Order Code RL34709
Economic Development Assistance for
Communities Affected by Employment
Changes Due to Military Base Closures
October 16, 2008
Oscar Gonzales
Analyst in Economic Development Policy
Government and Finance Division

---

Economic Development Assistance for
Communities Affected by Employment Changes
Due to Military Base Closures
Summary
Under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, military facilities
were closed and realigned in 1988, 1991, 1993 and 1995. A fifth BRAC round was
authorized in late 2005 and must be completed by September 15, 2011. Under the
BRAC process: (1) the Department of Defense (DOD) 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
approves and transmits the list to Congress; and (4) the BRAC recommendations are
implemented, unless a joint resolution is passed in Congress disapproving the
recommendations for closures and realignments.
The 2005 BRAC round includes the closure or realignment of 837 facilities and
involves an additional 160 facilities that will gain missions or resources, for a total
of 997 changes nationwide. Most of these changes are on a smaller scale, each
involving fewer than 300 direct job losses or gains, including military, civilian, and
contractor jobs. 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.
Important policy issues before Congress include (1) the impact of military base
closures and expansions on local employment; (2) the possible elimination of the of
the BRAC Commission and the resulting impact on federal economic and community
development programs — such as the Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) program and the Economic Development Administration (EDA) — that
currently provide a preference for communities affected by BRAC; (3) the adequacy
and flat level of funding for federal assistance programs while anticipating an 80%
increase from $17 billion to $32 billion in construction costs; (4) housing for military
staff amidst the mortgage crisis; (5) funding for communities experiencing growth
through the defense access road program; (6) delays in environmental cleanup that
may cause difficulties in the economic redevelopment of military facilities; and (7)
redevelopment of military bases as refineries to promote economic growth.
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), would allocate funding for BRAC-
related activities for road construction, military facilities, and housing assistance.
This report is intended to discuss the geographic impact of base closures and
realignments; summarize federal economic assistance programs for communities and
individuals affected by BRAC; and highlight issues for Congress. The report will be
updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Spatial Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Employment Changes in Largest Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Type of Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Economic Development Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Community Development Block Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Other Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other Agencies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
National Emergency Grants (NEGs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Other Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Impacts on Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Elimination of the BRAC Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Increase in BRAC Construction Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Housing for Military Staff Displaced by BRAC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Defense Access Road Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Environmental Cleanup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
BRAC Facility Redevelopment for Refineries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Appendix A. List of Federal Economic and Community Development
Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Appendix B. Direct and Indirect Employment Changes in Metropolitan
Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

---

List of 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
List of Tables
Table 1. Major Military Facilities to be Closed or Realigned, Ranked by
Total Direct and Indirect Employment Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

Economic Development Assistance for
Communities Affected by Employment
Changes Due to Military Base Closures
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
1 For a detailed examination of the BRAC process, see CRS Report RS22061, Military Base
Closures: The 2005 BRAC Commission, by Daniel Else and David Lockwood, and CRS
Report RS21822, Military Base Closures: DOD’s 2005 Internal Selection Process, by
Daniel Else and David Lockwood. For environmental remediation issues, see CRS Report
RS21822, Military Base Closures: Roles and Costs of Environmental Cleanup, by David
Bearden. 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.

---

CRS-2
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 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
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.
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
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
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 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.
8 (...continued)
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.
11 Ibid.

---

CRS-4
Table 1. Major Military Facilities to be Closed or Realigned, Ranked by Total
Direct and Indirect Employment Changes
Net Job Changes
Direct
Indirect
Total
Facility
State
Employment Employment Employment
Military Civilian Contractor
Changes
Changes
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
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

---

CRS-5
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 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.

---

CRS-6
Figure 1. Employment Losses and Gains at the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Level
Source: CRS estimates based on BRAC Commission 2005 Report.

---

CRS-7
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 B “Direct and Indirect Employment Changes in
Metropolitan Areas.”
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
Percent of
State and Rank by
Direct Job Gains or Losses
Sub-total
Total
MSA
Gains
Total Employment
Employment
and
Losses
Lost and
Military
Civilian
Contractor
Direct
Indirect
Losses
Rank
United States
8,687
-15,874
-833
-8,023
-13,613
-21,322
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
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].

---

CRS-8
Percent of
State and Rank by
Direct Job Gains or Losses
Sub-total
Total
MSA
Gains
Total Employment
Employment
and
Losses
Lost and
Military
Civilian
Contractor
Direct
Indirect
Losses
Rank
10
Kentucky
-5,290
1,667
326
-3,297
-394
-3,691
-4.90%
3
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
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.

---

CRS-9
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 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 Gulfport-Biloxi 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.

---

CRS-10
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
! 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);

---

CRS-11
! 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
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.

---

CRS-12
source of federal assistance in the Department of Defense to assist communities
affected by employment losses and gains as a result 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 fiscal years 2001-2008.
17 For more information, see [http://www.oea.gov].
18 For example, in the latest defense appropriations act, Congress authorized additional
construction funds for facilities affected by BRAC. See section on “Developments in the
110th Congress.”

