Input:
	Introduction

The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) requires that private-sector firms provide workers' compensation coverage for their employees engaged in longshore, harbor, or other maritime occupations on or adjacent to the navigable waters of the United States. Although the LHWCA program is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), most benefits are paid either through private insurers or self-insured firms.
The LHWCA is a workers' compensation system and not a federal benefits program. Like other workers' compensation systems in the United States, the LHWCA ensures that all covered workers are provided medical and disability benefits in the event they are injured or become ill in the course of their employment, and it provides benefits to the survivors of covered workers who die on the job. In 2016, the LHWCA paid approximately $1.41 billion in cash and medical benefits to injured workers and the families of deceased workers.

	Workers' Compensation in the United States

Nearly all private- and public-sector workers in the United States are covered by some form of workers' compensation. The federal government has a limited role in workers' compensation and administers workers' compensation programs only for federal employees and several classes of private-sector workers, including longshore and harbor workers. For most occupations, workers' compensation is mandated by state laws and administered by state agencies.
There is no federal mandate that states provide workers' compensation. However, every state and the District of Columbia has a workers' compensation system. There are no federal standards for state workers' compensation systems. However, all U.S. workers' compensation systems provide for limited wage replacement and full medical benefits for workers who are injured or become ill as a result of their work and survivors benefits to the families of workers who die on the job.
Workers' compensation in the United States is a no-fault system that pays workers for employment-related injuries or illnesses without considering the culpability of any one party. In exchange for this no-fault protection and the guarantee of benefits in the event of an employment-related injury, illness, or death, workers give up their rights to bring actions against employers in the civil court system and give up their rights to seek damages for injuries and illnesses, including pain and suffering, outside of those provided by the workers' compensation laws. Workers' compensation is mandatory in all states and the District of Columbia, with the exception of Texas. In Texas, employers may, under certain conditions, opt out of the workers' compensation system, but in doing so subject themselves to civil actions brought by injured employees.

	History of the LHWCA

Prior to the enactment of the LHWCA in 1927, longshore and harbor workers were not covered by any workers' compensation system. Although persons who worked entirely on land were covered by workers' compensation laws in those states that enacted such laws, pursuant to the Supreme Court's 1917 decision in Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen , state workers' compensation systems did not have jurisdiction over persons working on the "navigable waters" of the United States because the Constitution granted the authority over "matters of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction" to the federal government. The LHWCA created a federal workers' compensation program to cover these workers. In 1972, the LHWCA zone of coverage was extended to include areas adjacent to navigable waters that are used for loading, unloading, repairing, or building vessels.

	Firms and Workers Covered by the LHWCA

		Covered Firms

The LHWCA provisions apply to any private firm with any covered employees who work, full- or part-time, on the navigable waters of the United States, including in any of the following adjoining areas: piers; wharves; dry docks; terminals; building ways; marine railways; or other areas customarily used in the loading, unloading, repairing, or building of vessels.

		Covered Workers

With the exception of workers excluded by statute (listed below), the LHWCA covers any maritime employee of a covered firm, including longshore workers (those who load and unload ships) and harbor workers (i.e., ship repairmen, ship builders, and ship breakers).

			Workers Excluded by Statute

Sections 2(3) and 3(b) of the LHWCA exclude the following workers from coverage:
Workers covered by a state workers' compensation law, including employees exclusively engaged in clerical, secretarial, security, or data processing work; persons employed by a club, camp, recreational operation, museum, or retail outlet; marina employees not engaged in the construction, replacement, or expansion of the marina; suppliers, transporters, and vendors doing business temporarily at the site of a covered employer; aquaculture workers; and employees who build any recreational vessel under 65 feet in length, or repair any recreational vessel, or dismantle any part of a recreational vessel in connection with the repair of the vessel. Workers, whether covered or not covered by a state workers' compensation law, including masters and crew members of vessels; persons engaged by the master of a vessel to unload any vessel under 18 tons net; and employees of the federal government, or any state, local, or foreign government or any subdivision of such a government.

			2009 Amendment to the LHWCA

Section 803 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) modified one of the excluded classes of workers under the LHWCA by adding additional exclusions for persons who work on recreational vessels over 65 feet in length. Prior to the amendment, Section 2(3)(F) of the LHWCA read as follows:
(3) The term "employee" means…but such term does not include…
(F) individuals employed to build, repair, or dismantle any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length.
This section, as amended, reads as follows (with additions in italics):
(3) The term "employee" means…but such term does not include…
(F) individuals employed to build any recreational vessel under sixty-five feet in length, or individuals employed to repair any recreational vessel, or to dismantle any part of a recreational vessel in connection with the repair of such vessel.
By granting an exemption from the LHWCA to persons engaged in the repair of any recreation vessel, regardless of its size, this amendment limits the scope of the LHWCA and increases the types of workers excluded from coverage.

			2011 DOL Regulations Defining Recreational Vessel

In 2011, the DOL promulgated implementing regulations for the new recreational vessel provision provided by Section 803 of ARRA. These regulations provided definitions of recreational vessel for the purposes of the determination of LHWCA coverage. These definitions are based on the classification of vessels used by the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and provided in statute and regulation.

				General Definition

Specifically, under these current DOL regulations, a vessel is considered a recreational vessel if the vessel is
being manufactured or operated mainly for pleasure or leased, rented, or chartered to another person for his or her pleasure.

				Definition for Vessel Being Built or Repaired Under Warranty

In addition, for a vessel being built or repaired under warranty by its manufacturer or builder, the vessel is considered a recreational vessel if it appears based on its design and construction to be intended for recreational uses. The manufacturer or builder bears the burden under this regulation to establish that the vessel is a recreational vessel.

				Definition for Vessel Being Repaired or Dismantled

For a vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or dismantled at the end of its life (ship breaking), the vessel is not considered a recreational vessel if it was operating, more than infrequently, in one of the following categories provided in the U.S. Code :
"passenger vessel" (46 U.S.C. §2101(22)); "small passenger vessel" (46 U.S.C. §2101(35)); "uninspected passenger vessel" (46 U.S.C. §2101(42)); vessel routinely engaged in "commercial service" (46 U.S.C. §2101(5)); or vessel that routinely carries "passengers for hire" (46 U.S.C. §2101(21a)).
A vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or dismantled at the end of its life is considered a recreational vessel if the vessel is a public vessel owned, or bareboat chartered, by the federal government or a state or local government and shares elements of design and construction with traditional recreational vessels and is not used for military or commercial purposes.

			Legislation to Change the DOL's Definition of Recreational Vessel

Since the promulgation of the DOL's 2011 rules providing regulatory definitions of recreational vessels for the purposes of the LHWCA, numerous bills have been introduced that would, if enacted, remove the existing regulatory definitions for a vessel being repaired, dismantled for repair, or dismantled at the end of its life so that the USCG categories of vessels provided in Section 2101 of Title 46 of the United States Code would no longer be used in the classification of such a vessel under the LHWCA. This legislation would expand the types of recreational vessels. Because persons who work on recreational vessels are not covered by the LHWCA, the legislation would allow employers to purchase workers' compensation for these workers under state laws rather than the LHWCA, which, due to the more generous benefits frequently offered by the LHWCA and the limited number of providers, may be more expensive.
In the 115 th Congress, Section 3509 of H.R. 2810 , the National Defense Authorization Act for 2018 (NDAA), as initially passed by the House of Representatives on July 14, 2017, contained this legislative provision. This provision was not included in the Senate version of the bill nor in the final NDAA enacted into law.

