Order Code RL33137
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Military Base Closures and the Impact Aid
Program for Education
November 4, 2005
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Social Legislation
Domestic Social Policy Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Military Base Closures and
the Impact Aid Program for Education
Summary
Congress authorizes the Department of Defense (DoD) to realign or close
military installations to meet the changing military requirements facing the United
States and to reduce the costs of maintaining excess military infrastructure. DoD
compiles a list of recommended Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) actions that
is then submitted to an independent BRAC Commission to review. The Commission
subsequently submits its list of recommended actions to the President. The most
recent BRAC Commission submitted its recommendations for base closures and
realignment to the President on September 8, 2005. After agreeing with the
recommendations, the President sent the Commission report to Congress on
September 15, 2005. Congress has 45 days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval;
otherwise, the recommendations become law.
The 2005 BRAC recommendations include the closure of 22 major military
installations and the realignment of 33 others. The effect of these changes includes
both an estimated savings of $35.6 billion for the military over the next 20 years and
socioeconomic impacts on the communities affected by the changes. Included in
these socioeconomic impacts are the effects on local educational agencies (LEA)
serving children affected by the BRAC recommendations.
Under the Impact Aid program, the federal government provides financial
assistance to LEAs adversely affected by the activities of the federal government.
The program provides various types of payments, including compensation to LEAs
for the federal ownership of certain property, funds for school construction, and
compensation to LEAs enrolling federally connected children. Federally connected
children include, for example, children whose parents are in the Armed Forces, as
well as children whose parents are employed on federal property, such as a military
installation. Educating federally connected children imposes a service burden,
revenue burden, or both on an LEA, as the LEA may not receive the benefit of tax
revenues to support their education.
LEAs losing or gaining federally connected students as a result of the BRAC
recommendations may experience substantial challenges. These challenges may be
created by the significant changes required by the BRAC recommendations but may
also stem from the structure of the Impact Aid program. For LEAs experiencing a
decline in enrollment, the LEAs may need to release staff or consolidate students into
a smaller number of facilities. The structure of the Impact Aid program will provide
these LEAs with a relatively brief period of time to make necessary adjustments
without a loss of funding. For LEAs gaining federally connected students as a result
of the BRAC recommendations, the structure of the Impact Aid program delays these
LEAs from receiving immediate Impact Aid payments to adjust to the change in
enrollment.
This report will be updated as needed.

---

Contents
Overview of the Impact Aid Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of Base Realignment and Closure Recommendations . . . . . . . . . 4
Possible Effects of Base Closure and Realignment on School Districts
Serving Federally Connected Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
LEAs Losing Federally Connected Students as a Result of BRAC . . . . 7
LEAs Gaining Federally Connected Students as a Result of BRAC . . . 8
School Districts’ Responses to Troop Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Tables
Table 1. Types of “Federally Connected” Children and Relevant Weights . . . . . 3
Table 2. Communities Expecting to Gain the Largest Number of Direct Positions as
a Result of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Communities Expecting to Lose the Largest Number of Direct Positions as
a Result of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