---

CRS-13
Table 3. Appropriations for Office of Economic Assistance
FY2001-FY2008
(in millions of $)
FY01
FY02
FY03
FY04
FY05
FY06
FY07
FY08
Appropriated
56.8
46.6
49.6
60.2
88.8
161.6
141.4
168.7
Source: Successive OEA b ud get 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 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
19 CRS Report RL34540, Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies: FY2009
(continued...)

---

CRS-14
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
Figure 3. EDA Funding FY1993-FY2008
EDA Funding FY1993-FY2008
Millions of Dollars
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
4
6
8
0
2
4
6
7
8
1993
99 1995 199 1997 199 1999 200 001 200 003 200 005 200 00 200
FY
FY1 FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY2 FY
FY2 FY
FY2 FY
FY2 FY
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
19 (...continued)
Appropriations, coordinated by William Krouse and Edward Murphy.
20 Ibid.
21 CRS Report RL34504, The Department of Housing and Urban Development: FY2009
Appropriations, by Maggie McCarthy et al.

---

CRS-15
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 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.
These 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.
! Below market value transfer of land from closed military bases
under the DOD’s authority to make public benefit transfers and
economic development conveyances.
! 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.
Appendix A includes a list of these programs, including information on
FY2008 funding, eligible entities and method for distribution of funds. Federal
22 See 42 USC 5305 and 42 USC 5307 (b) (6).
23 See CRS Report RL33330, Community Development Block Grant Funds in Disaster
Relief and Recovery, by Eugene Boyd and Oscar Gonzales.

---

CRS-16
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.24
Department of Labor Job Training Program
for Dislocated Workers
Overview. The Workforce Investment Act of 199825 (WIA) provides
assistance specifically for dislocated workers. Dislocated workers are generally
characterized as workers with an established work 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
24 For more information, see DOD’s webpage on assistance for civilian employees at
[http://www.cpms.osd.mil/bractransition].
25 P.L. 105-220, 29 U.S.C. 2811 et seq.

---

CRS-17
(NEGs), discussed below.26 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 unit27 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,28 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.29
26 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.
27 For a list of state rapid response unit coordinators, see [http://www.doleta.gov/layoff/
rapid_coord.cfm].
28 For more information, see [http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL16-03_Ch2.pdf]
29 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 announced on March 26, 2008, a $5 million dislocated
worker demonstration grant to assist Geogia in addressing the civilian impacts of base
realignment and closure transition, see [http://www.doleta.gov/whatsnew/
new_releases/2008-03-26.cfm].

---

CRS-18
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 Act30; and vocational
education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and
Technical Education Act,31
! Benefits related to past employment: Unemployment
Compensation32 and temporary health insurance continuation,33
and
! Benefits related to financial need: Temporary Assistance to Needy
Families,34 Food Stamps, subsidized school meals,35 Medicaid36
and housing assistance furnished by the Department of Housing
and Urban Development.37
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
possible elimination of the BRAC Commission and the resulting impact on
federal economic and community development programs that currently provide a
preference for communities affected by BRAC; (3) the flat level of funding for
federal assistance programs while anticipating an 80% increase from $17 billion
30 See CRS Report RL34654, The Higher Education Opportunity Act: Reauthorization of
the Higher Education Act, by David P. Smole, Blake Alan Naughton, Jeffrey J. Kuenzi, and
Rebecca R. Skinner.
31 See CRS Report RL31747, The Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act
of 1998: Background and Implementation, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Richard N. Apling.
32 See CRS Report RS22440, Unemployment Compensation (Insurance) and Military
Service, by Julie M. Whittaker.
33 See CRS Report RL30626, Health Insurance Continuation Coverage Under COBRA, by
Heidi G. Yacker.
34 See CRS Report RL32748, The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Block
Grant: A Primer on Financing and Requirements for State Programs, by Gene Falk.
35 See [http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns] for information on food stamps and subsided meals.
36 See CRS Report RL33202, Medicaid: A Primer, by Elicia Herz.
37 See CRS Report RL34591, Overview of Federal Housing Assistance Programs and
Policy, by Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce Foote, and Meredith Peterson.

---

CRS-19
to $32 billion in BRAC construction costs; (4) housing for military staff displaced
by BRAC, amidst the mortgage crisis; (5) funding for communities experiencing
growth through the defense access road program; (6) delays in environmental
cleanup that may cause difficulties in the economic redevelopment of military
facilities; and (7) redevelopment of military bases as refineries to promote
economic growth. These issues are discussed in more detail below.38
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 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
38 Two bills are 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 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.

---

CRS-20
communities.39 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.40
Elimination of the BRAC Commission
The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009 (H.R.
5658) includes a section that would repeal the BRAC Commission. Under
Section 2711, Subtitle B, Title XXVII, the BRAC commission process would be
eliminated for future base closures. The law would require the “Repeal of
commission approach for development of recommendations in any future round of
base closures and realignments.”41 Before the development of the BRAC
Commission process, prior to 1988, very few military bases were closed. If the
BRAC Commission is eliminated, Congress may opt to consider an alternative to
the Commission and possible impacts on economic and community development
programs that provide a preference for communities affected by changes in
employment as a result of BRAC. There may be important tradeoffs and impacts
on regional economic development if Congress, instead of the DOD, assumes
decision-making power over military base closures.
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 the 2005 BRAC round one
of the most expensive of the five BRAC rounds implemented.42 Although BRAC
39 See CRS Report 96-562, Military Base Closures Since 1988: Status and Employment
Changes at the Community and State Level, by George H. Siehl and Edward Knight.
40 BRAC Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report
to the President, Washington, DC, September 8, 2005. See Appendix O.
41 See Section 2711, Subtitle B, Title XXVII of H.R. 5658.
42 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
(continued...)