			Extensions of Coverage Under the LHWCA

The LHWCA has been amended four times to extend coverage to occupations outside the original scope of the law. In 1928, coverage was extended to employees of the District of Columbia . The provision was repealed, effective for all injuries occurring on or after July 26, 1982, with the enactment by the District of Columbia government of the District of Columbia Workers' Compensation Act of 1982. Benefits for injuries that occurred prior to July 26, 1982, continue to be paid under the LHWCA.
Coverage was extended to overse a s military and public works contractors in 1941 with the enactment of the Defense Base Act. In 1952, coverage was extended to civilian employees of nonappropriated fund instrumentalities of the armed forces , such as service clubs and post exchanges. Coverage was extended in 1953 to employees working on the Outer Continental Shelf in the exploration and the development of natural resources , such as workers on offshore oil platforms.

	Insurance and Financing

Employers required by the LHWCA to provide workers' compensation coverage to their employees may either purchase private insurance or self-insure. The DOL is responsible for authorizing insurance carriers to provide coverage under the LHWCA program and for authorizing companies to self-insure. However, the DOL does not set or regulate insurance premiums. These insurance arrangements are the primary means of providing LHWCA benefits to injured, sick, and deceased workers and their families. General revenue is not used to pay any LHWCA benefits.

		Special Fund

The DOL operates the Special Fund to provide LHWCA benefits in cases in which the responsible employer or insurance carrier cannot pay or in which benefits must be paid for a second injury under Section 8(f) of the LHWCA. The Special Fund is financed through an annual assessment charged to employers and insurance carriers based on the previous year's claims, payments required when an employee dies without any survivors, disability payments due to an employee without survivors after his or her death, and penalties and fines assessed for noncompliance with LHWCA program rules.

		Administrative Costs

The administrative costs associated with the LHWCA are largely provided by general revenue. General revenue is used to pay for most oversight functions associated with the LHWCA and the processing of LHWCA claims. General revenue is also used to pay legal and investigative costs associated with the DOL Office of the Solicitor and Office of the Inspector General. Revenue from the Special Fund is used to finance oversight activities related to the Special Fund and the program's vocational rehabilitation activities. In 2016, total administrative costs associated with the LHWCA were approximately $15.8 million, of which $13.6 million, or 86%, was paid by general revenue and $2.2 million, or 14%, was paid by the Special Fund.

	LHWCA Benefits

The LHWCA provides medical benefits for covered injuries and illnesses and disability benefits to partially cover wages lost due to covered injuries or illnesses, and it provides survivors benefits to the families of workers who die on the job.

		Medical Benefits

The LHWCA provides medical benefits to fully cover the cost of any medical treatment associated with a covered injury or illness. These medical benefits are provided without any deductibles, copayments, or costs paid by the injured worker. Prescription drugs and medical procedures are fully covered, as are costs associated with travelling to and from medical appointments. A covered worker may select his or her own treating physician, provided the physician has not been debarred from the LHWCA program for violating program rules.

		Vocational Rehabilitation

Covered workers are entitled to vocational rehabilitation services provided under the LHWCA. Vocational rehabilitation services are designed to assist the covered worker in returning to employment. There is no cost to the covered worker for vocational rehabilitation and workers actively participating in a rehabilitation program are entitled to an additional benefit of $25 per week. All costs associated with vocational rehabilitation under the LHWCA are paid out of the Special Fund. Vocational rehabilitation services may be provided by public or private rehabilitation agencies.

		Disability Benefits

The LHWCA provides disability benefits to covered workers to partially cover wages lost due to the inability to work because of a covered injury or illness. The amount of disability benefits is based on the worker's pre-disability wage, subject to maximum and minimum benefits based on the National Average Weekly Wage (NAWW) as determined by the DOL. The NAWW is updated October 1 of each year and is based on average wages across the United States for the three calendar quarters ending on June 30 of that year. The minimum weekly benefit that can be paid to a covered employee is equal to 50% of the NAWW and the maximum weekly benefit that can be paid is equal to 200% of the NAWW.
Disability benefits under the LHWCA, like all workers' compensation benefits, are not subject to federal income taxes. Unlike most state workers' compensation benefits, however, LHWCA benefits are adjusted based on wage inflation rather than price inflation. Benefits are adjusted annually each October 1 to reflect the change in the NAWW from the previous year, up to a maximum increase of 5%.

			Total Disability Benefits

The LHWCA provides benefits in cases of total disability. Under the LHWCA, a worker is considered totally disabled if he or she is unable to earn his or her pre-injury wage because of a covered injury or illness. In addition, a worker is also considered totally disabled if he or she loses both hands, arms, feet, legs, or eyes, or any two of these body systems, such as the loss of one arm and one leg. Total disability benefits under the LHWCA are equal to two-thirds of the covered worker's wage at the time of the injury or illness. Total disability benefits continue until the worker is no longer totally disabled or dies.

			Partial Disability Benefits

If a covered worker is able to partially return to work or return to work at a wage level less than his or her wage at the time of injury, then he or she is considered partially disabled. In cases of temporary partial disability, the LHWCA benefit is equal to two-thirds of the difference between the workers' pre-injury wage and his or her current earning capacity or actual earnings.

			Permanent Partial Disability Benefits

Section 8(c) of the LHWCA provides a schedule of benefits to be paid in cases of permanent partial disability (PPD), such as the loss of a limb. The benefit schedule provides the number of weeks of compensation, at two-thirds of the pre-injury wage, for each type of PPD. For example, the LHWCA schedule provides that a worker who loses an arm is entitled to 312 weeks of compensation. Benefits in cases not listed on the schedule are paid at two-thirds of the difference between the pre-injury wage and current earning capacity for the duration of the disability. Schedule benefits for PPD are paid regardless of the current work status or earnings capacity of the employee. Thus, an employee with a PPD can fully return to work and earn his or her wage in addition to the PPD compensation. A copy of the LHWCA PPD schedule can be found in the Appendix to this report.

			Disability After Retirement

If a worker has an illness that was caused by his or her covered employment but did not manifest itself until after his or her retirement, then he or she is entitled to disability benefits equal to two-thirds of the NAWW multiplied by the percentage of his or her impairment. The percentage of impairment is determined using the current edition of the American Medical Association's Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides ), or another professionally recognized source if the condition is not listed in the AMA Guides.

		Survivors Benefits

The LHWCA provides cash benefits to the surviving spouses and minor children of workers killed on the job. Benefits for a surviving spouse end when the spouse remarries or dies and benefits for surviving children continue until the children reach the age of 18, age 23 if a full-time student, or for the life a child with a disability.
A surviving spouse with no eligible children is entitled to one-half of the deceased worker's wage at the time of death under the LHWCA. A surviving spouse with one or more eligible children is entitled to two-thirds of the deceased worker's wage at the time of death. Once all children become ineligible for benefits because of their ages, the surviving spouse's benefit is reduced to the level of a spouse without any eligible children.
If an eligible spouse becomes ineligible for benefits because of death or remarriage, or if there is no surviving spouse, benefits are still paid to any surviving children. Under the LHWCA, a single surviving eligible child is entitled to one-half of the deceased worker's wage at the time of death, and two or more surviving children are eligible for a combined two-thirds of the wage at the time of death.
The survivors of a covered worker killed on the job are entitled under the LHWCA to a cash payment to provide for the burial and funeral of the deceased. The burial and funeral allowance is capped by Section 9(a) of the LHWCA at $3,000, and this cap not adjusted to reflect changes in prices or wages.
If a covered worker who is receiving scheduled PPD benefits dies of a cause unrelated to his or her illness or injury, then the balance of any remaining PPD benefits is paid to his or her survivors. If a covered worker who dies on the job leaves no survivors, his or her employer or the employer's insurance carrier is required to pay $5,000 into the Special Fund.

