Military Base Closures and the Impact Aid Program for Education

Military Base Closures and the Impact Aid Program for Education

Order Code RL33137
Military Base Closures and
the Impact Aid Program for Education
Updated February 7, 2008
Rebecca R. Skinner
Specialist in Education Policy
Domestic Social Policy Division

Military Base Closures and
the Impact Aid Program for Education
Summary
Congress authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) to realign or close
military installations to meet the changing military requirements facing the United
States and to reduce the costs of maintaining excess military infrastructure. DOD
compiles a list of recommended Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions that
is then submitted to an independent BRAC Commission to review. The Commission
subsequently submits its list of recommended actions to the President. The most
recent BRAC Commission submitted its recommendations for base closures and
realignment to the President on September 8, 2005. After agreeing with the
recommendations, the President sent the Commission report to Congress on
September 15, 2005. Congress had 45 days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval;
otherwise, the recommendations become law. On October 27, 2005, the House voted
324-85 against a joint resolution to end the BRAC process. Thus, the BRAC
recommendations are required to be implemented.
The 2005 BRAC recommendations include the closure of 22 major military
installations and the realignment of 33 others. The effect of these changes includes
both an estimated savings of $35.6 billion for the military over the next 20 years and
socioeconomic impacts on the communities affected by the changes. Included in
these socioeconomic impacts are the effects on local educational agencies (LEAs)
serving children affected by the BRAC recommendations.
Under the Impact Aid program, the federal government provides financial
assistance to LEAs adversely affected by the activities of the federal government.
The program provides various types of payments, including compensation to LEAs
for the federal ownership of certain property, funds for school construction, and
compensation to LEAs enrolling federally connected children. Federally connected
children include, for example, children whose parents are in the Armed Forces, as
well as children whose parents are employed on federal property, such as a military
installation. Educating federally connected children imposes a service burden,
revenue burden, or both on an LEA, as the LEA may not receive the benefit of tax
revenues to support their education.
LEAs losing or gaining federally connected students as a result of the BRAC
recommendations may experience substantial challenges. These challenges may be
created by the significant changes required by the BRAC recommendations but may
also stem from the structure of the Impact Aid program. For LEAs experiencing a
decline in enrollment, the LEAs may need to release staff or consolidate students into
a smaller number of facilities. The structure of the Impact Aid program will provide
these LEAs with a relatively brief period of time to make necessary adjustments
without a loss of funding. For LEAs gaining federally connected students as a result
of the BRAC recommendations, the structure of the Impact Aid program delays these
LEAs from receiving immediate Impact Aid payments to adjust to the change in
enrollment.
This report will be updated as needed.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of the Impact Aid Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of Base Realignment and Closure Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Possible Effects of Base Closure and Realignment on School Districts
Serving Federally Connected Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
LEAs Losing Federally Connected Students as a Result of BRAC . . . . . . . . 7
LEAs Gaining Federally Connected Students as a Result of BRAC . . . . . . . 8
Support Available from the Department of Defense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
School Districts’ Responses to Troop Increases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Types of “Federally Connected” Children and Relevant Weights . . . . . 3
Table 2. Communities Expecting to Gain the Largest Number of Direct
Positions as a Result of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. Communities Expecting to Lose the Largest Number of Direct
Positions as a Result of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Military Base Closures and
the Impact Aid Program for Education
Introduction
Congress authorizes the Department of Defense (DOD) to realign or close
military installations to meet the changing military requirements facing the United
States and to reduce the costs of maintaining excess military infrastructure. DOD
compiles a list of recommended Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions that
is then submitted to an independent BRAC Commission to review. The Commission
subsequently submits its list of recommended actions to the President. The most
recent BRAC Commission submitted its recommendations for base closures and
realignment to the President on September 8, 2005. After agreeing with the
recommendations, the President sent the Commission report to Congress on
September 15, 2005. Congress had 45 days to enact a joint resolution of disapproval;
otherwise, the recommendations become law. On October 27, 2005, the House voted
324-85 against a joint resolution to end the military base closure and realignment
process. Thus, the BRAC recommendations are required to be implemented.
The 2005 BRAC recommendations include the closure of 22 major military
installations and the realignment of 33 others. The effect of these changes includes
both an estimated savings of $35.6 billion for the military over the next 20 years1 and
socioeconomic impacts on the communities affected by the changes. Included in
these socioeconomic impacts are the effects on local educational agencies (LEAs)
serving children affected by the BRAC recommendations.2
Under the Impact Aid program, the federal government provides financial
assistance to LEAs adversely affected by the activities of the federal government. It
provides various types of payments, including compensation to LEAs for the federal
1 The BRAC Commission and the General Accountability Office believe that DoD’s claimed
cost avoidances attributable to military personnel actions should be excluded from the cost
savings calculation, resulting in a savings of $15 billion over 20 years. (Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission Report, Executive Summary, September 2005. Available online at
[http://www.brac.gov]. (Hereafter cited as BRAC, Commission Report, Executive
Summary.)
2 For detailed information about the BRAC Commission’s final report and proposed
legislation, see CRS Report RS22061, Military Base Closures: The 2005 BRAC
Commission, by Daniel Else and David Lockwood. For additional information about
military base closures and the socioeconomic impacts of these closures, see CRS Report
RS22147, Military Base Closures: Socioeconomic Impacts, by Tadlock Cowan and Baird
Webel. (Herafter cited as CRS Report RS22147, Military Base Closures.)