---

CRS-21
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.43
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?
Housing for Military Staff Displaced by BRAC
The DOD Housing Improvement Fund supports military housing
privatization and the program predates the 1988 BRAC process. The
Homeowners Assistance Fund is a sub-component of this program, and may
provide economic assistance to military personnel affected by a relocation as a
result of BRAC activities. In particular, funding is available for staff who are
unable to sell their homes. 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.
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
(...continued)
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].
43 See CRS Report RL34558, Military Construction, Veteran’s Affairs and Related
Agencies: FY2009 Appropriations, July 2008.

---

CRS-22
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 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

---

CRS-23
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.
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.44
44 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.

---

CRS-24
Appendix A. List of Federal Economic and
Community Development Programs
Program Name,
Description FY2008
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
Funding
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Community Development
50 states, Puerto Rico, Formula-based block grants.
Block Grants
metropolitan-based
Funds are distributed to state and local
Formula-based block grants
entitlement
governments based on the higher yield
allocated to states and local
communities
from one of two needs-based formulas.
governments in support of
(metropolitan cities
(1) 30% of funds are allocated to states
neighborhood revitalization,
with populations of
for distribution to communities that do
economic development, and
50,000 or more and
not receive a direct allocation. States
housing activities.
urban counties). In
receive funds based on one of two
Communities may use block
FY2005, there were
formulas:
grants to support 23
1,032 entitlement
— Formula A allocates funds based on
categories of eligible
communities. $7
each state’s share of population, poverty,
activities. 70% of funds must
million is set aside for and overcrowded housing;
be used on eligible activities
insular areas
— Formula B allocates funds based on
and projects that principally
including Guam,
each state’s share of poverty, housing
benefit low- or moderate-
American Samoa, and
built before 1939, and population.
income persons. Includes
the Virgin Islands.
(2) 70% of funds are allocated to
BRAC preference.
entitlement communities based on one of
two formulas:
FY2008 enacted: $3.866
— Formula A allocates funds based on
billion
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.
CDBG set-asides

Project grants.


Neighborhood Initiative
Congressionally
Congress allocates funds to a diverse
selected community
group of recipients. Program was
FY2008 enacted: $26
development
originally targeted to community
million
corporations.
development corporations involved in
neighborhood revitalization.

Economic Dev. Initiative
No specific criteria
Congress grants funds to a diverse
establishing eligibility groups of recipients including
FY2008 enacted: $180
for funding.
universities, community colleges,
million
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.

---

CRS-25
Program Name,
Description FY2008
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
Funding
National Community
Local Initiative
Project grants.
Development Initiative
Support Corporation
Federal funds are used in coordination
(Living Cities) Program
and the Enterprise
with investments from foundations and
supports local community
Foundation (national
corporations in support of redevelopment
development corporations
nonprofit
efforts in distressed urban
involved in neighborhood
intermediaries). The
neighborhoods. Working through two
revitalization.
two nonprofit
national intermediaries, the Local
intermediaries support Initiative Support Corporation and the
FY2008 enacted: $35 million neighborhood
Enterprise Foundation, local community
revitalization efforts
development corporations receive
of local community
technical and financial assistance in
development
support of their revitalization efforts.
corporations. More
More than $250 million in private sector
than 300 community
funds from 14 participating corporate
development
and foundation entities have been used in
corporations in 23
the program since its inception in 1991.
selected cities have
been involved in the
program.
Brownfields Econ. Dev.
State and local
Project grants.
Initiative (BEDI) Funds are
governments are
BEDI funds must be used in coordination
use to reclaim contaminated
direct recipients of
with CDBG Sec. 108 loan guarantees.
sites for adaptive reuse.
funds. Subgrantees or
These grants and the accompanying Sec.
beneficiaries may
108 loan guarantees must be consistent
FY2008 enacted: $10 million include businesses or
with a community’s CDBG plan and
nonprofits involved in must meet the same income targeting
job creation activities. 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.
Local rural nonprofits, Project grants.
Dev. Grants
community
Applications are evaluated and rated
Grants are awarded for two
development
based on five rating factors:
categories of
corporations, state
(1) capacity of the applicant and relevant
activities:
housing finance
organizational experience
(1) capacity building; and (2) agencies, state
(25 points);
support for innovative
community and
(2) need and extent of the problem
housing and economic
economic agencies,
(25 points);
development activities.
and federally
(3) soundness of approach (25 points);
Grants are limited to
recognized Indian
(4) leveraging resources (10 points); and
$150,000 under the first
tribes.
(5) achieving program results and
category, and $400,000 under
evaluation (15 points).
the second category.
Grants are awarded to applicants
securing the highest scores.
FY2008 enacted: $17 million

