
furnished by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.41
Federal, state and local economic assistance programs identified by the Office of
Economic Adjustment (http://www.oea.gov), available in the “Catalog of Federal
Assistance for Impacted Communities.”
Issues for Congress
Important policy issues before Congress related to employment changes and economic
development as a result of BRAC-related activities include (1) the impact of military base
closures and expansions on local employment; (2) the flat level of funding for federal assistance
programs while anticipating an 80% increase from $17 billion to $32 billion in BRAC
construction costs; (3) housing for military staff displaced by BRAC, amidst the mortgage crisis;
(4) funding for communities experiencing growth through the defense access road program; (5)
delays in environmental cleanup that may cause difficulties in the economic redevelopment of
military facilities; and (6) redevelopment of military bases as refineries to promote economic
growth. These issues are discussed in more detail below.42
(...continued)
announced on March 26, 2008, a $5 million dislocated worker demonstration grant to assist Georgia in addressing the
civilian impacts of base realignment and closure transition, see http://www.doleta.gov/whatsnew/ new_releases/200803-26.cfm.
35
See CRS Report RL34654, The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, by
(name redacted) et al.
36
See CRS Report RL31747, The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998: Background and
Implementation, by (name redacted) .
37
See CRS Report RS22440, Unemployment Compensation (Insurance) and Military Service, by (name redacted) .
38
See CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block Grant: A Primer on TANF
Financing and Federal Requirements, by (name redacted)
.
39
See http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns for information on food stamps and subsided meals.
40
See CRS Report RL33202, Medicaid: A Primer, by (name redacted)
.
41
See CRS Report RL34591, Overview of Federal Housing Assistance Programs and Policy, by (name redacted) et al.
42
Two bills were the primary vehicles for providing funds for BRAC-related activities in the 110th Congress. Title I of
the Military Construction and Veterans Affairs Appropriations Act of 2009 (H.R. 6599) and Title I of the parallel
Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 5658) allocate funding for projects associated with BRAC.
Under the Department of Defense, appropriations and authorizations bills mirror each other. Each Title and sub-section
in one bill is required to mirror the other. For example, Title I in H.R. 6599 (Appropriations) is the same as Title I in
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
18
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Impacts on Communities
One of the most important issues for Congress is the impact of base closures and expansions on
local communities. Recent experience with the base closure and reuse process has shown that the
major problems facing communities include the effectiveness of Local Redevelopment
Authorities (LRAs)43 in obtaining funding, developing plans and organizing public-private
partnerships; reconciling of competing demands for the assets; sometimes unrealistic federal
appraisals of base assets; local funding constraints; the lack of short term interim leases from the
federal government; facilities that are not in compliance with local codes; land use constraints;
conservation issues; and excessive levels of environmental contamination.
The economic vulnerability of these communities and states to such job losses will depend upon
the rate at which jobs are eliminated at closed or realigned facilities, the success of displaced
workers in finding new jobs in the area, and the success of each state and community in
generating new job opportunities at closed military facilities, and elsewhere within the
community or state economy.
The issue of timing in base conversion, realignment and closure is also important for
communities. All parties are generally interested in moving the base conversion process along as
fast as possible. While the public interest generally may be served by moving as quickly as
practicable, some of the necessary steps, such as the environmental impact assessment and any
necessary cleanup, often require more time. Delay can also be caused by difficulties in getting
local governments to work cooperatively within redevelopment programs.
An earlier analysis conducted by CRS of the previous four BRAC rounds—based on statistics
compiled by the Department of Defense—found that military base closures had limited impact on
levels of unemployment in local communities.44 The effects at the state level were also relatively
small. Of the states that experienced military and civilian job losses directly and indirectly
resulting from BRAC actions for the previous four BRAC rounds, all experienced estimated
losses amounting to 0.4% or less of total jobs in each state. For the 2005 BRAC round, states are
estimated to experience job losses of less than 0.3%; many communities will experience
considerable increases in employment.45
Increase in BRAC Construction Costs
In 2005, DOD originally estimated that construction costs related to BRAC would total $17.9
billion from 2006 to 2011. However, the FY2009 request had increased from the original 2005
estimate by nearly 80% to $32.0 billion. The considerable increase in construction costs has made
(...continued)
H.R. 5658 (Authorization). The same holds for the Senate versions of the bills (S. 3301 and S. 3001). Funds may be
used for a range of purposes related to the BRAC process, including construction of roads and military facilities, and
housing assistance for military personnel forced to transfer as a result of BRAC and unable to sell their homes. H.R.