CRS-2
ownership of certain property, funds for school construction, and compensation to
LEAs enrolling federally connected children. Federally connected children include,
for example, children whose parents are in the Armed Forces, as well as children
whose parents are employed on federal property, such as a military installation.
LEAs losing or receiving federally connected students as a result of the BRAC
recommendations may experience substantial challenges. These challenges may be
created by the significant changes required by the BRAC recommendations but may
also stem from the structure of the Impact Aid program.
The first part of this report provides a brief overview of the Impact Aid program,
including the calculation of Impact Aid payments to LEAs, and an overview of the
BRAC recommendations. This is followed by a discussion of the potential effects
of the BRAC recommendations on LEAs that will both lose and gain students as a
result of the changes. Following a brief discussion of DOD appropriations and other
actions focused specifically on students affected by BRAC and other rebasing
initiatives, the report concludes with a brief discussion of actions that have been
taken by LEAs in anticipation of large influxes of federally connected students.
Overview of the Impact Aid Program
The Impact Aid program was established in 1950 by P.L. 81-874 and P.L. 81-
815. P.L. 81-874 authorized financial assistance for maintenance and operations to
LEAs adversely affected by the activities of the federal government. The Improving
America’s School Act of 1994 (IASA, P.L. 103-382), which reauthorized the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), repealed P.L. 81-874 and
P.L. 81-815, and included the Impact Aid program in ESEA Title VIII. The Impact
Aid program was most recently reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act of
2001 (P.L. 107-110), extending the program authorization through 2007.3
The Impact Aid program supports various types of payments, including
compensation to LEAs for the federal ownership of certain property (Section 8002),
funds for school construction and facilities upgrades (Section 8007), and
compensation to LEAs enrolling federally connected children (Section 8003). The
latter is the most relevant payment for the purposes of this report, as it provides
compensation to districts enrolling military students living on or off base. More
specifically, federally connected children are children who reside with a parent who
is a member of the Armed Forces living on or off federal property; reside with a
parent who is an accredited foreign military officer living on federal property; reside
on Indian lands; reside in low-rent public housing; or reside with a parent who is a
civilian working and/or living on federal property.
From the inception of the Impact Aid program, federally connected children
have been placed in different categories that are assigned corresponding weights
based on the burden they impose on LEAs. The burden imposed by federally
3 For additional information about the types of payments made under the Impact Aid
program, see CRS Report RL31885, Impact Aid for Public K-12 Education: General
Overview and Current Status, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Richard N. Apling.