---

Military Base Closures and
the Impact Aid Program for Education
Congress authorizes the Department of Defense (DoD) to realign or close
military installations to meet the changing military requirements facing the United
States and to reduce the costs of maintaining excess military infrastructure. DoD
compiles a list of recommended Base Realignment and Closing (BRAC) actions that
is then submitted to an independent BRAC Commission to review. The Commission
subsequently submits its list of recommended actions to the President. The most
recent BRAC Commission submitted its recommendations for base closures and
realignment to the President on September 8, 2005. After agreeing with the
recommendations, the President sent the Commission report to Congress on
September 15, 2005. Congress has 45 days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval;
otherwise, the recommendations become law.
The 2005 BRAC recommendations include the closure of 22 major military
installations and the realignment of 33 others. The effect of these changes includes
both an estimated savings of $35.6 billion for the military over the next 20 years1 and
socioeconomic impacts on the communities affected by the changes. Included in
these socioeconomic impacts are the effects on local educational agencies (LEA)
serving children affected by the BRAC recommendations.2
Under the Impact Aid program, the federal government provides financial
assistance to LEAs adversely affected by the activities of the federal government. It
provides various types of payments, including compensation to LEAs for the federal
ownership of certain property, funds for school construction, and compensation to
LEAs enrolling federally connected children. Federally connected children include,
for example, children whose parents are in the Armed Forces, as well as children
whose parents are employed on federal property, such as a military installation. LEAs
1 The BRAC Commission and the General Accountability Office believe that DoD’s claimed
cost avoidances attributable to military personnel actions should be excluded from the cost
savings calculation, resulting in a savings of $15 billion over 20 years. (Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission Report, Executive Summary, Sept. 2005. Available online at
[http://www.brac.gov]. Hereafter referred to as BRAC, Commission Report, Executive
Summary.)
2 For detailed information about the BRAC Commission’s final report and proposed
legislation, see CRS Report RS22061, Military Base Closures: The 2005 BRAC
Commission, by Daniel Else and David Lockwood. For additional information about
military base closures and the socioeconomic impacts of these closures, see CRS Report
RS22147, Military Base Closures: Socioeconomic Impacts, by Tadlock Cowan and Baird
Webel. (Herafter referred to as CRS Report, CRS Report RS22147, Military Base
Closures.)

---

CRS-2
losing or receiving federally connected students as a result of the BRAC
recommendations may experience substantial challenges. These challenges may be
created by the significant changes required by the BRAC recommendations but may
also stem from the structure of the Impact Aid program.
The first part of this report provides a brief overview of the Impact Aid program,
including the calculation of Impact Aid payments to LEAs, and an overview of the
BRAC recommendations. This is followed by a discussion of the potential effects
of the BRAC recommendations on LEAs that will both lose and gain students as a
result of the changes. The report concludes with a brief discussion of actions that
have been taken by LEAs in anticipation of large influxes of federally connected
students.
Overview of the Impact Aid Program
The Impact Aid program was established in 1950 by P.L. 81-874 and P.L. 81-
815. P.L. 81-874 authorized financial assistance for maintenance and operations to
local educational agencies (LEA) adversely affected by the activities of the federal
government. The Improving America’s School Act of 1994 (IASA, P.L. 103-382),
which reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA),
repealed P.L. 81-874 and P.L. 81-815, and included the Impact Aid program in ESEA
Title VIII. The Impact Aid program was most recently reauthorized by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110), extending the program authorization
through 2007.3
The Impact Aid program supports various types of payments, including
compensation to LEAs for the federal ownership of certain property (Section 8002),
funds for school construction and facilities upgrades (Section 8007), and
compensation to LEAs enrolling federally connected children (Section 8003). The
latter is the most relevant payment for the purposes of this report, as it provides
compensation to districts enrolling military students living on or off base. More
specifically, federally connected children are children who reside with a parent who
is a member of the Armed Forces living on or off federal property; reside with a
parent who is an accredited foreign military officer living on federal property; reside
on Indian lands; reside in low-rent public housing; or reside with a parent who is a
civilian working and/or living on federal property.
From the inception of the Impact Aid program, federally connected children
have been placed in different categories that are assigned corresponding weights
based on the burden they impose on LEAs. The burden imposed by federally
connected children results from a service burden, a revenue burden, or both. The
service burden is a result of LEAs having to educate federally connected children
without receiving the benefit of tax revenues to support their education. The revenue
burden stems from the existence of federal property within the LEA that is not
subject to property taxes.
3 For additional information about the types of payments made under the Impact Aid
program, see CRS Report RL31885, Impact Aid for Public K-12 Education: General
Overview and Current Status, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Richard N. Apling.