6599 passed in the House on August 1, 2008. H.R. 5658 was passed by the House on May 22, 2008.
43
The role and effectiveness of the Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) is critical to the success of communities.
The LRA identifies local reuse needs and conceives a redevelopment plan for the Department of Defense to consider in
the disposal of base property. LRAs should have broad-based membership, including, but not limited to, those
jurisdictions with zoning authority over the property.
44
See CRS Report 96-562, Military Base Closures Since 1988: Status and Employment Changes at the Community and
State Level, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).
45
BRAC Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to the President, Washington,
DC, September 8, 2005. See Appendix O.
Congressional Research Service
19
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
the 2005 BRAC round one of the most expensive of the five BRAC rounds implemented.46
Although BRAC appropriations requests for the 2005 round had been fully funded by Congress,
the Senate’s recommendation for FY2009 would reduce appropriations by 1% of the President’s
request.47
A policy issue for Congress is consideration of the adequacy of funding for federal assistance
programs amidst an increase in costs for internal BRAC-related construction inside and around
military facilities. While cost estimates for BRAC construction have increased from $17 billion in
2005 to $32 billion in 2009, funding for federal assistance programs to communities has remained
flat. An important question for Congress is how or whether to aid communities that will
experience an influx of hundreds of thousands of staff by the statutory deadline of September
2011. Although the expected increase in construction may lead to economic growth in selected
communities, state and local governments may have to fund projects related to economic
development. What is the role of the federal, state and local governments in supporting
communities affected by employment increases or losses and what is the appropriate level of
funding required to adjust to growth in employment, housing, traffic demand, and military
construction?
BRAC Homeowners’ Assistance Program
The DOD Homeowners’ Assistance Program (HAP) supports military housing privatization and
the program predates the 1988 BRAC process. The Homeowners Assistance Fund is a subcomponent of this program, and may provide economic assistance to military personnel affected
by a relocation as a result of BRAC activities.48 In particular, funding is available for staff unable
to sell their homes due to declining home values as a result of a military base closure. Because of
the turmoil in the housing markets, an increase in requests for this type of assistance may be
expected. In addition, the downturn in the national economy, tightening of credit markets, and
uncertainty in the financial sector may have an important economic development impact over
housing prices and stock. State and local governments may seek federal DOD resources to offset
decreases in revenue as a result of the economic downturn.
46
Some analysts have questioned the issue of BRAC-related cost-savings. A report by GAO concluded that cost
savings were not on the level expected by the BRAC Commission in its plan. According to GAO: “Since the BRAC
Commission issued its cost and savings estimates in 2005, DOD will spend more, save less, and take longer than
expected to recoup up-front costs to implement two recommendations intended to improve DOD’s logistics systems.
Over the 2006—2011 BRAC time frame to implement these recommendations, GAO’s analysis of DLA’s data
indicates that estimated net savings will be reduced by more than $1.8 billion compared to the BRAC Commission’s
estimate, with a net cost of about $222 million to DOD. [ ... ] GAO’s analysis further shows that the projected net
annual recurring savings after 2011 have been reduced from nearly $360 million to almost $167 million, and that the
savings over 20 years are expected to be $1.4 billion rather than $4.8 billion as estimated by the Commission.” See
GAO Report GAO-08-159, Military Base Realignments and Closures: Cost Estimates Have Increased and Are Likely
to Continue to Evolve, December 11, 2007. Also see GAO Report GAO-08-315, Military Base Realignments and
Closures: Higher Costs and Lower Savings Projected for Implementing Two Key Supply-Related BRAC
Recommendations, March 5, 2008. For both reports, see http://www.gao.gov/docsearch/featured/brac.html.