CRS-3
connected children results from a service burden, a revenue burden, or both. The
service burden is a result of LEAs having to educate federally connected children
without receiving the benefit of tax revenues to support their education. The revenue
burden stems from the existence of federal property within the LEA that is not
subject to property taxes.
The burdens imposed by various categories of federally connected children are
reflected in the weights assigned to each type of child. Table 1 contains the current
weights for each category of federally connected children.
Table 1. Types of “Federally Connected” Children
and Relevant Weights
Children attending school in the LEA who:
Weight
Shorthand designation
reside on federal property with a parent
1.0
“a” children
employed on federal property situated in whole
or in part within the boundaries of the LEA
[Section 8003 (a)(1)(A)(i)]
reside on federal property with a parent who is
1.0
“a” children
an official of, and accredited by, a foreign
government and is a foreign military officer
[(Section 8003 (a)(1) A)(ii)]
reside on federal property and have a parent on
1.0
“a” children
active duty in the uniformed services [Section
8003 (a)(1)(B)]
reside on Indian lands [Section 8003 (a)(1)(C)]
1.25
“a” children
have a parent on active duty in the uniformed
0.2
“b” children
services but do not reside on federal property
[Section 8003 (a)(1)(D)(i)]
have a parent who is an official of, and has been
0.2
“b” children
accredited by, a foreign government and is a
foreign military officer but does not reside on
federal property [Section 8003 (a)(1)(D)(ii)]
reside in low-rent public housing [Section 8003
0.1
“b” children
(a)(1)(E)]
reside on federal property and are not described
0.05
“b” children
in Subparagraph (A) or (B) [Section 8003
(a)(1)(F)]
reside with a parent who works on federal
0.05
“b” children
property situated —
(i) in whole or in part in the county in
which such LEA is located, or in whole or
in part in such LEA if such LEA is located
in more than one county; or
(ii) if not in such county, in whole or in
part in the same State as such LEA
[Section 8003 (a)(1)(G)]
Note: “a” and “b” children refer to designations used for various eligibility categories of federally
connected children. While they no longer appear in current legislation, federally connected children
continue to be referred to as “a” or “b” children. As the table indicates, “a” children are those with
higher weights.

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

CRS-5
years beginning in 2006. “Communities will have until 2011 to adjust to the changes
and plan for transfer of the base to the community for redevelopment.”6
Table 2 lists the 10 communities gaining the largest numbers of direct positions
as a result of the BRAC recommendations. The number of new positions includes
net job gains for direct military, civilian, and mission support contractor positions.
The number of positions gained at a single location may exceed the number of new
positions for an economic area or region of influence due to decreases in positions
at other installations in the same area. Thus, for example, San Antonio, Texas will
gain 2,813 positions overall, but Fort Sam Houston will gain more than 9,000
positions.
Table 2. Communities Expecting to Gain
the Largest Number of Direct Positions as a Result
of the 2005 BRAC Recommendations
Number of direct
Military installation
positions gained in
Economic area/region of
gaining positions (gains
economic area/region of
influence
at specific installation)
influence
Jacksonville, FL
Cecil Field (10,198) and
Naval Air Station
12,819
Jacksonville (2,193)
El Paso, TX
Fort Bliss (11,501)
11,395
Columbus, GA-AL
Fort Benning (9,895)
9,830
Richmond, VA
Fort Lee (7,344)
7,019
Colorado Springs, CO
Fort Carson (4,377)
4,374
Lawton, OK
Fort Sill (3,547)
3,547
Baltimore-Towson, MD
Aberdeen Proving Ground
(1,185) and Fort Meade
6,210
(5,361)
Little Rock-North Little
Little Rock Air Force Base
2,575
Rock, AR
(2,752)
San Antonio, TX
Fort Sam Houston (9,339)
2,813
Bethesda-Frederick-
National Naval Medical
2,787
Gaithersburg, MD
Center Bethesda (2,829)
Source: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission Report, Appendix O, Sept. 2005. Available online at [http://www.brac.gov].
Note: The number of new positions includes net job gains for direct military, civilian, and mission
support contractor positions. The number of indirect job changes of local non-government jobs that
support activities on military installations has not been included. This table represents anticipated
changes. As more data become available, areas affected by the BRAC recommendations and other
organizations may develop new estimates of the potential impact of the recommendations.
6 CRS Report RS22147, Military Base Closures.