---

CRS-3
The burdens imposed by various categories of federally connected children are
reflected in the weights assigned to each type of child. Table 1 contains the current
weights for each category of federally connected children.
Table 1. Types of “Federally Connected” Children and Relevant
Weights
Children attending school in the LEA who:
Weight
Shorthand designation
reside on federal property with a parent
1.0
“a” children
employed on federal property situated in
whole or in part within the boundaries of the
LEA [Section 8003 (a)(1)(A)(i)]
reside on federal property with a parent who is
1.0
“a” children
an official of, and accredited by, a foreign
government and is a foreign military officer
[(Section 8003 (a)(1) A)(ii)]
reside on federal property and have a parent on
1.0
“a” children
active duty in the uniformed services [Section
8003 (a)(1)(B)]
reside on Indian lands [Section 8003
1.25
“a” children
(a)(1)(C)]
have a parent on active duty in the uniformed
0.2
“b” children
services but do not reside on federal property
[Section 8003 (a)(1)(D)(i)]
have a parent who is an official of, and has
0.2
“b” children
been accredited by, a foreign government and
is a foreign military officer but does not reside
on federal property [Section 8003
(a)(1)(D)(ii)]
reside in low-rent public housing [Section
0.1
“b” children
8003 (a)(1)(E)]
reside on federal property and are not
0.05
“b” children
described in Subparagraph (A) or (B) [Section
8003 (a)(1)(F)]
reside with a parent who works on federal
0.05
“b” children
property situated —
(i) in whole or in part in the county in
which such LEA is located, or in whole
or in part in such LEA if such LEA is
located in more than one county; or
(ii) if not in such county, in whole or in
part in the same State as such LEA
(Section 8003 (a)(1)(G))
Note: “a” and “b” children refer to designations used for various eligibility categories of federally
connected children. While they no longer appear in current legislation, federally connected children

---

CRS-4
continue to be referred to as “a” or “b” children. As the table indicates, “a” children are those with
higher weights.
Thus, federally connected children whose parents are members of the Armed
Forces and live on federal property, whose parents live and work on federal property,
whose parents are officials of a foreign government that serve as foreign military
officers and live on federal property, or who reside on Indian lands carry the highest
weight in the Impact Aid payments for federally connected children. Lesser weights
are attributed to federally connected children whose parents are members of the
Armed Forces but do not live on federal property.
Currently, to calculate an Impact Aid payment to an LEA, the district first
identifies the number of students served in each category identified in Table 1. The
number of students in each category is then multiplied by the appropriate weight and
summed to create the school district’s weighted student count. This count is then
used to calculate the LEA’s maximum basic support payment and actual basic
support payment.4
Overview of Base Realignment
and Closure Recommendations
The first BRAC Commission was authorized by the Defense Authorization
Amendments and Base Realignment and Closure Act of 1988 (P.L. 100-256), leading
to the first round of BRAC in 1988. This was followed by the Defense Based
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, which provided the authorization for
subsequent BRAC rounds in 1991, 1993, and 1995. The first four rounds of BRAC
resulted in the closure or realignment of 97 bases. The current BRAC round was
authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-107). The
current BRAC Commission received a list of recommended actions from the
Secretary of Defense on May 13, 2005. It subsequently submitted its
recommendations to the Administration on September 8, 2005. After agreeing with
the Commission’s recommendations, the President sent the report to Congress on
September 15, 2005, for approval. Congress has 45 days to enact a joint resolution
of disapproval; otherwise, the recommendations become law. On October 27, 2005,
the House voted 324-85 against a joint resolution to end the military base closure and
realignment process, sponsored by Representative LaHood (IL).
Under the current BRAC recommendations, 22 major military installations
would be closed and 33 others would be realigned.5 Expected savings over the next
20 years resulting from the Commission’s recommendations are estimated at $35.6
billion. The timeline for implementing the Commission’s recommendations is six
4 When appropriations are insufficient to provide maximum basic support payments to
districts, Section 8003(b) specifies how payments are to be reduced to correspond with
appropriations.
5 BRAC, Commission Report, Executive Summary.