47
See CRS Report RL34558, Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations,
by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redacted)
.
48
According to DOD, “The Homeowners Assistance Program (HAP) is authorized in Section 1013 of the
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, as amended. The law provides some monetary relief
to eligible service member (including Coast Guard) and federal employee (including non-appropriated fund)
homeowners who suffer financial loss on the sale of their primary residences when a base closure or realignment
announcement causes a decline in the residential real estate market and they are not able to sell their homes under
reasonable terms or conditions.” See http://hap.usace.army.mil/Overview.html.
Congressional Research Service
20
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
In the 111th Congress, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA, P.L. 111-5)
provided $555 million for the Homeowner’s Assistance Fund as part of the Homeowner’s
Assistance Program, for the acquisition of property at or near military installations that have been
ordered to be closed. P.L. 111-117 provided an additional $323 million for the HAP program.
To be eligible for funding, the applicant must have been the owner-occupant of the property on
May 13, 2005, or prior to July 1, 2006, and must sell home prior to 30 September 2012; the
property must be a primary residence. A determination must be made that real estate values have
dropped as a direct result of the base closing or realignment announcement. Applicants must be
relocating beyond commuting distance from the area. Homeowner’s assistance can also be
provided for wounded soldiers in the Armed Forces, Department of Defense and Coast Guard
civilian employees and spouses. In addition, temporary homeowner assistance is provided for
members of the armed forces permanently reassigned during the current mortgage crisis. Also
eligible are personnel transferred or terminated within six months prior to the announcement who
were owner-occupants at the time of transfer. Additional information on the Homeowner’s
Assistance Program is available from the Office of Economic Adjustment and the Department of
Defense.49
Recovery Zone Economic Development Bonds
In addition to funding for the Housing Improvement Program, ARRA includes funding for areas
that are economically distressed due to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process.50
Recovery Zones are defined as areas with significant poverty, unemployment, home foreclosures
or general distress. Recovery Zones may include Empowerment Zones, Renewal Communities
and areas affected by military base closures. Bonds are to be used for “(1) capital expenditures
paid or incurred with respect to property located in such zone [recovery zone], (2) expenditures
for public infrastructure and construction of public facilities, and (3) expenditures for job training
and educational programs.”51 A total of $10 billion has been allocated for the program, to be
allocated among the states according to the decline in employment during 2008. A minimum
allocation of at least 0.9 percent of the $10 billion is designated for each state. For additional
information, see CRS Report R40523, Tax Credit Bonds: Overview and Analysis, by (name r
edacted).
Defense Access Road Program
The Defense Access Road Program (DAR) allows DOD to pay for public highway improvements
required as a result of sudden or unusual defense-generated traffic impacts such as BRAC-related
activities. Although DOD does not fund highways outside military bases, access roads to military
installations may be funded under this program and some communities have already benefitted.
For example, $36 million from DAR will fund the design and construction of installation
entrances in Fort Belvoir, Virginia. Projects are eligible for funding if they are related to military
activities such as BRAC actions, if a defense action will result in a doubling of traffic, or if a new
road is needed to accommodate special military vehicles. Given the projected decline in state and
local government coffers due to decreased economic activity at the national level, federal
49
See http://hap.usace.army.mil/ and Frequently Asked Questions at http://hap.usace.army.mil/FAQs.html.
26 U.S.C. 1400U-1(b).
51
26 U.S.C. 1400U-1(c).
50
Congressional Research Service
21
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
assistance for road construction could become an increasingly important component of economic
development.
Environmental Cleanup
The amount of funds and time required to complete the environmental review and cleanup of
closed military bases will depend on the type and extent of contamination present on those
properties, and the actions that will be necessary to make the land safe for civilian reuse. Cleanup
can take many years, as the continuing cleanup of certain bases closed between 1988 and 1995
demonstrates. As in prior rounds, availability of funding and capabilities of cleanup technologies
could limit the degree of cleanup on bases closed in the 2005 round, making certain land uses
infeasible and posing challenges to economic redevelopment. In deliberations over the 2005
round, some Members of Congress and the BRAC Commission expressed concern that DOD’s
estimates could be undervalued because they do not reflect all possible land uses and the
corresponding degree of cleanup that may be necessary to redevelop these bases.