	LHWCA Claims Process

Although the responsibility for the payment of benefits under the LHWCA rests with the employer or the employer's insurance company, decisions on benefit eligibility and the amount of benefits are made by the DOL. Upon the report of an injury, illness, or death, the LHWCA claims process begins. If the employer or insurance carrier does not controvert the claim, then arrangements are made by the DOL for the claim to be paid.
If, however, the employer controverts any part of the claim, then the DOL sets up an informal conference, either in person or by phone, between the employer or insurance carrier and worker with the goal of resolving any disputes over the claim. If this informal conference fails to resolve all outstanding disputes, then a formal hearing before a DOL administrative law judge (ALJ) is scheduled. If the employer or insurance carrier or the worker is dissatisfied with the decision of the ALJ, then this decision may be appealed to the Benefits Review Board (BRB). The BRB is made up of five members appointed by the Secretary of Labor. Either party dissatisfied with the decision of the BRB may file a petition with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the circuit in which the injury occurred praying that the BRB's decision be set aside or modified.
If an employer or insurance carrier fails to pay compensation in accordance with a final decision on a claim, the covered worker or the DOL may request that the U.S. District Court order that payment be made.

		Appendix. Benefits Schedule for LHWCA PPD

Output:
The Longshore and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA) is a federal workers' compensation program that covers certain private-sector maritime workers. Firms that employ these workers are required to purchase workers' compensation or self-insure and are responsible for providing medical and disability benefits to covered workers who are injured or become ill on the job and survivors benefits to the families of covered workers who die on the job. The LHWCA is administered by the Department of Labor (DOL), and all benefit costs are paid by employers and their insurance carriers. In 2016, more than $1.4 billion in LHWCA benefits were paid to beneficiaries.
Congress has extended the LHWCA provisions to cover workers outside of the maritime industry, such as overseas government contractors and civilian employees of military post exchanges. As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), persons who repair recreational vessels of any size were added to the LHWCA exemption list. In 2011, the DOL implemented this provision; since then, those regulations have proven controversial and numerous bills have been introduced to modify the regulatory definition to increase the number of workers exempted from the LHWCA.
The LHWCA pays for all medical care associated with a covered injury or illness. Disability benefits are based on a worker's pre-injury wage, and, unlike comparable state workers' compensation benefits, are adjusted annually to reflect national wage growth.


Input:
	Background

		Federal Grant Programs

The federal government uses grants to address national priorities—such  as substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery—through  nonfederal parties, including state and local governments, federally  recognized tribes, educational institutions, and nonprofit organizations.  While there is variation among different grant program goals and grant  types, most federal grants follow a common life cycle that includes an  award, implementation, and closeout stage for administering the grants.  During the award stage, the federal awarding agency enters into an  agreement with the grantee stipulating the terms and conditions for the  use of grant funds including the period that funds are available for the  grantee’s use. During the implementation stage, the grantee carries out  the requirements of the agreement and requests payments, while the  awarding agency monitors the grantee and approves or denies payments.  The grantee and the awarding agency close the grant once the grantee  has completed all the work associated with a grant agreement, the grant  period of performance end date (or grant expiration date) has arrived, or  both.
Federal grant programs may fund various types of grants, including  discretionary grants, formula grants, and cooperative agreements.  Discretionary grants are generally awarded on a competitive basis for  specified projects that meet eligibility and program requirements. Formula  grants are noncompetitive awards based on a predetermined formula,  typically established in statute, and are provided to eligible applicants that  meet specified criteria outlined by statute or regulation, such as a state. A  cooperative agreement is a type of federal financial assistance similar to  a grant, except the federal government is more substantially involved with  the implementation.

		Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services

Substance use prevention programs and services (which we refer to  collectively as “prevention services” in this report) are designed to prevent  or delay the early use of substances and stop the progression from use to  problematic use or to a substance use disorder. Prevention services  generally focus on reducing a variety of risk factors and promoting a  broad range of protective factors through various activities that include,  for example, setting policies that reduce the availability of substances in a  community, teaching adolescents how to resist negative social influences,  and communicating the harms of substances such as the nonmedical use  of prescription opioids and marijuana through media campaigns. In  addition, prevention services can be targeted at all members of a given  population without regard for risk factors, such as all adolescents, or to  particular subgroups of individuals or families, such as those who are at  increased risk of substance use due to their exposure to risk factors.  Targeted audiences for such services may include families living in  poverty or children of substance-using parents.
When substance use progresses to a point that it is clinically diagnosed  as causing significant impairments in health and social functioning, it is  characterized as a substance use disorder. Treatment services for  substance use disorders are designed to enable an individual to reduce  or discontinue substance use and to address health problems, and  typically include behavioral therapy. Behavioral therapies use various  techniques to modify an individual’s behaviors and improve coping skills,  such as incentives and reinforcements to reward individuals who reduce  their substance use. For opioid use disorders, treatment may involve  combining behavioral therapy with medications—an approach commonly  referred to as medication-assisted treatment. Some of these treatment  services may be paid for by private insurers, public health coverage  programs, nonprofit organizations, or consumers (out-of-pocket), but  federal grant programs and various state and local programs also provide  funding for these services.
Substance use recovery services are designed to help engage and  support individuals with substance use disorders in treatment and provide  ongoing support after treatment. There are a variety of recovery services  such as peer recovery coaching, which involves the use of coaches— peers who identify as being in recovery and use their knowledge and  experience to inform their work—to help individuals who are transitioning  out of treatment to connect with community services and address barriers  that may hinder the recovery process. Other examples include recovery  housing, which provides a substance-free environment and support from  fellow recovering residents, and recovery high schools, which help  students recovering from substance use disorders focus on academic  learning. Some recovery services may be paid for through various  sources, including Medicaid programs in certain states, some private  insurers, and federal grant programs. In addition, some recovery services  may be offered by member-led, voluntary associations that charge no  fees, such as 12-step groups.