CRS-6
While many economic areas will experience substantial increases in personnel,
many will also experience substantial decreases in personnel. Table 3 lists the 10
communities losing the largest number of direct positions as a result of the BRAC
recommendations. The number of positions lost includes net job changes for direct
military, civilian, and mission support contractor positions.
Table 3. Communities Expecting to Lose the Largest Number
of Direct Positions as a Result of the 2005 BRAC
Recommendations
Number of direct
Military installation
positions lost in
Economic area/region of
losing positions (losses at
economic area/region of
influence
specific installation)
influence
Virginia Beach-Norfolk-
Naval Air Station Oceana
-13,528
Newport News, VA-NC
(-11,173) and Fort Monroe
(-3,564)
Washington-Arlington-
Leased space in VA
-12,180
Alexandria, DC-VA-MD-
(-18,750), Crystal City
WV
lease in VA (-3,321), and
Hoffman lease in VA
(-2,620)
Atlanta-Sandy Springs-
Fort McPherson (-4,141),
-6,772
Marietta, GA
Naval Station Atlanta
(-1,498), and Fort Gillem
(-1,081)
Edison, NJ
Fort Monmouth (-5,272)
-5,565
Portland-South Portland-
Naval Air Station
-3,275
Biddeford, ME
Brunswick (-3,275)
Corpus Christi, TX
Naval Station Ingleside
-3,154
(-2,037) and Naval Air
Station Corpus Christi
(-1,025)
Clovis, NM
Cannon Air Force Base
-2,769
(-2,769)
St. Louis, MO-IL
Leased space in MO
-2,711
(-2,093)
Wichita Falls, TX
Sheppard Air Force Base
-2,620
(-2,620)
Elizabethtown, KY
Fort Knox (-2,582)
-2,582
Source: Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission, 2005 Defense Base Closure and
Realignment Commission Report, Appendix O, Sept. 2005. Available at [http://www.brac.gov].
Note: The number of new positions includes net job gains for direct military, civilian, and mission
support contractor positions. The number of indirect job changes of local non-government jobs that
support activities on military installations has not been included. This table represents anticipated
changes. As more data become available, areas affected by the BRAC recommendations and other
organizations may develop new estimates of the potential impact of the recommendations.

CRS-7
Possible Effects of Base Closure and Realignment
on School Districts Serving
Federally Connected Students
While it is not clear at what point (in the six-year period available to implement
the recommended changes) military and civilian staff will move, when they do leave,
LEAs losing or receiving families as a result of the BRAC Commission’s
recommendations may experience substantial changes.7 This section discusses
possible effects of the loss of military children on LEAs, followed by a discussion of
the challenges LEAs receiving large numbers of students may face.
LEAs Losing Federally Connected Students
as a Result of BRAC
In calculating payments to LEAs, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) uses
student enrollment data from the prior school year [Section 8003(a)(1)].8 Therefore,
LEAs that experience a decline in enrollment as a result of BRAC will continue to
receive Impact Aid funding for students leaving the LEA for the school year
following their departure. Essentially, this provides the LEA with one year to adjust
to the decrease in enrollment, allowing time for the district to make decisions related
to changes in student enrollment.9 For example, the decline in student enrollment
may necessitate releasing staff or consolidating students into a smaller number of
facilities. Beyond this one-year “hold harmless” period, LEAs losing federally
connected students as a result of BRAC will not receive Impact Aid payments for the
students no longer enrolled in the district.
In some instances, the loss of a military facility may be translated into new
economic development opportunities for the surrounding community as communities
explore base redevelopment potential.10 Depending on the ultimate use of the
facility, such as an airport, port facility, or educational facility, new families may be
attracted to the area, increasing student enrollment and potentially generating the
need for more teachers and possibly school facilities. These changes may take
7 For example, the Army estimates that 55,000 Army children in kindergarten through grade
12 will be relocated due to global restationing, base closures and realignments, and other
actions by 2013. (Army Times, October 2, 2006, “DoD Databank to Ease Kids’ School
Transition.”)
8 For heavily affected LEAs, ED uses data from the third fiscal year preceding the fiscal year
for which the LEA is applying for assistance [Section 8003(b)(2)(F)].
9 For some LEAs the decline in enrollment may be more gradual, depending on the timeline
for implementing the Commission’s recommendations for the associated military base.
10 Department of Defense, Office of Economic Adjustment, Community Reaction Guide:
2005 Military Base Closure Recommendations. Available online at
[http://www.oea.gov/OEAWeb.nsf/FA61549067CAD9DA85256ED1005221E7/$File/5_
6%20React-TB1%20Update.pdf].