A policy issue for Congress is related to the timing of base closures, particularly in relation to
environmental contamination and cleanup of military facilities. Environmental contamination of
military bases poses special problems that affect the types and timing of reuse activities, and has
consumed about one-fourth of the money appropriated for base closures since 1988. Congress
continues to address this problem legislatively, but additional concerns and responses seem likely
in the future.
BRAC Facility Redevelopment for Refineries
Subtitle C, Section 2722 of the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2009, H.R. 5658, requires that the Secretary of Defense will prepare and submit a report by
October 1, 2009 evaluating the feasibility of using military installations selected for closure under
BRAC as locations for the construction of petroleum or natural gas refineries or nuclear power
plants. The conversion of military facilities into refineries may have important economic
development impacts on local communities where these installations are located.
Concluding Observations
The Base Realignment and Closure process has affected communities nationwide since 1988.
Congressional districts have been affected economically by defense spending cuts and the
employment losses and gains from the four previous BRAC rounds. In general, the 2005 BRAC
round is more focused on realignment instead of base closures. With an expected shift of nearly
200,000 military and civilian staff nationwide, there will be increasing demand for economic
assistance to plan for BRAC-related growth in communities. Communities that gain jobs will
have to plan for population and economic growth that may result in greater demand for housing,
infrastructure, services and increases in traffic, with 173,000 military and civilian staff expected
to arrive in the top 20 military facilities gaining employment.
In addition, the balance between Congress, DOD, and the executive branch in deciding what
bases to close will continue to be an important issue. Members of Congress are interested in the
impact of military base closures on their local districts, and the economic impact of employment
declines and gains. BRAC, however, is a process more focused on national security requirements
and less on economic development. Observers note that if federal economic assistance programs
do not meet redevelopment needs, local communities may face the unanticipated responsibility of
funding efforts to adjust to increases and declines in military facilities at the state and local levels.
Congressional Research Service
22
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
With respect to employment changes at the regional level, the closure and realignment of
facilities will result in the direct and indirect transfer of military, civilian and contractor jobs
throughout the nation. Some communities will experience an increase in employment whereas
others will see a decrease in military jobs; the impact will vary depending on the individual
characteristics of the affected areas. A major factor that will affect economic impact is the total
share of jobs lost or gained as a share of total employment at the metropolitan or micropolitan
level. Rural communities that tend to be smaller and have a less diversified economic base, may
experience a greater impact than large urban centers with a diverse economy. Communities that
gain jobs will have to plan for population growth that may result in greater demand for housing,
infrastructure, services and increases in traffic. Communities that lose jobs may have to focus on
economic and community development programs such as CDBG and EDA that can help to offset
the impact of decreases in employment.52
52
See Peter L. Sternberg and Thomas D. Rowley, “A comparison of military base closures in metro and non-metro
counties,” Government Finance Review, October 1993.
Congressional Research Service
23
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Appendix. List of Federal Economic and
Community Development Programs
Table A-1. List of Federal Economic and Community Development Programs
Program Name, Description
FY2008 Funding
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Development Block
Grants
Formula-based block grants allocated
to states and local governments in
support of neighborhood
revitalization, economic development,
and housing activities. Communities
may use block grants to support 23
categories of eligible activities. 70% of
funds must be used on eligible
activities and projects that principally
benefit low- or moderate-income
persons. Includes BRAC preference.
FY2008 enacted: $3.866 billion
50 states, Puerto Rico,
metropolitan-based entitlement
communities (metropolitan cities
with populations of 50,000 or
more and urban counties). In
FY2005, there were 1,032
entitlement communities. $7
million is set aside for insular
areas including Guam, American
Samoa, and the Virgin Islands.
CDBG set-asides
Formula-based block grants.
Funds are distributed to state and local
governments based on the higher yield
from one of two needs-based formulas.