	Three Federal Agencies Operated 12 Grant Programs That Funded Services Specifically Targeting Adolescents and Young Adults in Fiscal Year 2017

		Eight of the 12 Federal Grant Programs for Adolescents and Young Adults Funded Substance Use Prevention Services

We identified 12 federal grant programs within three of the four agencies  in our review that funded substance use prevention, treatment, and  recovery services in fiscal year 2017 and targeted adolescents’ and  young adults’ use of illicit substances. Eight of these programs focused  on prevention, and all 8 remain active in fiscal year 2018. The 8 grant  programs have varying purposes and were administered by two entities  within HHS—SAMHSA or IHS—or by ONDCP. For example, the Drug- Free Communities Support Program is funded and directed by ONDCP to  support community coalitions in preventing and reducing substance  abuse among youth aged 18 and younger. As another example, the  Strategic Prevention Framework for Prescription Drugs program,  administered by SAMHSA, is designed to raise awareness about the  dangers of sharing prescription medications such as opioids, and to  promote collaboration between states and pharmaceutical and medical  communities to understand the risks of overprescribing to youth (aged 12  to 17) and adults (aged 18 and older). In addition, this program is  intended to provide prevention activities and education to schools,  communities, and parents.
In total, the 8 grant programs targeting the prevention of substance use  among adolescents and young adults had 1,146 active grantees in fiscal  year 2017. The Drug-Free Communities Support Program had the  largest number of active grantees—713 community coalitions—and the  other 7 programs had a combined total of 434 that included states and  federally recognized tribes. The total number of active grantees in fiscal  year 2017 includes those that received a single- or multi-year award in  fiscal year 2017, as well as those that received a multi-year award in  fiscal year 2016 for a project that was ongoing in fiscal year 2017.  Grantees were awarded a total amount of about $266 million in fiscal year  2017, with SAMHSA’s Strategic Prevention Framework-Partnerships for  Success program providing the largest amount of funding (about $95  million). (See table 1.)
All 8 prevention grant programs had ongoing or planned evaluations to  assess the effectiveness of their grantees in accomplishing a variety of  program goals, according to agency officials. For example, ONDCP is  overseeing the ongoing evaluation of the Drug-Free Communities  Support Program through semi-annual progress reports and through the  collection of data, such as data on past 30-day substance use, from  coalitions that received awards. A recent evaluation of this program found  that coalitions included about 19,000 community members who were  targeting prevention services to about 20 percent of the population in the  United States (including 2.5 million middle school and 3.5 million high  school youth) in fiscal year 2015. In addition, this evaluation found that  middle and high school youth in communities with a coalition reported a  significant decrease in the past 30-day use of marijuana, prescription  drugs, alcohol, and tobacco, from 2002 to 2016. However, at the same  time, the perceptions of the risk of marijuana use decreased significantly  among high school youth in communities with community coalitions,  according to the evaluation. As another example, IHS’s planned  evaluation of the Methamphetamine and Suicide Prevention Initiative- Generation Indigenous grant program will focus on measures such as the  types of services that grantees implemented to prevent  methamphetamine use and promote positive development among  American Indian and Alaska Native youth, according to agency officials.  For the other 6 prevention grant programs, planned evaluations will  examine the extent to which reductions in substance use are observed  over time among the grantees’ targeted adolescents or young adults.

		Four of the 12 Federal Grant Programs for Adolescents and Young Adults Funded Substance Use Treatment and Recovery Services

Of the 12 federal grant programs targeting adolescents’ and young adults’  use of illicit substances, we identified 4 that focused on the provision of  substance use treatment and recovery services and had active grantees  in fiscal year 2017. Two of the 4 programs ended at the close of fiscal  year 2017 and the other 2 remained active in fiscal year 2018. The 4  programs had different purposes and were administered by OJJDP or  SAMHSA, within DOJ and HHS, respectively. For example, the  Cooperative Agreements for Adolescent and Transitional Aged Youth  Treatment Implementation, administered by SAMHSA, is still active, and  intends to increase the capacity of states to provide treatment and  recovery services to adolescents (aged 12 to 18) and transitional-aged  youth (aged 16 to 25) that have substance use disorders or co-occurring  substance use disorders and mental disorders. This program aims to  increase states’ capacity by increasing the number of qualified treatment  providers. The other 3 grant programs were designed to improve different  aspects of the existing juvenile drug treatment courts, which DOJ defines  as a court calendar or docket that provides specialized treatment and  services for youth with substance use or co-occurring mental health  disorders. As an example, the Fiscal Year 2017 Juvenile Drug Treatment  Court Program, which is still active and administered by OJJDP, aims to  deliver services that are consistent with DOJ’s Juvenile Drug Treatment  Court Guidelines—a set of best practices for effective juvenile drug  treatment courts.
In total, the 4 grant programs that targeted substance use treatment and  recovery services among adolescents and young adults had 57 active  grantees in fiscal year 2017. SAMHSA’s Cooperative Agreements for  Adolescent and Transitional Aged Youth Treatment Implementation had  the largest number of active grantees (36), which included state  substance abuse agencies and federally recognized tribes. The three  juvenile drug treatment court programs had a total of 21 active grantees  that included, for example, county juvenile drug treatment courts and a  state judicial department. The total number of active grantees in fiscal  year 2017 included those that received a single- or multi-year award in  fiscal year 2017 as well as active grantees that received multi-year  awards in prior years. In total, active grantees from 2 of the 4 programs  were awarded about $23 million in fiscal year 2017. (See table 2.)
Two of the 4 treatment and recovery grant programs had ongoing or  planned evaluations to assess the effectiveness of their grantees in  accomplishing a variety of program goals, according to agency officials.  SAMHSA officials told us that its ongoing evaluation of the Cooperative  Agreements for Adolescent and Transitional Aged Youth Treatment  Implementation is assessing the types of treatment services provided to  adolescents and young adults as well as the extent to which they  abstained from substance use. Officials added that the evaluation is  examining grantees’ efforts to expand the qualified workforce of treatment  providers for adolescents and young adults. A recent evaluation that was  completed for this program found that most grantees provided training to  treatment providers on evidence-based treatment services and other  topics, and about one-third of grantees identified additional training needs  such as training on co-occurring disorders and trauma-informed services.  This evaluation also found a decrease in substance use among  adolescents and young adults who received treatment services after 6  months and that enhanced provider training was associated with this  decrease. OJJDP’s Fiscal Year 2017 Juvenile Drug Treatment Court  Program includes a planned evaluation of the impact of the DOJ juvenile  drug treatment court guidelines on participant outcomes. That is, OJJDP  plans to compare the outcomes of participants in courts aligned with the  guidelines to participants in other court programs that will serve as  “comparison courts.” OJJDP officials told us that the evaluation plans to  assess youth outcomes such as recidivism in substance use, quality of  relationships with parents and peers, and mental wellbeing. OJJDP  officials stated that while they are not evaluating their fiscal year 2015 and  2014 juvenile drug treatment court grant programs, grantees must report  on various performance measures related to substance use to assist DOJ  with fulfilling its responsibilities under the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993 and the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010. For  example, grantees must report on a semiannual basis the number of drug  and alcohol tests performed on juveniles and the number of positive tests  recorded.