---

CRS-5
years beginning in 2006. “Communities will have until 2011 to adjust to the changes
and plan for transfer of the base to the community for redevelopment.”6
Table 2 lists the 10 communities gaining the largest numbers of direct positions
as a result of the BRAC recommendations. The number of new positions includes
net job gains for direct military, civilian, and mission support contractor positions.
The number of positions gained at a single location may exceed the number of new
positions for an economic area or region of influence due to decreases in positions
at other installations in the same area. Thus, for example, San Antonio, Texas will
gain 2,813 positions overall, but Fort Sam Houston will gain more than 9,000
positions.
Table 2. Communities Expecting to Gain the Largest Number
of Direct Positions as a Result
of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations
Economic area/region of
Military installation
Number of direct
influence
gaining positions (gains
positions gained in
at specific installation)
economic area/region of
influence
Jacksonville, FL
Cecil Field (10,198) and
12,819
Naval Air Station
Jacksonville (2,193)
El Paso, TX
Fort Bliss (11,501)
11,395
Columbus, GA-AL
Fort Benning (9,895)
9,830
Richmond, VA
Fort Lee (7,344)
7,019
Colorado Springs, CO
Fort Carson (4,377)
4,374
Lawton, OK
Fort Sill (3,547)
3,547
Baltimore-Towson, MD
Aberdeen Proving Ground
6,210
(1,185) and Fort Meade
(5,361)
Little Rock-North Little
Little Rock Air Force Base
2,575
Rock, AR
(2,752)
San Antonio, TX
Fort Sam Houston (9,339)
2,813
Bethesda-Frederick-
National Naval Medical
2,787
Gaithersburg, MD
Center Bethesda (2,829)
Source: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission Report, Appendix O. Sept. 2005. Available online at [http://www.brac.gov].
Note: The number of new positions includes net job gains for direct military, civilian, and mission
support contractor positions. The number of indirect job changes of local non-government jobs that
6 CRS Report, CRS Report RS22147, Military Base Closures.

---

CRS-6
support activities on military installations has not been included. As the BRAC recommendations have
not become public law, the data presented in this table represent anticipated changes should the
recommendations become law.
While many economic areas will experience substantial increases in personnel,
many will also experience substantial decreases in personnel. Table 3 lists the 10
communities losing the largest number of direct positions as a result of the BRAC
recommendations. The number of positions lost includes net job changes for direct
military, civilian, and mission support contractor positions.
Table 3. Communities Expecting to Lose the Largest Number
of Direct Positions as a Result
of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations
Economic area/region of
Military installation
Number of direct
influence
losing positions (losses at
positions lost in
specific installation)
economic area/region of
influence
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-
Naval Air Station Oceana
-13,528
Newport News, VA-NC
(-11,173) and Fort Monroe
(-3,564)
Washington-Arlington-
Leased space in VA
-12,180
Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-
(-18,750), Crystal City
WV
lease in VA (-3,321), and
Hoffman lease in VA
(-2,620)
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-
Fort McPherson (-4,141),
-6,772
Marietta, GA
Naval Station Atlanta
(-1,498), and Fort Gillem
(-1,081)
Edison, NJ
Fort Monmouth (-5,272)
-5,565
Portland-South Portland-
Naval Air Station
-3,275
Biddeford, ME
Brunswick (-3,275)
Corpus Christi, TX
Naval Station Ingleside
-3,154
(-2,037) and Naval Air
Station Corpus Christi
(-1,025)
Clovis, NM
Cannon Air Force Base
-2,769
(-2,769)
St. Louis, MO-IL
Leased space in MO
-2,711
(-2,093)
Wichita Falls, TX
Sheppard Air Force Base
-2,620
(-2,620)
Elizabethtown, KY
Fort Knox (-2,582)
-2,582

