Global Direct Investment Solutions

Corporate Development for a Networked World

OnTheShortList.com     SurgeUSA.org

ShortListNews.com

BRAC 2005 Impact : Estimated Net Jobs

Bruce Donnelly   bruce@gdi-solutions.com    (Biography)

This is not a political "win/loss" analysis, and there is no comparison relative to the scale of the total military-related jobs in the states (at 425 bases) which could potentially have been affected by BRAC.  States with major prior closures, as in California, may have had fewer prospects left for BRAC 2005, while others may not have had much to gain or lose at all.

This chart simply reflects where the military is proposing to make changes now as it reorganizes excess capacity from past location decisions to meet perceived future needs.  It does not reflect revised totals after the BRAC Commission reviewed the DOD analysis, or changes according to their August 2005 recommendations.  For example, some major closure proposals were not approved, as shown by updates in our BRAC 2005 directory.

The data behind this graphic is summarized below.  Refer also to our BRAC 2005 directory, which includes links for local contacts for the prior BRAC rounds too.

There are also significant indirect impacts, such as jobs which are not for military or civilian personnel or contractors of the Department of Defense, and therefore do not show up in these figures, but whose livelihood is closely tied to the scale of the military presence in the community. 

• State directories of US economic development organizations.

• Global and regional directories, professional service providers

• Many former BRAC locations are now US foreign-trade zones.

• US Governors and other officials have lobbied against BRAC changes.

Total losses : -64,363

Total gains : 51,679

Undistributed losses : -13,503

such as undistributed or overseas reductions - Germany, Korea

Grand total : -26,187 net loss

These add up to net losses of 12,684 military, civilian, and mission contractor jobs in the United States, Puerto Rico, and Guam.

There are a further 13,503 net losses identified as "Germany, Korea, and Undistributed", which presumably reflects the planned relocations of personnel from overseas bases, which was the recent topic of a separate Overseas Basing Commission report. ( www.obc.gov )

It is not yet clear, however, whether some of the reported gains at specific installations already reflect most of the planned transfers from overseas bases, whether as short-term plans already in progress or longer-term projections of expected redeployments of forces.

It is worth noting, in that regard, that the Overseas Basing Commission did not recommend approval of the proposed changes, but rather suggested a few revisions and a slower process to allow for greater oversight and preparations for less stressful redeployments, such as to allow the necessary preparations to be made at the US bases which would be receiving the overseas missions. 

Since there are no final decisions yet about overseas base changes, the actual jobs impact on communities affected by the US BRAC 2005 process may differ as such decisions about where to redeploy potentially large numbers of overseas forces are made later.

In other words, the BRAC recommendations may reflect assessments of the remaining bases (including those with no reported BRAC changes) as capable of receiving overseas redeployments whenever they are planned, without actually including projections about such hypothetical redeployments in the current impact analysis for BRAC.  Instead, that may be a separate impact analysis as the overseas basing plans are developed and implemented.

It is also worth noting that military perceptions of future threats and needs have changed since the prior BRAC rounds in 1995 and earlier, particularly in the context of post 9/11/01 conflicts.  The realignment of installations to meet projected needs is a periodic review process, as in the reorganization of business operations as global markets change.

Northeast          NY   CT   MA   RI   NH  VT  ME

Mid-Atlantic       PA   NJ   MD   DE   DC   WV   VA   NC

Southeast         SC   GA   FL   AL   MS   TN

Great Lakes      KY   OH   MI   IN    IL   WI   MN

North Central     MO  IA   KS   NE   ND  SD

South Central    TX   OK   AR   LA

Mountain          AZ   NM  CO   UT    WY   ID   MT

West Coast      CA  NV   OR   WA   HI   AK

Economic development directory - alphabetical list by state for convenience

Same links as abbreviations at left (not familiar to foreign visitors)

Alabama   Alaska   Arizona  Arkansas  California  Colorado  Connecticut  Delaware  Florida  Georgia   Hawaii  Idaho  Illinois  Indiana  Iowa  Kansas  Kentucky  Louisiana  Maine  Maryland  Massachusetts  Michigan  Minnesota  Mississippi  Missouri  Montana  Nebraska  Nevada  New Hampshire  New Jersey  New Mexico  New York  North Carolina  North Dakota  Ohio  Oklahoma  Oregon  Pennsylvania  Rhode Island  South Carolina  South Dakota  Tennessee  Texas   Utah  Vermont  Virginia  Washington   West Virginia   Wisconsin   Wyoming