		Other Federal Grant Programs Fund Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services, but Do Not Specifically Target Adolescents and Young Adults

Other federal grant programs beyond the 12 we identified provide funds  for substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery services across  age groups but do not specifically target adolescents and young adults.  The Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant is the  largest of such grant programs that fund prevention, treatment, and  recovery services across age groups. SAMHSA, which administers this  grant, awarded a total of $1.8 billion in fiscal year 2017 to grantees which  included states, the District of Columbia, territories, and one federally  recognized tribe. The amount of awards that states receive is based on a  formula that takes into account a grantee’s: population at risk of  substance abuse; relative costs of providing prevention and treatment  services; and relative ability to pay for prevention and treatment  services.
States have some flexibility in determining how to use their Substance  Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant funds, and our analysis  shows variation in the extent to which grantees used these funds to  provide prevention, treatment, and recovery services to adolescents and  young adults in 2014, the most recent year for which data were available.  For prevention services that target individuals, such as those delivered to  middle school students in the classroom, the percentage of persons  served that grantees could identify as being adolescents and young  adults ranged from 0.1 percent (Oklahoma) to 100 percent (American  Samoa and United States Virgin Islands). However, most of the grantees  reported percentages that fell in the range of 23 to 61 percent. For  prevention services that target populations rather than individuals, such  as media campaigns, grantees similarly reported that the percentage of  adolescents and young adults served ranged from 0.1 percent (Indiana)  to 100 percent (United States Virgin Islands). However, most of the  grantees reported percentages that fell in the range of 18 to 46 percent.
For treatment and recovery services, grantees reported that the  percentage of all persons served who were adolescents and young adults  ranged from 8 percent (District of Columbia) to 100 percent (Red Lake  Band of Chippewa Indians). However, most of the grantees reported  percentages that fell in the range of 17 to 26 percent. (See app. I for the  percentages of persons served that were adolescents and young adults,  by grantee.)
In addition to the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block  Grant, other federal grant programs provide funds for prevention,  treatment, and recovery services across age groups, but do not  specifically target adolescents and young adults. For example, the State  Targeted Response to the Opioid Crisis grant program, administered by  SAMHSA, aims to help states and others reduce the number of opioid  overdose related deaths by providing funds for prevention, treatment, and  recovery services for opioid use disorders. In fiscal year 2017, SAMHSA  awarded about $485 million in grants to 50 states, the District of  Columbia, and 6 territories through this program. As another example, the  Targeted Capacity Expansion: Medication Assisted Treatment –  Prescription Drug and Opioid Addiction grant program, also administered  by SAMHSA, provides funding to states to expand access to medication- assisted treatment services as well as recovery services among  individuals with opioid use disorders. In fiscal year 2017 SAMHSA  awarded $31 million in additional grants to 6 states through this program.

	NIDA Had 186 Active Grant-Funded Research Projects Focused on Substance Use Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery among Adolescents and Young Adults in 2017

		Most of NIDA’s 186 Active Grant-Funded Research Projects for Adolescents and Young Adults in 2017 Focused on Substance Use Prevention

Our analysis found that HHS’s NIDA had 186 active grant-funded  research projects focused on illicit substance use prevention, treatment,  or recovery among adolescents and young adults in October and  November 2017, and most of these projects addressed substance use  prevention. Specifically, 126 research projects, or about 68 percent of  NIDA’s ongoing research projects for this population, involved research  related to preventing the use of illicit substances, such as the use of  marijuana or nonmedical use of opioids and other prescription drugs. The  remaining 60 projects, or about 32 percent, involved research related to  treatment for or recovery from the use of illicit substances among  adolescents and young adults, or a combination of categories (e.g.,  substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery). Among the  categories of research projects, the fewest involved research exclusively  about recovery (4 out of 186 projects, or about 2 percent), as shown in  table 3. Our analysis also found that about 12 percent of the ongoing  projects (22 of 186) involved the use of brain imaging in research on  prevention, treatment, or recovery. In total, of the 186 research projects  that were active in October and November 2017, 135 received $61.3  million in grants from NIDA in fiscal year 2017. NIDA did not provide  awards in fiscal year 2017 for the remaining 51 projects that were active  in October and November 2017.
The following examples illustrate the types of research activities funded  by the prevention, treatment, and recovery grants identified in our  review:
Prevention research projects. One research project involved  testing whether a parenting intervention is associated with lower  substance use and other high-risk behaviors among adolescents  in the long term, including how such outcomes relate to genetic  risk factors. The project’s participants included 731 adolescents to  be assessed over multiple years. The project planned to collect  DNA; observations of family interaction; parent, youth, and  teacher reports regarding adolescents’ conduct; and assessments  of their peer environments.
Treatment research projects. One research project involved  testing the effectiveness of the use of the medication naltrexone  (extended release), compared to the use of buprenorphine in  treating adolescents and young adults with opioid use disorders.  The project’s participants included 340 adolescents and young  adults and the project planned to provide counseling to the  participants during the course of the study. The project planned to  assess a variety of outcomes after 3 and 6 months, including the  number of days participants were in treatment, participants’ use of  opioids as well as other drug and alcohol use, and the cost- effectiveness of the treatment.
Recovery research projects. One research project involved  testing the effectiveness of a smartphone application to deliver  recovery services to adolescents after they received treatment for  a substance use disorder, compared to a control group of  adolescents that received recovery services via traditional  methods. Examples of recovery services delivered with a  smartphone application include participating in online recovery  group discussions and receiving motivational messages. The  project’s participants included 400 adolescents to be assessed  over a 9-month period. The project planned to collect a variety of  information, such as how frequently participants used the  smartphone application, how long they abstained from substance  use, and their quality of life.

		In Fiscal Year 2017, NIDA and Nine Other HHS Entities Funded a Large Study Examining the Effects of Substance Use on Adolescent Brain Development

In fiscal year 2017, NIDA and nine other entities within HHS provided  grant funding for a large study—the Adolescent Brain Cognitive  Development study—designed to examine the effects of substance use  and other factors on development of the adolescent brain. This study  was established as a result of the collaboration of several federal  agencies that determined such a study was needed because of gaps in  knowledge about how substance use and other factors affect brain  development. This study is a longitudinal study that plans to collect data  from a sample of about 11,000 children across the country for 10 years,  beginning when they are 9 or 10 years old. Twenty-one research sites  across the country were selected to collect information from children  about their brain development, genetics, substance use, mental health,  physical health, environment, and other measures. In addition, this study  is funding a data analysis and informatics center to develop the  procedures for data collection, create and maintain a common database  pooling data from all of the research sites, and conduct data analysis.  According to NIDA officials, data from the Adolescent Brain Cognitive  Development study will be made available to researchers for future use  through a data archive. In fiscal year 2017, 15 federal grants provided  funding for this study, of which NIDA contributed $18.1 million.

	Stakeholders Identified Gaps in Services and Research for Adolescents and Young Adults, and Ongoing Federal Efforts Aim to Address Gaps Stakeholders Identified Gaps in Services for Adolescents and Young Adults, and Federal Agencies Have Ongoing Efforts to Address Them

Stakeholders that we interviewed identified various gaps in services, and  among the most frequently cited were a lack of available recovery  services and treatment providers for adolescents and young adults with  substance use disorders. They also identified gaps in substance use  prevention services such as a lack of prevention services tailored for  certain subgroups within these ages. In general, officials from the  agencies in our review agreed that these gaps exist, and described  actions the agencies are taking that may help address them.