---

CRS-7
Source: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission Report, Appendix O. Sept. 2005. Available online at [http://www.brac.gov].
Note: The number of new positions includes net job gains for direct military, civilian, and mission
support contractor positions. The number of indirect job changes of local non-government jobs that
support activities on military installations has not been included. As the BRAC recommendations have
not become public law, the data presented in this table represent anticipated changes should the
recommendations become law.
Possible Effects of Base Closure and Realignment
on School Districts Serving Federally Connected Students
While it is not clear at what point (in the six-year period available to implement
the recommended changes) military and civilian staff will move, when they do leave,
LEAs losing or receiving families as a result of the BRAC Commission’s
recommendations may experience substantial changes. This section discusses
possible effects of the loss of military children on LEAs, followed by a discussion of
the challenges LEAs receiving large numbers of students may face.
LEAs Losing Federally Connected Students as a Result of BRAC.
In calculating payments to LEAs, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) uses
student enrollment data from the prior school year [Section 8003(a)(1)].7 Therefore,
LEAs that experience a decline in enrollment as a result of BRAC will continue to
receive Impact Aid funding for students leaving the LEA for the school year
following their departure. Essentially, this provides the LEA with one year to adjust
to the decrease in enrollment, allowing time for the district to make decisions related
to changes in student enrollment.8 For example, the decline in student enrollment
may necessitate releasing staff or consolidating students into a smaller number of
facilities. Beyond this one-year “hold harmless” period, LEAs losing federally
connected students as a result of BRAC will not receive Impact Aid payments for the
students no longer enrolled in the district.
In some instances, the loss of a military facility may be translated into new
economic development opportunities for the surrounding community as communities
explore base redevelopment potential.9 Depending on the ultimate use of the facility,
such as an airport, port facility, or educational facility, new families may be attracted
to the area, increasing student enrollment and potentially generating the need for
more teachers and possibly school facilities. These changes may take several years
7 For heavily affected LEAs, ED uses data from the third fiscal year preceding the fiscal year
for which the LEA is applying for assistance [Section 8003(b)(2)(F)].
8 For some LEAs the decline in enrollment may be more gradual, depending on the timeline
for implementing the Commission’s recommendations for the associated military base.
9 Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, Community Reaction Guide:
2005 Military Base Closure Recommendations. Available online at
[http://www.oea.gov/OEAWeb.nsf/FA61549067CAD9DA85256ED1005221E7/$File/5_
6%20React-TB1%20Update.pdf].

---

CRS-8
to materialize — thus, potentially failing to generate new student enrollment quickly
enough to replace the loss of students to the BRAC process.10
LEAs Gaining Federally Connected Students as a Result of BRAC.
Since basic support payments to LEAs are based on prior-year student enrollment
data, LEAs that gain students as a result of BRAC will not receive Impact Aid
funding for those new students until they have been enrolled in the district for at least
part of a school year. That is, the LEA will not immediately receive additional
Impact Aid funding as a result of the increase in enrollment. While receiving
LEAs have been provided with some advance notice of potential changes through the
BRAC process, LEAs receiving large numbers of students may experience a
substantial financial burden for the first school year in which the students are
enrolled. In addition, decisions that the LEA needs to make that are dependent on
Impact Aid payments, such as staffing decisions, may be complicated by the timing
of the data collection process used to determine subsequent payments and the timing
of actual payments.
LEAs experiencing large increases in the number of students as a result of the
BRAC recommendations may also need to hire several new teachers to meet the
educational needs of these students. LEAs may experience problems in finding
enough highly qualified teachers as required under the No Child Left Behind Act,11
hiring them to coincide with the shift in student population, and finding funds for
their salaries. As previously mentioned, Impact Aid funding for students arriving in
the LEA as a result of the BRAC will not be available until the following school year
at the earliest.12 This puts the burden of supporting new staff on the LEA for at least
the short term.
It should be noted that P.L. 81-874 included provisions for “sudden and
substantial increases in attendance” that are not included in current law. Under
Section 4 of P.L. 81-874, LEAs that experienced at least a 5% increase in student
enrollment from one school year to the next as a direct result of activities of the
United States and met certain other requirements, would have been eligible to receive
compensation for serving these new students. The increase in enrollment had to
10 Several communities surrounding military facilities slated for closure, such as Fort
Monroe, Virginia; Fort Monmouth, New Jersey; and Fort Gillem, Georgia, which have
already begun to plan local redevelopment authorities (LRA) to start the reuse process as
quickly as possible. The Department of Defense’s Office of Economic Adjustment will not
recognize the LRAs, however, until the BRAC recommendations become law. National
Association of Installation Developers/Association of Defense Communities, BRAC
Communities Launch Redevelopment Efforts, Oct. 13, 2005. Available online at
[http://www.defensecommunities.org].
11 See Section 1119 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (as amended
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) for the qualifications of high-qualified teachers.
For more information, also see CRS Report RL30834, K-12 Teacher Quality: Issues and
Legislative Action, by James B. Stedman.
12 As discussed later in this report, the availability of Impact Aid funding for the following
school year for these students is dependent upon when in the school year they arrive relative
to student count dates for the Impact Aid program.