---

CRS-26
Program Name,
Description FY2008
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
Funding
CDBG Sec. 108 Loan
CDBG entitlement
Loan guarantees.
Guarantees
communities and
Open application process. Applications
Allow states and CDBG
states on behalf of
are reviewed by HUD to determine
entitlement communities to
nonentitlement
compliance with national objectives of
borrow up to five times their
communities are
the CDBG program and feasibility of the
annual CDBG allocations to
direct recipients of
project. Among the factors used to assess
finance eligible large-scale
funds. Subgrantees or
loan risk are the following:
economic development
beneficiaries may
(1) the length of the proposed repayment
projects.
include nonprofits and period;
for-profit entities
(2) the ratio of expected annual debt
FY2008 enacted: $5 million
involved in job
service requirements to the expected
creation activities.
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
Economic
Competitive grants.
Administration (EDA)
Development Districts Generally, EDA administers a number of
Agency administers several
(EDD) are multi-
competitive project grants. Grants may
economic development
county organizations
not exceed 50% of the cost of the
programs, including public
established to
project. Projects meeting certain
works grants for upgrading
promote economic
specified criteria and for areas
infrastructure, planning, and
development and job
characterized as severely depressed may
trade adjustment assistance.
creation. EDA
be eligible for additional funding not to
Eligible projects must:(1)
provides assistance to
exceed 30% of the cost of the project.
improve the opportunities for
327 EDDs. The areas
Projects must be located in economically
business creation or
designated as EDDs
distressed areas including those
expansion; (2) assist in the
must meet one of
experiencing high unemployment or low
creation of additional
three criteria: (1) low
incomes. Priority is given to projects:
permanent private-sector
per capita income; (2)
(1) in areas with persistently high rates
jobs; or (3) benefit low-
unemployment higher
of poverty;
income persons including
than the national
(2) involving previously unserved
those who are unemployed or
average; (3) sudden
distressed areas and applicants;
underemployed. Includes
economic dislocation
(3) involving innovative partnerships and
BRAC preference.
or persistent and long-
private investment leveraging;
term economic
(4) that support sub-state regional
FY2008 enacted: $280
distress. Funds may
networks and collaborations; and (5) in
million
also be awarded to
areas undergoing significant economic
states, cities, and
downturns and dislocations.
other political
subdivisions and other
organizations.

---

CRS-27
Program Name,
Description FY2008
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
Funding
Department of Agriculture
Rural Business
A rural area is defined Competitive grants.
Opportunity Grants
as a city, town, or
Grant selection criteria include the extent
Grants to public bodies,
unincorporated area
to which:
nonprofit organizations,
that has a population
(1) economic activity generated by the
Indian tribes, and
of 50,000 or less and
project is sustainable;
cooperatives for training and
is not an urbanized
(2) the project leverages funds from
assistance to rural
area immediately
other sources;
businesses, economic
adjacent to a city,
(3) the project will induce additional
planning for rural areas, and
town, or
economic benefits;
training for rural
unincorporated area
(4) the targeted community has
entrepreneurs.
that has a population
experienced long-term population or job
in excess of 50,000
loss;
FY2008 enacted: $15 million persons.
(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
50 states, Puerto Rico, Formula block grants.
Grants
Indian tribes, and the
HHS is required under the CSBG Act to
Provide assistance to states
territories of Guam,
reserve 1.5% of appropriated funds for
and local communities,
American Samoa, the
training and technical assistance and
working through a network
Virgin Islands, and
other administrative activities, of which
of community action
the Northern Mariana
half of this set-aside must be provided to
agencies and other
Islands.
state or local entities. Also, half of 1% of
neighborhood-based
funding is reserved for outlying
organizations for the
territories (Guam, American Samoa, the
reduction of poverty, the
Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana
revitalization of low-income
Islands). Block grants are allotted to
communities, and the
states and Puerto Rico based on the
empowerment of low-income
relative amount received in each state, in
families and individuals in
FY1981, under a section of the former
rural and urban areas.
Economic Opportunity Act. HHS may
allow Indian tribes to receive their
FY2008 enacted: $665
allotments directly, rather than through
million
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.

---

CRS-28
Program Name,
Description FY2008
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
Funding
Community Economic
Nonprofit community
Competitive discretionary grants.
Development
development
Funds are awarded at the Secretary’s
The purpose of the
corporations including discretion. This program is one of the
Community Economic
charitable, faith-
related activities authorized by the
Development discretionary
based, Indian, and
CSBG Act. The program supports local
grant program is to promote
Alaskan Native
community development corporations’
and support projects that
organizations.
National Youth Sports Program, and
address economic
efforts to generate employment and
self-sufficiency for
business development opportunities for
low-income persons and
low-income residents. Projects must: (1)
distressed communities by
directly benefit persons living at or
awarding funds to
below the poverty level and (2) be
community development
capable of being completed within 12 to
corporations (CDCs) to
60 months of the date the grant was
create employment and
awarded. Preference is given to projects
business development
that document public/private partnership
opportunities. Each year
including the leveraging of cash and in-
approximately 40-45 grants
kind contributions. Preference is also
are awarded with a maximum
given to projects located in areas
grant award level of
characterized by poverty and other
$700,000.
indicators of socioeconomic distress,
such as a Temporary Assistance to
FY2008 enacted: $33 million
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
Nonprofit, tax-exempt
Competitive discretionary grants.
Low-Income Individuals
organizations
This program is a set-aside within the
(JOLI)
including faith-based
Community Economic Development
and community
Program. The program provides grants
FY2008 enacted: $5
development
to community based, nonprofit
million
corporations and
organizations to demonstrate and
charitable
evaluate ways of creating new
organizations.
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.