(1) 30% of funds are allocated to states
for distribution to communities that do
not receive a direct allocation. States
receive funds based on one of two
formulas:
—Formula A allocates funds based on
each state’s share of population,
poverty, and overcrowded housing;
—Formula B allocates funds based on
each state’s share of poverty, housing
built before 1939, and population.
(2) 70% of funds are allocated to
entitlement communities based on one
of two formulas:
—Formula A allocates funds based on
each entitlement community’s share of
population, poverty, and housing built
before 1939 (age of housing);
—Formula B allocates funds based on
each entitlement community’s share of
poverty, overcrowded housing, and the
lag in population growth.
Project grants.
Neighborhood Initiative
FY2008 enacted: $26 million
Congressionally selected
community development
corporations.
Congress allocates funds to a diverse
group of recipients. Program was
originally targeted to community
development corporations involved in
neighborhood revitalization.
Economic Dev. Initiative
FY2008 enacted: $180 million
No specific criteria establishing
eligibility for funding.
Congress grants funds to a diverse
groups of recipients including
universities, community colleges,
nonprofit entities, local governments.
Funds are used to support a variety of
activities including recreation, literacy,
historic preservation, job training,
feasibility studies, public services. No
specific list of eligible activities.
Congressional Research Service
24
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Program Name, Description
FY2008 Funding
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
National Community Development
Initiative (Living Cities) Program
supports local community
development corporations involved in
neighborhood revitalization.
FY2008 enacted: $35 million
Local Initiative Support
Corporation and the Enterprise
Foundation (national nonprofit
intermediaries). The two
nonprofit intermediaries support
neighborhood revitalization
efforts of local community
development corporations.
More than 300 community
development corporations in 23
selected cities have been
involved in the program.
Project grants.
Federal funds are used in coordination
with investments from foundations and
corporations in support of
redevelopment efforts in distressed
urban neighborhoods. Working
through two national intermediaries,
the Local Initiative Support
Corporation and the Enterprise
Foundation, local community
development corporations receive
technical and financial assistance in
support of their revitalization efforts.
More than $250 million in private
sector funds from 14 participating
corporate and foundation entities have
been used in the program since its
inception in 1991.
Brownfields Econ. Dev. Initiative
(BEDI) Funds are use to reclaim
contaminated sites for adaptive reuse.
FY2008 enacted: $10 million
State and local governments are
direct recipients of funds.
Subgrantees or beneficiaries may
include businesses or nonprofits
involved in job creation
activities.
Project grants.
BEDI funds must be used in
coordination with CDBG Sec. 108 loan
guarantees. These grants and the
accompanying Sec. 108 loan guarantees
must be consistent with a community’s
CDBG plan and must meet the same
income targeting requirements as the
CDBG program. In 2004, HUD
selected 17 communities to receive
$24.6 million in BEDI grants and $119
million in loan guarantees.
Rural Housing and Econ. Dev.
Grants
Grants are awarded for two
categories of activities:
(1) capacity building; and (2) support
for innovative housing and economic
development activities. Grants are
limited to $150,000 under the first
category, and $400,000 under the
second category.
FY2008 enacted: $17 million
Local rural nonprofits,
community development
corporations, state housing
finance agencies, state
community and economic
agencies, and federally
recognized Indian tribes.
Project grants.
Applications are evaluated and rated
based on five rating factors:
(1) capacity of the applicant and
relevant organizational experience
(25 points);
(2) need and extent of the problem
(25 points);
(3) soundness of approach (25 points);
(4) leveraging resources (10 points);
and
(5) achieving program results and
evaluation (15 points).
Grants are awarded to applicants
securing the highest scores.
Congressional Research Service
25
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Program Name, Description
FY2008 Funding
CDBG Sec. 108 Loan Guarantees
Allow states and CDBG entitlement
communities to borrow up to five
times their annual CDBG allocations
to finance eligible large-scale economic
development projects.
FY2008 enacted: $5 million
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
CDBG entitlement communities
and states on behalf of
nonentitlement communities are
direct recipients of funds.
Subgrantees or beneficiaries may
include nonprofits and for-profit
entities involved in job creation
activities.
Loan guarantees.