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

CRS-9
United States and met certain other requirements, would have been eligible to receive
compensation for serving these new students. The increase in enrollment had to
result in a “substantial and continuing financial burden” on the LEA and the LEA had
to be making “a reasonable tax effort and ... exercising due diligence in availing itself
of State and other financial assistance but (be) unable to meet the increased
educational costs involved” [Section 4(a)].
If these conditions were met, LEAs were eligible to receive funding for the
fiscal year in which the increase in enrollment occurred equal to the product of the
number of new children enrolled in the LEA that the Commissioner of Education14
(Commissioner) determined to be the direct result of the activities of the United
States — multiplied by the amount determined by the Commissioner to constitute the
current expenditure level required to provide a free public education, minus the
amount determined by the Commissioner to be available from state, local, and federal
sources for the purpose of providing a free public education. In the subsequent fiscal
year, LEAs were still entitled to receive extra support for any of these students for
whom the LEA would not receive compensation under an Impact Aid payment for
federally connected children. These provisions are not included in current Impact
Aid statutory language.
Another potential problem facing LEAs receiving large influxes of new students
as a result of BRAC may be related to facilities. Some LEAs may receive more
students than can be accommodated in existing facilities. The Impact Aid program
provides payments related to school construction and repair under Section 8007.
These funds are used to make formula grants and competitive grants for the
construction program.15 Of the total funds appropriated for this section, 40% are
distributed to LEAs that receive funds through Section 8003 and meet specific
criteria. The remaining funds are used to award competitive grants for emergency
repairs and modernization. Emergency repair grants may be used to repair or
renovate a facility due to health or safety hazards. Modernization grants may be used
to alter a facility to alleviate overcrowding or to provide more modern services (e.g.,
telecommunications). Statutory language currently gives higher priority to emergency
repair grants than to modernization grants, and requires emergency repair grants to
be awarded based on the severity of the emergency. Construction grants may only
be awarded to LEAs that are eligible to receive support under Section 8003. LEAs
experiencing large increases in student enrollment as a result of BRAC may consider
applying for a Section 8007 grant if they can demonstrate they meet the criteria to
receive funding. However, there will potentially be a delay between when the
students arrive and when major adjustments to facilities can be made. In addition,
the total Section 8007 appropriation for FY2008 ($17.5 million), for example, might
not be sufficient to adequately assist all of the LEAs experiencing a large influx of
new students with facility issues. No other federal program would currently provide
14 P.L. 81-874 was signed into law prior to the establishment of the U.S. Department of
Education. At the time, there was a Commissioner of Education who was subsequently
replaced by the Secretary of Education when Education was elevated to a cabinet-level
position. The reference to the Commissioner in P.L. 81-874 was not updated.
15 The FY2008 Labor-Health and Human Services-Education Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-
161) restricts the allocation of Section 8007 funds to competitive grants only.