---

CRS-29
Program Name,
Description FY2008
Eligible Entities
Formula or Distribution Method
Funding
Rural Community
Tax-exempt nonprofit
Competitive discretionary grant.
Facilities
organizations, states,
This program is one of the related
and local
activities under the community economic
FY2008 enacted: $8
governments.
development component of the CSBG.
million
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.
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 BRACA. A program identified in italics is a component of the program
preceding it in roman type.

---

CRS-30
Appendix B. Direct and Indirect Employment
Changes in Metropolitan Areas
Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSA
Military
Civilian Contractor
Indirect
Total Job % of MSA
(MSA)
Employment
Emp Chg
Job Chg
Job Chg
Chg
Jobs
Aguadilla-Isabela-San Sebastian,
80,981
-10
0
0
-5
-15
0.00%
PR
Akron, OH
398,976
11
0
0
4
15
0.00%
Alamogordo, NM
27,515
-17
0
0
-11
-28
-0.10%
Albany, GA
79,160
-1
-5
0
-5
-11
0.00%
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY
529,819
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Albemarle, NC
26,102
-34
5
0
-14
-43
-0.20%
Albuquerque, NM
454,397
-9
164
1
177
333
0.10%
Allentown -Easton, PA-NJ
396,091
8
0
0
3
11
0.00%
Altus, OK
16,463
-16
0
0
-10
-26
-0.20%
Anniston-Oxford, AL
60,648
0
55
0
41
96
0.10%
Asheville, NC
217,211
-7
0
0
-2
-9
0.00%
Athens-Clarke County, GA
96,829
-393
-108
-16
-318
-835
-0.90%
Atlanta -Marietta, GA
2,777,548
-4,037
-2,665
-70
-4,293
-11,065
-0.40%
Atlantic City, NJ
175,797
32
86
0
88
206
0.10%
Bakersfield, CA
325,440
162
1,645
493
2,474
4,774
1.50%
Baltimore-Towson, MD
1,568,140
-2,790
7,096
1,904
5,236
11,446
0.80%
Bangor, ME
92,291
0
1
0
4
5
0.00%
Barnstable Town, MA
137,499
-62
-443
0
-365
-870
-0.60%
Barre, VT
43,696
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Baton Rouge, LA
411,691
-165
0
0
-79
-244
0.00%
Battle Creek, MI
74,652
-6
-155
0
-116
-277
-0.40%
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX
193,048
-11
0
0
-6
-17
0.00%
Birmingham-Hoover, AL
622,605
-174
-159
0
-204
-537
-0.10%
Bloomsburg-Berwick, PA
49,836
-20
-2
0
-11
-33
-0.10%
Boise City-Nampa, ID
314,811
-22
-62
0
-73
-157
0.00%
Bremerton-Silverdale, WA
119,170
0
65
0
61
126
0.10%
Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk,
578,009
-13
-4
0
-9
-26
0.00%
CT
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY
643,318
-26
-6
-6
-14
-52
0.00%
Burlington-South Burlington, VT
145,790
1
51
0
38
90
0.10%
Cape Girardeau, MO-IL
59,473
-7
0
0
-1
-8
0.00%
Carbondale, IL
38,275
-32
0
0
-17
-49
-0.10%
Cedar Rapids, IA
162,044
-7
0
0
-2
-9
0.00%
Chambersburg, PA
65,783
-36
202
0
124
290
0.50%
Charleston-North Charleston, SC
331,580
-131
-1,003
-425
-1,704
-3,263
-0.90%
Charlotte, NC-SC
936,991
7
23
0
30
60
0.00%
Cheyenne, WY
55,849
-23
0
0
-10
-33
-0.10%
Clarksville, TN-KY
128,456
-360
9
0
-253
-604
-0.50%
Cleveland-Elyria-Mentor, OH
1,301,423
-24
293
0
256
525
0.00%
Clovis, NM
23,348
-2,388
-381
0
-2,002
-4,771
-20.40%
Colorado Springs, CO
349,783
4,148
190
36
3,285
7,659
2.20%
Columbia, SC
418,871
853
188
0
674
1,715
0.40%
Columbus, GA-AL
163,565
9,212
618
0
3,997
13,827
8.40%
Columbus, MS
34,053
100
3
0
67
170
0.50%
Columbus, NE
22,545
-31
0
0
-16
-47
-0.20%
Columbus, OH
1,122,033
-43
1,412
-59
1,252
2,562
0.30%