---

CRS-9
result in a “substantial and continuing financial burden” on the LEA and the LEA had
to be making “a reasonable tax effort and ... exercising due diligence in availing itself
of State and other financial assistance but (be) unable to meet the increased
educational costs involved” [Section 4(a)].
If these conditions were met, LEAs were eligible to receive funding for the
fiscal year in which the increase in enrollment occurred equal to the product of the
number of new children enrolled in the LEA that the Commissioner of Education13
(Commissioner) determined to be the direct result of the activities of the United
States — multiplied by the amount determined by the Commissioner to constitute the
current expenditure level required to provide a free public education, minus the
amount determined by the Commissioner to be available from state, local, and federal
sources for the purpose of providing a free public education. In the subsequent fiscal
year, LEAs were still entitled to receive extra support for any of these students for
whom the LEA would not receive compensation under an Impact Aid payment for
federally connected children. These provisions are not included in current Impact
Aid statutory language.
Another potential problem facing LEAs receiving large influxes of new students
as a result of BRAC may be related to facilities. Some LEAs may receive more
students than can be accommodated in existing facilities. The Impact Aid program
provides payments related to school construction and repair under Section 8007. The
FY2005 appropriation for Section 8007 was $48.5 million. These funds are used to
make formula grants and competitive grants for the construction program. Of the
total funds appropriated for this section, 40% are distributed to LEAs that receive
funds through Section 8003 and meet specific criteria. The remaining funds are used
to award competitive grants for emergency repairs and modernization. Emergency
repair grants may be used to repair or renovate a facility due to health or safety
hazards. Modernization grants may be used to alter a facility to alleviate
overcrowding or to provide more modern services (e.g., telecommunications).
Statutory language currently gives higher priority to emergency repair grants than to
modernization grants, and requires emergency repair grants to be awarded based on
the severity of the emergency. Construction grants may only be awarded to LEAs
that are eligible to receive support under Section 8003. LEAs experiencing large
increases in student enrollment as a result of BRAC may consider applying for a
Section 8007 grant if they can demonstrate they meet the criteria to receive funding.
However, there will potentially be a delay between when the students arrive and
when major adjustments to facilities can be made. In addition, the total Section 8007
appropriation for FY2005, for example, might not be sufficient to adequately assist
all of the LEAs experiencing a large influx of new students with facility issues. No
other federal program would currently provide a dedicated source of funding to
address facility-specific issues requiring immediate or near term attention as a result
of an increase in student enrollment due to BRAC.
13 P.L. 81-874 was signed into law prior to the establishment of the U.S. Department of
Education. At the time, there was a Commissioner of Education who was subsequently
replaced by the Secretary of Education when Education was elevated to a cabinet-level
position. The reference to the Commissioner in P.L. 81-874 was not updated.