Open application process. Applications
are reviewed by HUD to determine
compliance with national objectives of
the CDBG program and feasibility of
the project. Among the factors used to
assess loan risk are the following:
(1) the length of the proposed
repayment period;
(2) the ratio of expected annual debt
service requirements to the expected
annual grant amount awarded to the
state or entitlement community;
(3) the likelihood that the public entity
or state will continue to receive CDBG
assistance during the proposed
repayment period;
(4) the public entity’s ability to furnish
adequate financial security; and
(5) the amount of program income the
proposed activities are reasonably
expected to contribute to repayment
of the guaranteed loan.
Department of Commerce
Economic Development
Administration (EDA) Agency
administers several economic
development programs, including
public works grants for upgrading
infrastructure, planning, and trade
adjustment assistance. Eligible projects
must:(1) improve the opportunities for
business creation or expansion; (2)
assist in the creation of additional
permanent private-sector jobs; or (3)
benefit low-income persons including
those who are unemployed or
underemployed. Includes BRAC
preference.
FY2008 enacted: $280 million
Congressional Research Service
Economic Development
Districts (EDD) are multi-county
organizations established to
promote economic development
and job creation. EDA provides
assistance to 327 EDDs. The
areas designated as EDDs must
meet one of three criteria: (1)
low per capita income; (2)
unemployment higher than the
national average; (3) sudden
economic dislocation or
persistent and long-term
economic distress. Funds may
also be awarded to states, cities,
and other political subdivisions
and other organizations.
Competitive grants.
Generally, EDA administers a number
of competitive project grants. Grants
may not exceed 50% of the cost of the
project. Projects meeting certain
specified criteria and for areas
characterized as severely depressed
may be eligible for additional funding
not to exceed 30% of the cost of the
project. Projects must be located in
economically distressed areas including
those experiencing high unemployment
or low incomes. Priority is given to
projects:
(1) in areas with persistently high rates
of poverty;
(2) involving previously unserved
distressed areas and applicants;
(3) involving innovative partnerships
and private investment leveraging;
(4) that support sub-state regional
networks and collaborations; and (5) in
areas undergoing significant economic
downturns and dislocations.
26
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Program Name, Description
FY2008 Funding
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business Opportunity
Grants
Grants to public bodies, nonprofit
organizations, Indian tribes, and
cooperatives for training and assistance
to rural businesses, economic planning
for rural areas, and training for rural
entrepreneurs.
FY2008 enacted: $15 million
A rural area is defined as a city,
town, or unincorporated area
that has a population of 50,000
or less and is not an urbanized
area immediately adjacent to a
city, town, or unincorporated
area that has a population in
excess of 50,000 persons.
Competitive grants.
Grant selection criteria include the
extent to which:
(1) economic activity generated by the
project is sustainable;
(2) the project leverages funds from
other sources;
(3) the project will induce additional
economic benefits;
(4) the targeted community has
experienced long-term population or
job loss;
(5) the proposed project will serve a
community that may be experiencing
economic trauma due to natural
disaster, base closure, or exodus or
downsizing by a major employer;
(6) the project would be located in a
community that may be characterized
as chronically poor.
Department of Health and Human Services
Community Services Block
Grants
Provide assistance to states and local
communities, working through a
network of community action agencies
and other neighborhood-based
organizations for the reduction of
poverty, the revitalization of lowincome communities, and the
empowerment of low-income families
and individuals in rural and urban
areas.
FY2008 enacted: $665 million
50 states, Puerto Rico, Indian
tribes, and the territories of
Guam, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands, and the Northern
Mariana Islands.
Formula block grants.
HHS is required under the CSBG Act
to reserve 1.5% of appropriated funds
for training and technical assistance and
other administrative activities, of which
half of this set-aside must be provided
to state or local entities. Also, half of
1% of funding is reserved for outlying
territories (Guam, American Samoa,
the Virgin Islands, and the Northern
Mariana Islands). Block grants are
allotted to states and Puerto Rico
based on the relative amount received
in each state, in FY1981, under a
section of the former Economic
Opportunity Act. HHS may allow
Indian tribes to receive their allotments
directly, rather than through the state.