---

CRS-31
Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSA
Military
Civilian Contractor
Indirect
Total Job % of MSA
(MSA)
Employment
Emp Chg
Job Chg
Job Chg
Chg
Jobs
Corpus Christi, TX
221,376
-2,652
-435
-67
-3,872
-7,026
-3.20%
Davenport-Moline-Rock Island,
229,053
154
-1,595
0
-1,363
-2,804
-1.10%
IA-IL
Dayton, OH
512,393
492
-100
20
355
767
0.20%
Del Rio, TX
21,096
98
80
0
133
311
1.50%
Denver-Aurora, CO
1,545,580
20
-877
-100
-568
-1,525
-0.10%
Des Moines, IA
362,215
-193
82
0
-2
-113
-0.10%
District of Columbia, DC
2,771,791
-3,314
-3,145
-348
-5,873
-13,272
-0.05%
Dover, DE
74,718
112
128
0
244
484
0.60%
Dubuque, IA
62,005
-19
-5
0
-7
-31
0.00%
Duluth, MN-WI
157,359
-8
0
0
-2
-10
0.00%
El Dorado, AR
29,093
-24
0
0
-12
-36
-0.10%
El Paso, TX
328,741
11,248
147
0
8,803
20,198
6.10%
Elizabethtown, KY
65,926
-4,833
1,925
326
94
-2,488
-4.00%
Elmira, NY
50,494
-7
0
0
-6
-13
0.00%
Enid, OK
34,406
89
6
0
90
185
0.50%
Enterprise-Ozark, AL
48,094
-27
-103
0
-129
-259
-0.50%
Evansville, IN-KY
212,719
-7
0
0
-1
-8
0.00%
Fairbanks, AK
54,469
-691
-26
0
-574
-1,291
-2.40%
Fairmont, WV
26,404
-88
0
0
-47
-135
-0.50%
Fallon, NV
15,858
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Fargo, ND-MN
129,893
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Faribault-Northfield, MN
30,123
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Fayetteville, NC
195,370
-1,367
1,050
-132
-963
-1,412
-0.60%
Fort Leonard Wood, MO
25,515
-110
23
0
-15
-102
-0.40%
Fort Smith, AR-OK
152,388
42
92
0
96
230
0.10%
Fort Walton Beach, FL
120,139
2,153
141
0
1,888
4,182
3.40%
Fort Wayne, IN
256,503
34
199
0
168
401
0.20%
Fresno, CA
427,912
52
245
0
303
600
0.10%
Glens Falls, NY
64,173
-7
0
0
-1
-8
0.00%
Goldsboro, NC
60,040
345
17
0
310
672
1.10%
Grand Forks, ND-MN
66,242
-1,434
-70
0
-1,299
-2,803
-4.20%
Grand Island, NE
45,763
-31
0
0
-16
-47
-0.10%
Great Falls, MT
49,197
-23
114
0
70
161
0.30%
Gulfport-Biloxi, MS
151,445
-444
-207
0
-558
-1,209
-0.80%
Hanford-Corcoran, CA
53,641
44
35
0
142
221
0.40%
Harrisburg-Carlisle, PA
384,888
0
-26
0
-22
-48
0.00%
Hartford-West Hartford-East
760,935
-58
-111
0
-127
-296
0.00%
Hartford, CT
Hilton Head Island-Beaufort, SC
93,051
0
12
0
10
22
0.00%
Honolulu, HI
573,389
-195
-357
0
-688
-1,240
-0.10%
Houston-Baytown-Sugar Land,
2,898,160
-16
-48
0
-43
-107
0.00%
TX
Huntington-Ashland, WV-KY-
139,908
-1
0
0
0
-1
0.00%
OH
Huntsville, AL
225,625
-986
1,586
1,055
1,270
2,925
1.20%
Indianapolis, IN
1,037,290
-24
1,214
-3
1,088
2,275
0.20%
Jackson, MS
307,475
0
27
0
25
52
0.00%
Jacksonville, FL
727,765
11,057
1,750
12
13,569
26,388
3.60%
Jacksonville, NC
91,677
-182
-1
-9
-104
-296
-0.40%
Johnstown, PA
74,442
-86
0
0
-72
-158
-0.20%