---

CRS-10
Another issue that may affect LEAs receiving students as a result of BRAC is
the student count process. Student counts for the Impact Aid program are due to the
ED by January 31 each school year. If students transfer into the LEA after January
31, these students will not be included in the student count used to calculate Impact
Aid programs for the subsequent school year. Based on instructions provided to
LEAs by ED for FY2006 Impact Aid payments, LEAs were permitted to conduct a
second student count after January 30, 2005, but before May 14, 2005.14 LEAs
conducting second counts were also required to resubmit their Impact Aid
applications by September 30, 2005. FY2006 payments will be based on an average
of the two counts. LEAs that receive students after January 31 will need to take steps
to ensure that this second count occurs. While they may not receive full
compensation during the next school year for any additional federally connected
students received as a result of the BRAC due to the averaging of the first and second
counts, failure to conduct the second count and the associated paperwork could result
in LEAs receiving no Impact Aid payments for federally connected students enrolling
after the January 31 count date.
Finally, unlike other federal education programs, the Impact Aid program is not
forward-funded, meaning that the earliest appropriations could be made available to
LEAs is the first day of the fiscal year.15 For example, the earliest FY2007
appropriations could be provided to LEAs would be October 1, 2006. Thus, even
LEAs that enrolled large numbers of federally connected students as a result of the
BRAC recommendations, and were able to submit enrollment data to ED that
included those pupils, would not have Impact Aid payments for those students on the
first day of the new school year. In practice, Impact Aid payments are often not made
as a single payment with LEAs receiving multiple payments throughout the school
year. In addition, depending on the budget appropriations process in Congress,
payments could be further delayed if Congress does not pass the Labor-Health and
Human Services-Education appropriations bill that funds the Impact Aid program by
the start of the new fiscal year.
School Districts’ Responses to Troop Increases
Little information is readily available about how LEAs have adjusted to sudden
increases in federally connected student enrollment as a result of BRAC or how
LEAs are planning for BRAC 2005. As this is the fifth round of BRAC since 1988,
LEAs may be able to seek guidance from LEAs that have already experienced large
student increases resulting from previous BRAC rounds. While a few examples of
activities undertaken by LEAs are presented below, it should be noted that there are
no dedicated funds, such as Impact Aid funds, to assist with the transition process.
14 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Section
8003 Instructions. Available online at [http://www.ed.gov/programs/8003/applicant.html].
15 Education programs that are forward-funded receive a portion of their appropriation three
months prior to the start of the fiscal year for which the funds are appropriated. For
example, forward-funded education programs would receive a portion of their FY2007
appropriation on July 1, 2006, rather than Oct. 1, 2006.

---

CRS-11
One relevant example of an LEA response to a sudden influx of military
children (though not related to BRAC) occurred as a result of 850 additional soldiers
being stationed at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, located near the Tennessee border.16
In response to the shift in troops, the Clarksville-Montgomery School System, which
is located in Tennessee, expected to receive an additional 1,000 students. The school
system received a $4 million earmark in the FY2005 defense appropriations bill to
help defray the costs of educating these children.
Some information is also available about actions being taken by school systems
in communities expecting to receive a large influx of students as a result of the 2005
BRAC recommendations.17 For example, Fort Riley in Kansas is expecting 3,400
troops to arrive in early 2006. School districts in the surrounding area have already
hired additional teachers to handle the anticipated increase in student enrollment.
School districts located near Fort Benning in Georgia have also begun to make plans
to accommodate new student enrollment. School officials are working with other
community officials to determine where new schools should be built in relation to
expected growth patterns for housing. The school districts are seeking state and
federal aid to build the schools prior to students’ arrival. They anticipate that they
have four to five years to complete the new construction
16 National Association of Installation Developers/Association of Defense Communities,
When an Installation Grows: The Impact of Expanding Missions on Communities. Jan.
2005. Available online at [http://www.defensecommunities.org/mission_growth.pdf].
17 National Association of Installation Developers/Association of Defense Communities,
Ready, Set, Grow: Defense Communities Make Plans to Accommodate New Missions. Sept.
22, 2005. Available online at [http://www.defensecommunities.org].

---