		Stakeholders Identified Gaps in Research, Such as for Adolescent-Specific Substance Use Treatment Services, and in Recovery Services for both Adolescents and Young Adults

Stakeholders that we interviewed commonly identified gaps in research  concerning adolescent-specific substance use treatment approaches, as  well as in recovery services for both adolescents and young adults. They  also identified other gaps, such as a lack of knowledge about how to  effectively communicate to adolescents and young adults the harms of  substance use. Officials from HHS’s NIDA agreed that such gaps in  research exist.
Gaps in substance use research related to adolescents and young  adults. Stakeholders commonly identified the following gaps in research:
Substance use disorder treatment with adolescents. Four of  the stakeholders we interviewed identified gaps in adolescent- specific substance use disorder treatment research. Officials  from one research organization said that it can be challenging to  recruit a sufficient number of adolescents with a substance use  disorder to participate in research studies focused on substance  use treatment, both because fewer adolescents have such  disorders compared to adults, and because adolescents—or  potentially their parents—may be in denial about the need for  treatment. These officials further stated that having too few  funding announcements that focus on adolescent-specific  research contributes to the gaps in research in this area, because  it is easier for researchers to simply work with adults when  announcements do not specify an age group of interest. An official  from another research organization said there is also a gap in  knowledge about how to deliver treatment services to adolescents  in ways that are developmentally appropriate. The official stated  that adolescents who receive treatment services generally are  less likely to complete substance use disorder treatment, and, as  a result, additional research is needed to identify how to engage  and retain adolescents in a developmentally appropriate way. The  official explained that adolescents often do not believe they need  treatment and are not certain they want to stop using substances.
Recovery services. Three of the stakeholders we interviewed  identified gaps in recovery service research for adolescents and  young adults. Officials from one advocacy and education  organization said there has been little research conducted to  determine the types of recovery services that are most effective  for adolescents in preventing relapse. Officials from one research  organization said that it would be beneficial to develop a variety of  recovery services, since services are likely to vary in effectiveness  for different groups of adolescents and young adults.
Translating research into practice. Three of the stakeholders  we interviewed identified gaps in knowledge about how to  translate evidence-based services from research into sustainable,  real world practices. For example, an official from one research  organization explained that translating evidence-based treatment  services from research into real world settings can be difficult for a  variety of reasons—such as, because services that are grant- funded may have components that are impractical to implement or  are not reimbursable. The official said one example of such an  impractical component would be having an expert observer  periodically rate the fidelity of providers’ implementation of the  service—a component that makes sense when testing the efficacy  of the service under the grant, but which can be disruptive to  workflow and may not be reimbursable by insurers once the grant  ends. Officials from another research organization similarly  commented that more research is needed to identify which  components of services make them effective.
Communicating harms of substance use. Officials from two of  the three research organizations identified a gap in knowledge  about how to effectively communicate the harms of substance use  to adolescents and young adults. They stated that it is particularly  difficult to effectively communicate the harms of cannabis to  adolescents and young adults. One official explained that societal  changes in attitudes towards cannabis have made it more difficult  to convince adolescents of both its harm and of the need for  treatment when its use develops into a substance use disorder.
Federal response to gaps in research. Officials from NIDA agreed that  these gaps in research exist and explained that while additional research  is needed to address them, the process by which NIDA funds research  through grants ultimately relies on researchers to submit proposals for  consideration. While NIDA officials stated that researchers can submit  proposals for research projects addressing adolescent or young adult  substance use prevention, treatment, or recovery under general funding  announcements for grants, NIDA also had eight funding announcements  (as of May 2018) that either focused on these age groups or included  them as a population of interest, three of which were new as of fiscal year  2018.

	Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to HHS, DOJ, ONDCP, and Education  for comment. HHS, DOJ, and ONDCP provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate. Education did not have comments  on our draft.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees; the Secretaries of the Departments of Health and Human  Services, Justice, and Education; the Director of the Office of National  Drug Control Policy; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is  available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staffs have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7114 or dickenj@gao.gov. Contact points for Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: The Use of Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant Funds for Adolescents and Young Adults

Table 4 shows the percentage of persons who were provided services  with Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant funds in  2014, and who were also identified by grantees as being adolescents or  young adults. Percentages are listed for two broad types of substance  use prevention services (individual and population-based), as well as  substance use disorder treatment and recovery services. Substance  Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant grantees include states,  territories, and one federally recognized tribe.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Gerardine Brennan, Assistant  Director; Pamela Dooley, Analyst-in-Charge; Spencer Barr; and Brandon  Nakawaki made key contributions to this report. Also contributing were  Kaitlin Farquharson, Derry Henrick, and Laurie Pachter.

Output:
Why GAO Did This Study

According to the Surgeon General, adolescence and young adulthood are critical at-risk periods for illicit substance use, and such use can harm the developing brain. Congress included a provision in law for GAO to review how federal agencies, through grants, are addressing substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery among adolescents and young adults.
Related to prevention, treatment, and recovery targeting adolescents (aged 12 to 17) and young adults (aged 18 to 25), this report describes (1) grant programs to provide services; (2) NIDA grant-funded research, and (3) gaps stakeholders identified in related services or research.
GAO selected four agencies to review—HHS, ONDCP, DOJ, and Education—the key agencies that fund grant programs for services for adolescents and young adults. GAO analyzed documents on grant programs and on research funded by NIDA. GAO interviewed officials from the four agencies and 20 stakeholder groups (including advocacy and education, and research organizations, as well as a non-generalizable selection of state substance abuse, education, and judicial agencies in four states) about gaps in services or research and agency efforts to help address them. States were selected for variation in geography and overdose rates.
HHS, DOJ, and ONDCP provided technical comments on a draft of this report, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

GAO identified 12 federal grant programs within three federal agencies that funded substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery services in fiscal year 2017 and targeted adolescents' and young adults' use of illicit substances such as marijuana and nonmedical use of prescription opioids. The three agencies included the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), and the Department of Justice (DOJ). While the Department of Education (Education) has grant programs that can fund prevention services for adolescents, they do not specifically target such services.
Eight programs targeted substance use prevention. In total, they had 1,146 active grantees in fiscal year 2017 and provided about $266 million in awards that year.
Four programs targeted treatment and recovery services. In total, they had 57 active grantees in fiscal year 2017. Two of the 4 grant programs awarded about $23 million in funding in that year (the other two awarded funding in prior years).
In addition, other grant programs beyond these 12 also fund substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery services across age groups, but are not specifically targeted to adolescents and young adults.
HHS's National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)—the agency that is the primary funder of research on illicit substance use—also had 186 active grant-funded research projects focused on substance use prevention, treatment, and recovery among adolescents and young adults as of October and November 2017.
Most of these research projects—126—were examining prevention, 45 were examining treatment, 4 were examining recovery, and 11 were examining a combination of research categories.
In total, these 186 research projects received about $61 million from NIDA in fiscal year 2017.
Most of the 20 stakeholders GAO interviewed identified gaps in services for adolescents and young adults, including insufficient access to recovery services and a shortage of treatment providers, and described financial and other reasons that likely contribute to these gaps. Federal agency officials GAO interviewed agreed that these gaps exist, and described grant programs and other efforts to help address them, such as a grant program that HHS established in 2018 to expand recovery services for these age groups. Stakeholders also identified gaps in research, such as too few treatment studies with adolescent participants, and described reasons for these gaps, including too few federal grants focused on adolescent research. NIDA officials agreed that these gaps exist, and stated that NIDA had eight grant opportunities (as of May 2018) that focused on these age groups or included them as a population of interest, three of which were new in 2018.