---

CRS-32
Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSA
Military
Civilian Contractor
Indirect
Total Job % of MSA
(MSA)
Employment
Emp Chg
Job Chg
Job Chg
Chg
Jobs
Kansas City, MO-KS
1,225,451
195
8
0
130
333
0.00%
Kansas City, MO-KS
1,225,451
-279
-820
-146
-1,119
-2,367
-0.10%
Kapaa, HI
37,731
-118
0
0
-100
-218
-0.60%
Kearney, NE
35,434
-8
0
0
-4
-12
0.00%
Killeen-Temple-Fort Hood, TX
186,916
-73
-118
0
-163
-354
-0.20%
Kingsport-Bristol-Bristol, TN-VA
161,187
-30
-2
0
-6
-38
0.00%
Knoxville, TN
402,476
18
186
0
323
527
0.10%
La Crosse, WI-MN
89,588
-7
0
0
-2
-9
0.00%
Lafayette, IN
112,699
-21
0
0
-11
-32
0.00%
Lansing-East Lansing, MI
281,040
-25
0
0
-11
-36
0.00%
Las Cruces, NM
79,256
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Las Vegas-Paradise, NV
760,624
1,029
75
248
1,004
2,356
0.50%
Lawton, OK
63,978
3,445
105
-3
2,110
5,657
8.90%
Lebanon, NH-VT
115,211
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Lewisburg, PA
22,716
-9
-2
0
-5
-16
-0.10%
Lexington Park, MD
53,347
5
-135
-199
-425
-754
-1.40%
Lexington-Fayette, KY
296,523
-14
-40
0
-28
-82
0.00%
Lincoln, NE
198,773
-7
0
0
-3
-10
0.00%
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR
394,114
2,490
85
0
1,835
4,410
1.10%
Louisville, KY-IN
728,101
-36
-225
0
-182
-443
-0.10%
Lubbock, TX
156,975
-7
0
0
-2
-9
0.00%
Lufkin, TX
45,773
-10
0
0
-5
-15
0.00%
Madison, WI
401,730
-89
41
22
21
-5
0.00%
Manhattan, KS
72,434
2,415
334
0
1,737
4,486
6.20%
Mansfield, OH
73,323
-84
-83
0
-133
-300
-0.40%
Marquette, MI
34,562
-7
0
0
-1
-8
0.00%
Marshall, TX
29,682
-15
-1
0
-8
-24
-0.10%
Maysville, KY
16,643
-16
-2
0
-9
-27
-0.20%
McAlester, OK
21,197
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Medford, OR
106,355
-7
0
0
-2
-9
0.00%
Memphis, TN-MS-AR
758,153
230
151
3
222
606
0.10%
Meridian, MS
54,548
-42
-134
-1
-181
-358
-0.70%
Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis,
986,431
-66
-370
0
-335
-771
-0.10%
WI
Minneapolis-St. Paul-
2,127,894
-130
-124
0
-155
-409
0.00%
Bloomington, MN-WI
Mobile, AL
213,966
-26
-1
0
-10
-37
0.00%
Modesto, CA
217,388
0
-4
-85
-16
-105
0.00%
Montgomery, AL
207,595
-133
28
-5
-64
-174
-0.10%
Mountain Home, ID
14,441
-640
-36
0
-482
-1,158
-8.00%
Muskogee, OK
40,416
-14
-2
0
-8
-24
-0.10%
Nashville-Davidson —
919,365
-11
-21
0
-23
-55
0.00%
Murfreesboro, TN
New Bern, NC
66,366
283
-143
0
96
236
0.30%
New Haven-Milford, CT
472,774
-14
-7
0
-11
-32
0.00%
New Orleans-Metairie-Kenner,
763,801
-527
-607
-107
-917
-2,158
-0.20%
LA
Norwich-New London, CT
168,620
-46
-113
0
-164
-323
-0.20%
Oak Harbor, WA
35,843
0
194
0
171
365
1.00%
Ogden-Clearfield, UT
332,721
278
-423
212
35
102
-0.20%
Oklahoma City, OK
703,918
-21
-204
0
-190
-415
0.00%

---

CRS-33
Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSA
Military
Civilian Contractor
Indirect
Total Job % of MSA
(MSA)
Employment
Emp Chg
Job Chg
Job Chg
Chg
Jobs
Omaha-Council Bluffs, NE-IA
538,121
-68
-232
-19
-243
-562
-0.10%
Orlando, FL
1,082,297
-13
-214
0
-164
-391
0.00%
Oxnard-Thousand Oaks-Ventura,
420,712
-221
-1,421
-375
-1,523
-3,540
-0.90%
CA
Paducah, KY-IL
61,551
-31
0
0
-16
-47
-0.10%
Panama City-Lynn Haven, FL
86,688
-34
-12
0
-45
-91
-0.20%
Parsons, KS
15,144
0
-8
-159
-108
-275
-1.80%
Pascagoula, MS
68,520
-844
-112
-7
-797
-1,760
-2.60%
Pendleton-Hermiston, OR
44,887
-1
-348
0
-253
-602
-1.30%
Pensacola-Ferry Pass-Brent, FL
210,512
-392
-699
-6
-1,581
-2,678
-1.10%
Peru, IN
14,974
-7
0
0
-1
-8
-0.10%
Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, AZ
1,971,119
-143
-224
0
-266
-633
0.00%
Picayune, MS
16,286
0
-4
-50
-35
-89
-0.50%
Pine Bluff, AR
49,184
-30
-4
0
-13
-47
-0.10%
Pittsburgh, PA
1,403,312
-286
-237
0
-313
-836
0.00%
Pocatello, ID
47,266
-7
0
0
-2
-9
0.00%
Portland-South Portland-
331,655
-2,880
-395
0
-3,808
-7,083
-2.10%
Biddeford ME
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton,
1,232,839
-38
-277
0
-390
-705
-0.10%
OR-WA
Portland-Vancouver-Beaverton,
1,232,839
-29
-16
0
-27
-72
0.00%
OR-WA
Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-
312,628
218
37
0
153
408
0.10%
Middletown, NY
Providence-New Bedford-Fall
864,734
675
229
-89
952
1,767
0.10%
River, RI-MA
Reading, PA
213,550
-18
0
0
-6
-24
0.00%
Richmond, VA
715,302
6,119
844
56
4,173
11,192
1.50%
Riverside-San Bernardino-
1,479,524
-211
-486
51
-602
-1,248
-0.10%
Ontario, CA
Rome, GA
50,944
-9
0
0
-3
-12
0.00%
Rutland, VT
38,502
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Salinas, CA
235,299
-131
-150
0
-279
-560
-0.20%
Salt Lake City, UT
701,532
-16
-507
0
-381
-904
-0.10%
San Antonio, TX
1,009,217
3,483
-220
-450
2,541
5,459
0.50%
San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos,
1,806,321
-324
-916
-59
-1,505
-2,804
-0.20%
CA
San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara,
1,187,969
-20
-5
0
-7
-32
0.00%
CA
San Juan-Caguas-Guaynabo, PR
850,261
-103
-48
0
-119
-270
0.00%
Santa Barbara-Santa Maria-
254,600
44
101
0
110
255
0.10%
Goleta, CA
Savannah, GA
174,403
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Scranton — Wilkes-Barre, PA
306,854
-45
61
0
29
45
0.10%
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA
211,384
3
58
0
49
110
0.00%
Sierra Vista-Douglas, AZ
51,749
0
-168
1
-119
-286
-0.50%
Sioux City, IA-NE-SD
93,206
26
170
0
218
414
0.50%
Sioux Falls, SD
149,410
28
27
32
63
150
0.10%
Spokane, WA
249,887
-64
-172
0
-182
-418
-0.10%
Springfield, IL
139,247
-18
-121
0
-100
-239
-0.20%
Springfield, MA
374,117
114
212
0
388
714
0.20%
Springfield, OH
67,753
-56
-215
0
-281
-552
-0.80%