CRS-10
a dedicated source of funding to address facility-specific issues requiring immediate
or near term attention as a result of an increase in student enrollment due to BRAC.
Another issue that may affect LEAs receiving students as a result of BRAC is
the student count process. Student counts for the Impact Aid program are due to the
ED by January 31 each school year. The counts must be taken no earlier than the 4th
day of the regular school year and before January 31 of that school year. If students
transfer into the LEA after January 31, these students will not be included in the
student count used to calculate Impact Aid programs for the subsequent school year.
Based on instructions provided to LEAs by ED for FY2009 Impact Aid payments,
LEAs were permitted to conduct a second student count after January 31, 2008, but
before May 14, 2008.16 LEAs conducting second counts were also required to
resubmit their Impact Aid applications by September 30, 2008. FY2009 payments
will be based on an average of the two counts. LEAs that receive students after
January 31 will need to take steps to ensure that this second count occurs. While they
may not receive full compensation during the next school year for any additional
federally connected students received as a result of the BRAC due to the averaging
of the first and second counts, failure to conduct the second count and the associated
paperwork could result in LEAs receiving no Impact Aid payments for federally
connected students enrolling after the January 31 count date.
Finally, unlike other federal education programs, the Impact Aid program is not
forward-funded, meaning that the earliest that appropriations could be made available
to LEAs is the first day of the fiscal year.17 For example, the earliest FY2009
appropriations could be provided to LEAs would be October 1, 2008. Thus, even
LEAs that enrolled large numbers of federally connected students as a result of the
BRAC recommendations, and were able to submit enrollment data to ED that
included those pupils, would not have Impact Aid payments for those students on the
first day of the new school year. In practice, Impact Aid payments are often not made
as a single payment with LEAs receiving multiple payments throughout the school
year. In addition, depending on the budget appropriations process in Congress,
payments could be further delayed if Congress does not pass the Labor-Health and
Human Services-Education appropriations bill that funds the Impact Aid program by
the start of the new fiscal year.
Support Available from the Department of Defense
Historically, DOD appropriations have provided additional funding for LEAs
serving significant numbers of military dependent students (at least 20% of students
16 U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Section
8003 Instructions. Available online at [http://www.ed.gov/programs/8003/applicant.html].
17 Education programs that are forward-funded generally have funds made available for a
15-month period, starting nine months into a fiscal year. For example, for forward-funded
programs, FY2007 funds became available on July 1, 2007, and will remain available
through September 30, 2008. On the other hand, current funded programs, including Impact
Aid, have funds available for the 12-month fiscal year. That is, funds become available on
October 1 of a given year and remain available through September 30 of the following year.

CRS-11
in average daily attendance), and have provided additional impact aid funding for
children with severe disabilities.18 For FY2006, $30 million and $5 million were
appropriated, respectively, for these activities. For FY2007, $35 million was
appropriated to assist LEAs serving significant numbers of military dependent
students, and $5 million was appropriated for children with severe disabilities. For
FY2008, $30 million and $5 million were appropriated, respectively, for these
activities.19
The DOD FY2006 appropriations also included funding for assistance to
schools with enrollment changes due to base closures, force structure changes, or
force relocations. These funds are available to LEAs that experienced an overall
increase or reduction in student enrollment of not less than 5% of military dependent
students or not less than 250 military dependent students in daily attendance.
Eligible LEAs have to meet two additional criteria: (1) military dependent students
constituted at least 20% of the average daily attendance (or would have if not for the
reduction in students), and (2) the change in military student enrollment was due to
DOD’s global rebasing plan, the official creation or activation of one or more new
military units, the realignment of forces as a result of BRAC, or a change in the
number of housing units on a military installation. No LEA is permitted to receive
more than $1 million in assistance in a fiscal year under this provision. For FY2006,
$10 million was provided for this purpose. FY2007 and FY2008 appropriations also
included $10 million for this purpose.
The DOD FY2007 Authorization Act (P.L. 109-364) included additional
provisions related to military dependent student relocations. The Secretary of
Defense was required to submit a report by January 1, 2007, to the congressional
defense committees outlining a plan to provide assistance to LEAs that experience
increased student enrollment as a result of force structure changes, the relocation of
a military unit, or the closure or realignment of military installations as a result of the
BRAC process. The report must identify the number of military dependent students
who are expected to be relocated, the specific military installations affected by these
departures and arrivals, an estimate of the number of students departing or arriving
at each installation, and the anticipated schedule of these departures and arrivals. It
must also include recommendations made by the Office of Economic Adjustment of
the DOD related to providing assistance to LEAs affected by increases in student
enrollment, and an outreach plan involving affected LEAs, commanders of military
18 An LEA may receive funding for this purpose if it serves at least two students who are
military dependent students [ESEA, Section 8003(B) or (D)(i)] or who have a parent who
is a foreign military officer [ESEA, Section 8003(a)(ii) or (D)(ii)].
19 Each fiscal year, Congress generally passes a DOD appropriations act and an
authorization act. The DOD appropriations acts generally authorize funding for additional
funding to LEAs serving military children, additional impact aid for children with severe
disabilities, and special assistance to LEAs in broad statutory language that provides funding
for operation and maintenance expenses defense-wide. The DOD authorization acts
provide substantially more information about funding requirements. For more information
about DOD FY2006 appropriations and authorizations, see P.L. 109-148 and P.L. 109-163,
respectively. For more information about DOD FY2007 appropriations and authorizations,
see P.L. 109-289 and P.L. 109-364, respectively. For more information about DOD FY2008
appropriations and authorizations, see P.L. 110-116 and P.L. 110-181, respectively.