Input:
	Background

Scientific research on and projections of the changes taking place in the  Arctic vary, but there is a general consensus that the Arctic is warming  and that its sea ice is diminishing. For example, scientists at the  National Snow and Ice Data Center reported that for 2018 the minimum  amount of sea ice coverage in the Arctic—typically occurring in  September each year—was the sixth lowest in the satellite record and  656,000 square miles fewer than the mean for the 1981 through 2010  time frame. Further, the scientists found that the 12 lowest recordings of  September ice coverage on satellite record have all occurred in the past  12 years. Figure 1 shows the sea ice coverage (i.e., extent) in the Arctic  for September 2018 compared with the median ice edge for 1981 through  2010.
While much of the Arctic Ocean remains ice-covered for the majority of  the year, most scientific estimates predict there will be a continued  decrease in sea ice coverage in the Arctic Ocean in the summer  sometime in the next 20 to 40 years. According to the Navy’s Arctic  Roadmap for 2014 to 2030, while there may be less sea ice there in the  future, the ice that remains will continue to be a challenge to those  operating in the area.
Most commercial ship activity in the Arctic is regional—shipping into or  out of the Arctic, mainly in support of commercial activity—not trans- Arctic. However, according to the official Navy estimate from 2013, the  decreasing coverage of sea ice will result in more open water allowing  increased maritime activity along three trans-Arctic routes from 2012  through 2030: the Northern Sea Route, the Northwest Passage, and the  Trans-Polar Route (see fig. 2). This development could, for example,  reduce by thousands of miles and by several days of travel the shipping  of goods between countries in Asia and North America.
Increased economic activity in the Arctic could potentially increase the  need for military capabilities there to safeguard U.S. interests. For  example, estimates of significant oil, gas, and mineral deposits in the  Arctic have increased the interest in exploration opportunities in the  region. These resources include an estimated 13 percent of the world’s  undiscovered oil; 30 percent of the world’s undiscovered gas; and  approximately $1 trillion of minerals including gold, zinc, nickel, and  platinum. According to information provided by the Department of State,  the vast majority of these resources are within the undisputed continental  shelf of the respective coastal states. Officials from the Department of  State stated that disputed claims related to the small remaining portions  of the Arctic seabed may be addressed within the international framework  established by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.
However, as we reported in 2015, even with the changing climate and  growing interest in the region, several enduring characteristics will  continue to provide challenges to surface navigation in the Arctic for the  foreseeable future. These include large amounts of winter ice and  increased movement of ice from spring to fall. Increased movement of  sea ice makes its location less predictable, a situation that increases the  risk that ships can become trapped or damaged by ice impacts. In  addition, the lack of infrastructure in the Arctic region affects the reliability  of shipping through the area. Economic factors such as risk costs, as well  as changes in the shipping market resulting from the Panama Canal  expansion may also affect the amount of shipping along these routes. As  figure 3 shows, even as the seasonal ice decreases over time, the Navy  has projected that the Arctic will remain impassable for most commercial  ships for most of the year from 2012 through 2030. These factors  combined are likely to affect the pace at which commercial activity will  increase.
We have previously examined emerging issues and challenges for the  United States in the Arctic. See figure 4 for a timeline of our prior reports  related to Arctic issues. We also include a list of our prior work related to  the Arctic at the end of this report.

	The Navy’s Report Aligns with Current Assessments of Arctic Threat Levels and Capabilities Required to Execute DOD’s Arctic Strategy

The Navy’s June 2018 report aligns with DOD’s assessments that the  Arctic threat level remains low and that DOD has the capabilities required  to execute its 2016 DOD Arctic Strategy. Specifically, the June 2018  report and the information it provides for each of the reporting elements  discusses how the department can execute the 2016 DOD Arctic  Strategy.
The strategy contains two overarching objectives: to (1) ensure security,  support safety, and promote defense cooperation and (2) prepare to  respond to a wide range of challenges and contingencies to maintain  stability in the region. These objectives reflect DOD’s assessment that  there is a low level of military threat in the Arctic, as well as the stated  commitment of the Arctic nations to work within a common framework of  diplomatic engagement. In the strategy, DOD identifies the types of  investments that will need to be made over time as activity in the region  increases; however, DOD also discusses the importance of assessing the  needs in the Arctic and of balancing potential Arctic-specific capabilities  investments against other national security priorities and fiscal realities.  The Arctic threat assessment briefings we received from officials at the  U.S. Northern Command and the Office of Naval Intelligence also  reflected the low risk for conflict in the Arctic referenced in the Navy’s  June 2018 report. Below, we summarize the Navy’s response to each  reporting element, and our evaluation of whether the response aligns with  current assessments of Arctic threat levels and capabilities required to  execute DOD’s 2016 Arctic Strategy.

		Report Provides Information on Current Naval Capabilities in the Arctic That Align with DOD’s Strategy

Reporting Element One: The Navy was required to report on the current naval  capabilities of the Department of Defense in the Arctic region, with a particular  emphasis on surface capabilities.
The June 2018 report provides information on this required element, with  the Navy stating that it relies on the submarine force as well as on  aviation assets and surface operations when necessary to operate in the  Arctic. These capabilities in the Arctic region are consistent with those  identified in The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030 to  execute the 2016 DOD Arctic Strategy, and as corroborated in our  discussions with U.S. Northern Command and Navy officials.
In addition, the Navy discusses the significant limitations of its surface  ships for Arctic operations in the June 2018 report. The limitations  identified are consistent with information contained in the U.S. Navy Cold  Weather Handbook for Surface Ships and with information we discussed  with Naval Sea Systems Command officials who oversee modifications to  the fleet and the acquisition of new ships. For example, Navy officials told  us that top-side icing has detrimental effects on ships. As sea spray  accumulates on a ship deck and freezes, a ship can lose some of the  capabilities of its external sensors and radars and a ship’s stability in the  water decreases as the ship’s center of gravity becomes top heavy. Navy  and Coast Guard officials told us that while the Coast Guard regularly  operates in the Arctic given its ice-breaking and maritime safety missions,  among others, Navy surface ships have not been designed to maneuver  and operate in icy waters. Although some of the Navy’s T-class ships  have some capability to operate in light or broken first-year ice due to the  inherent strength of their hulls, traditional surface combatant ships (e.g.,  Cruisers, Destroyers, or Frigates) are not designed to operate in icy  waters.

		Report Provides Information on the Gaps between Current Naval Capabilities and the Ability to Execute DOD’s Strategy

Reporting Element Two: The Navy was required to report on any gaps that exist  between the current naval capabilities and the ability of the department to fully execute  its updated strategy for the Arctic region.
The June 2018 report provides information on this required element, with  the Navy stating that the department can execute the 2016 DOD Arctic  Strategy with current naval capabilities. The June 2018 report is similarly  aligned with Navy assessments of Arctic capabilities and gaps contained  in its plan, The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030 that  the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations issued in February 2014. This  plan provides guidance to prepare the Navy to respond effectively to  future Arctic Region contingencies, delineates the Navy’s leadership role,  and articulates the Navy’s support to achieve national priorities in the  region. At the time of our review, DOD was in the process of drafting  another report—on DOD arctic capability and resource gaps—as required  by section 1054 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year  2018. In addition, according to Navy officials, the Navy was also drafting  its Arctic Strategic Outlook, which is a follow-up to The United States  Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030. According to DOD and Navy  officials, both forthcoming reports will focus on contextualizing Arctic  needs within the framework of the 2018 National Defense Strategy.  Because these efforts were not complete at the time of our review, we  were unable to determine whether the Navy’s June 2018 report aligns  with these assessments.