---

CRS-34
Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSA
Military
Civilian Contractor
Indirect
Total Job % of MSA
(MSA)
Employment
Emp Chg
Job Chg
Job Chg
Chg
Jobs
St. Joseph, MO-KS
68,849
5
9
0
46
60
0.10%
St. Louis, MO-IL
1,668,793
-87
969
86
1,004
1,972
0.10%
St. Louis, MO-IL
1,668,793
-799
-1,762
-150
-2,084
-4,795
-0.20%
Stockton, CA
269,709
0
-31
0
-20
-51
0.00%
Sumter, SC
54,168
765
75
0
617
1,457
2.60%
Susanville, CA
14,296
0
0
0
0
0
0.00%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater,
1,485,074
140
83
0
194
417
0.00%
FL
Terre Haute, IN
89,765
-13
-137
-280
-311
-741
-0.80%
Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR
67,895
-2
-275
-129
-251
-657
-0.90%
Toledo, OH
403,161
4
41
0
36
81
0.00%
Topeka, KS
144,675
53
194
0
488
735
0.60%
Trenton-Ewing, NJ
249,721
-11
-1
0
-3
-15
0.00%
Troy, AL
15,306
-15
0
0
-8
-23
-0.20%
Tucson, AZ
448,946
-60
0
0
-52
-112
0.00%
Tulsa, OK
533,659
-17
50
0
34
67
0.00%
Tuscaloosa, AL
104,345
-7
0
0
-2
-9
0.00%
Tuskegee, AL
8,256
-2
-1
0
-1
-4
0.00%
Utica-Rome, NY
158,421
1
561
0
398
960
0.60%
Valdosta, GA
65,992
1,211
-77
0
1,141
2,275
3.50%
Vicksburg, MS
29,916
-26
-2
0
-14
-42
-0.10%
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-Newport
978,888
-10,275
-3,245
-8
-15,366
-28,894
-2.90%
News, VA-NC
Warner Robins, GA
65,130
-93
-17
781
367
1,038
1.60%
Warrensburg, MO
28,670
3
58
0
44
105
0.40%
Watertown-Fort Drum, NY
62,390
-9
0
0
-5
-14
0.00%
Wheeling, WV-OH
80,664
-16
0
0
-5
-21
0.00%
Wichita Falls, TX
93,033
-2,464
-156
0
-1,740
-4,360
-4.70%
Wichita, KS
364,878
642
-222
0
288
708
0.10%
Williamsport, PA
67,466
-25
-4
0
-16
-45
-0.10%
Yuba City, CA
68,256
-8
-171
0
-131
-310
-0.50%
Yuma, AZ
76,606
0
5
0
4
9
0.00%
Source: BRAC Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission Report to
the President, Washington, DC, September 8, 2005. See Appendix O.
Definitions for table: MSA refers to Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by
the Bureau of the Census. MSA Employment refers to total employment within the MSA. Military
Job Chg refers to direct military employment changes within the MSA related to BRAC. Civilian
Job Chg refers to direct civilian employment changes within the MSA related to BRAC.
Contractor refers to direct contractor employment changes within the MSA related to BRAC.
Indirect Job Chg refers to indirect job changes in the MSA related to BRAC. The percent of
employment changes as a share of total employment within the MSA is referred to as “% of MSA
Jobs.”

---