CRS-12
installations, and members of the Armed Forces and civilian personnel. An updated
report is required to be submitted by March 1, 2008, and annually thereafter to
coincide with the submission of the President’s budget request.
The FY2007 DOD Authorization Act also requires the Secretary of Defense to
work collaboratively with the Secretary of Education through September 30, 2011,
to ease the transition of military dependent students from attendance in Department
of Defense dependent schools to attendance in LEA schools. Funds may be used
from the DOD Education Activity (DODEA) to share information related to easing
these transitions, including transitions resulting from the BRAC process, global
rebasing, and force restructuring.
DOD is currently building a databank for schools that will be affected by base
closures and realignments.20 While the databank will contain estimates of how many
students will be arriving at military installations each year, it will not provide specific
information on where students will live.21 This may limit the usefulness of the
databank, particularly when multiple LEAs serve a single military installation, as
enrollment changes in a specific LEA will depend on where the military dependent
students’ families reside.
School Districts’ Responses to Troop Increases
Little information is readily available about how LEAs have adjusted to sudden
increases in federally connected student enrollment as a result of BRAC or how
LEAs are planning for BRAC 2005.22 As this is the fifth round of BRAC since 1988,
LEAs may be able to seek guidance from LEAs that have already experienced large
student increases resulting from previous BRAC rounds. While a few examples of
activities undertaken by LEAs are presented below, it should be noted that there are
no dedicated funds, such as Impact Aid funds, to assist with the transition process.
One relevant example of an LEA response to a sudden influx of military
children (though not related to BRAC) occurred as a result of 850 additional soldiers
being stationed at Fort Campbell in Kentucky, located near the Tennessee border.23
20 DoD has also developed “tool kits” for schools, parents, and commanders to assist with
student relocations. The toolkits can be ordered online at [http://www.militaryonesource.
com]. (Army Times, October 2, 2006, “DoD Databank to Ease Kids’ School Transition.”)
In addition, DoD has compiled a list of useful information and websites for service members
and their families affected by BRAC. The information is available online at
[http://www.defenselink.mil/brac/pdf/Family-Resources.pdf].
21 Army Times, October 2, 2006, “DoD Databank to Ease Kids’ School Transition.”
22 DOD is asking school officials to provide information on strategies they have
implemented to help students through the transition process, such as taking prerequisite
courses to help ensure timely high school graduation. (Army Times, October 2, 2006, “DoD
Databank to Ease Kids’ School Transition.”)
23 National Association of Installation Developers/Association of Defense Communities,
(continued...)

CRS-13
In response to the shift in troops, the Clarksville-Montgomery School System, which
is located in Tennessee, expected to receive an additional 1,000 students. The school
system received a $4 million earmark in the FY2005 defense appropriations bill to
help defray the costs of educating these children.
Some information is also available about actions being taken by school systems
in communities expecting to receive a large influx of students as a result of the 2005
BRAC recommendations.24 For example, Fort Riley in Kansas was expecting 3,400
troops to arrive in early 2006. School districts in the surrounding area have already
hired additional teachers to handle the anticipated increase in student enrollment.
School districts located near Fort Benning in Georgia have also begun to make plans
to accommodate new student enrollment. School officials are working with other
community officials to determine where new schools should be built in relation to
expected growth patterns for housing. The school districts are seeking state and
federal aid to build the schools prior to students’ arrival. They anticipate that they
have four to five years to complete the new construction.
23 (...continued)
When an Installation Grows: The Impact of Expanding Missions on Communities. January
2005. Available online at [http://www.defensecommunities.org/Downloads/Expanding_
Mission.pdf].
24 National Association of Installation Developers/Association of Defense Communities,
Ready, Set, Grow: Defense Communities Make Plans to Accommodate New Missions,
September 22, 2005. Available online at [http://www.defensecommunities.org].