States are required to pass through at
least 90% of their federal block grant
allotments to “eligible entities.” There
are more than 1,000 eligible entities
around the country, of which
approximately 80% are private
nonprofit organizations and about 20%
are public agencies.
Community Economic
Development
The purpose of the Community
Economic Development discretionary
grant program is to promote and
support projects that address
Nonprofit community
development corporations
including charitable, faith-based,
Indian, and Alaskan Native
organizations.
Competitive discretionary grants.
Funds are awarded at the Secretary’s
discretion. This program is one of the
related activities authorized by the
CSBG Act. The program supports local
community development corporations’
National Youth Sports Program, and
Congressional Research Service
27
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Program Name, Description
FY2008 Funding
Eligible Entities
economic self-sufficiency for lowincome persons and distressed
communities by awarding funds to
community development corporations
(CDCs) to create employment and
business development opportunities.
Each year approximately 40-45 grants
are awarded with a maximum grant
award level of $700,000.
FY2008 enacted: $33 million
Formula or Distribution Method
efforts to generate employment and
business development opportunities for
low-income residents. Projects must:
(1) directly benefit persons living at or
below the poverty level and (2) be
capable of being completed within 12
to 60 months of the date the grant was
awarded. Preference is given to
projects that document public/private
partnership including the leveraging of
cash and in-kind contributions.
Preference is also given to projects
located in areas characterized by
poverty and other indicators of
socioeconomic distress, such as a
Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families (TANF) assistance rate of at
least 20%, designation as an
Empowerment Zone or Enterprise
Community (EZ/EC), high levels of
unemployment, high levels of
incidences of violence, gang activity,
crime, drug use, and low-income
noncustodial parents of children
receiving TANF.
Job Opportunities for Low-Income
Individuals (JOLI)
FY2008 enacted: $5 million
Nonprofit, tax-exempt
organizations including faithbased and community
development corporations and
charitable organizations.
Competitive discretionary grants.
This program is a set-aside within the
Community Economic Development
Program. The program provides grants
to community based, nonprofit
organizations to demonstrate and
evaluate ways of creating new
employment opportunities with private
employers for individuals receiving
TANF and other low-income
individuals whose family income level
does not exceed 100% of the poverty
guidelines. Projects to help with this
effort include self-employment and
micro-enterprises, new businesses,
expansion of existing businesses, or
creating new jobs or employment
opportunities.
Rural Community Facilities
FY2008 enacted: $8 million
Tax-exempt nonprofit
organizations, states, and local
governments.
Competitive discretionary grant.
This program is one of the related
activities under the community
economic development component of
the CSBG. Grants are provided to
nonprofit organizations that train and
offer technical assistance on water and
waste water facilities management and
home repair to low-income families,
and that develop low-income rental
housing units in rural communities.
Approximately 8 water and wastewater
projects are funded annually.
Congressional Research Service
28
Economic Development Assistance for Communities Affected by BRAC
Program Name, Description
FY2008 Funding
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
Small Business Administration
Historically Underutilized Business
Zone (HUBZone). Includes BRAC
preference.
Census tracts are eligible in the
50 states. Information is
available at http://www.sba.gov/
hubzone
Provides federal contracting
preferences to small businesses. These
preferences go to small businesses that
obtain HUBZone certification in part
by employing staff who live in a
HUBZone. The company must also
maintain a principal office in one of
these specially designated areas.
Source: Compiled by CRS from the Budget Appendix.
Notes: Not all federal economic assistance programs listed in the table have a preference for communities
affected by BRAC. A program identified in italics is a component of the program preceding it in roman type.
Author Contact Information
(name redacted)
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
[redacted]@crs.loc.gov, 7-....
Congressional Research Service
29
EveryCRSReport.com
The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the
Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on
issues that may come before Congress.
EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The
reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to
the public.
Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts
who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made
any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.
CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in
the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without
permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a
third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or
otherwise use copyrighted material.
Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public
understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in
connection with CRS' institutional role.
EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim
copyright on any CRS report we have republished.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.