		Report Provides Information on Any Gaps in Naval Capabilities Requiring the Ice- Hardening of Existing Vessels or the Construction of New Vessels to Achieve DOD’s Strategy

Reporting Element Three: The Navy was required to report on any gaps in the current  naval capabilities that require ice-hardening of existing vessels or the construction of  new vessels to preserve freedom of navigation in the Arctic region whenever and  wherever necessary.
The June 2018 report provides information on this required element, with  the Navy stating that there are currently no validated capability gaps that  require the Navy to ice-harden existing vessels or construct new ice- capable vessels to preserve freedom of navigation in the Arctic.  Furthermore, the Navy stated that its current assets are sufficient to  execute the 2016 DOD Arctic Strategy. As noted above, freedom of  navigation operations are undertaken to, among other things, promote  maritime stability and to challenge excessive sovereignty claims. In  addition, DOD officials stated that the United States already has options  other than Navy surface ships for demonstrating the United States’  freedom to operate in the Arctic, including using Coast Guard vessels,  Navy submarines, or military aircraft.

		Report Provides Information on Navy’s Analysis and Recommendation for Ice- Hardening Vessels to Achieve DOD’s Strategy

Reporting Elements Four and Five: The Navy was required to provide an analysis and  recommendation of which Navy vessels could be ice-hardened to effectively preserve  freedom of navigation in the Arctic region when and where necessary, in all seasons  and weather conditions, and an analysis of any cost increases or schedule adjustments  that may result from ice-hardening existing or new Navy vessels.
The June 2018 report provides some information on these required  elements, with the Navy stating that it is not pursuing ice-hardening or the  winterization of surface ships. According to the Navy, because there is no  specific capability requirement for the Navy to ice-harden ships, the report  does not list or name potential ice-hardening candidates among existing  vessels or provide cost or schedule estimates for ice-hardening vessels.  Officials with the Naval Sea Systems Command, which develops cost and  schedule estimates for ship modifications and new construction, told us  that they had not conducted life-cycle cost studies for ice-hardening  existing ships because there is no capability requirement for an ice- hardened ship and, therefore, no ship design on which to base such a  study or estimate.
Furthermore, the June 2018 report states that the Navy is leveraging  cooperative research with international partner-nations such as Canada,  Denmark, Finland, and Norway, to better understand how other Arctic  nations are meeting additional requirements for Arctic operations. Navy  officials from the Naval Sea Systems Command stated that ships built to  operate in ice and extreme cold environments have unique features,  including stronger, thicker construction of all portions of the hull that  would come into contact with ice; different hull form design; redesigned  propellers constructed of higher than traditional strength material;  increased strength ship parts, such as rudders and seawater intakes and  discharges designed to resist the formation or accumulation of ice; and  more powerful heating and ventilation to accommodate sustained  operations in extreme cold environments, among other things. They also  noted that research completed to date has advanced the Navy’s  knowledge in several of these areas including hull form and propeller  design.
Navy officials estimated that a new ship design might require 20 years to  reach initial operational capability. They noted the process might take  only 10 years if the Navy can leverage an ongoing program, such as the  DDG-51 Class program. Navy officials cautioned that the combination of  features that enable ice-capable ships to sustain operating in extreme  cold environments could compromise other performance areas such as  speed, range, and ship motion. Officials told us that this would add to the  Navy’s already strained efforts to maintain existing global naval presence  requirements.
Although the June 2018 report did not discuss any cost and schedule  adjustments that might arise from ice-hardening or new ship construction,  we have previously reported that the Navy has faced challenges meeting  its shipbuilding cost, schedule, and performance goals over the past  decade. Specifically, we found that the 11 lead ships most recently  delivered to the Navy cost $8 billion more to construct than initially  budgeted for. Navy officials stated that the Navy contractor construction  yards currently lack expertise in the design for construction of winterized,  ice-capable surface combatant and amphibious warfare ships.  Accordingly ice-hardening and winterization design practices could  introduce cost and schedule risk, challenging the execution of an ice- hardened new construction ship building program for an ice-capable ship.  If the Navy executes this potential program without the requisite  knowledge at key points it could be at risk of cost and schedule growth  that we have seen in recent Navy shipbuilding programs. The Navy has  faced these challenges in part because the department has proceeded  with construction prior to completing technology development and ship  design. We have found that successful ship building programs are based  on sound business cases, starting with the lead ship, and on the  attainment of critical levels of knowledge at key points in the process prior  to making significant investments.

	The Navy Does Not Have a Capability Requirement to Ice- Harden Existing Vessels or Construct New Ones and Is Evaluating Arctic- Related Capabilities Using the Established DOD Process

Navy officials said that the Navy does not currently have a specific  capability requirement for ice-hardening existing vessels or for the  construction of new ones, and stated that the Navy or Joint Force is  unlikely to produce such a requirement in the near term. Navy officials  told us that the Navy will continue to use DOD’s established process, the  Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System (JCIDS), which  governs the department’s requirements process, to assess Arctic-related  capability requirements in the near and long term (see fig. 5). All DOD  components use the JCIDS process or variations of the process within  their organizations to identify, assess, validate, and prioritize joint military  requirements.
Before starting the JCIDS process, the military services, combatant  commanders, and other DOD components conduct capabilities-based  assessments or other studies to assess capability requirements and  associated capability gaps and the associated risks. In October 2017, the  Joint Requirements Oversight Council (JROC) validated U.S. Northern  Command’s initial capabilities document identifying three gaps in the  ability to exercise/deploy, position, and conduct deterrence/decisive  operations in ice-diminished Arctic waters. At the time of our review, the  JROC had reviewed and validated the U.S. Northern Command’s Arctic  initial capabilities document and designated it for further study by the  Navy. The validation of an initial capabilities document by the JROC is  an early part of the JCIDS process, and informs updates to capability  requirement documents related to specific materiel and nonmateriel  capability solutions to be pursued.
A Navy official stated that the capability gaps identified in the U.S.  Northern Command’s validated initial capabilities document will now  compete for resources with other issues designated for study across the  Navy. According to a Navy official, whenever the Navy initiates a study,  this triggers the analysis of alternatives phase of the JCIDS process.  Under this process, each alternative would need to be specifically  evaluated for its costs and benefits. DOD officials noted that there are  several analytical steps in the JCIDS process during which potential  solutions for any identified gaps are analyzed. They told us that potential  solutions might also include alternatives other than ice-hardening or new  ship construction, such as adding capabilities to Coast Guard ships or  partnering with allies to achieve common strategic goals in the Arctic.
Even as the seasonal ice decreases over time, according to Navy  officials, the Arctic will remain impassable for most commercial ships for  most of the year. For these reasons, projections of increased Arctic sea  activity remain uncertain. DOD, U.S. Northern Command, Navy, and  Coast Guard officials told us that even as Arctic maritime activity is  expected to increase, several enduring characteristics will continue to  provide challenges to surface navigation in the Arctic for the foreseeable  future. These challenges include large amounts of winter ice and  increased movement of ice from spring to fall. As mentioned earlier, the  increased movement of sea ice makes its location less predictable, a  situation that is likely to increase the risk that ships can become trapped  or damaged by ice impacts. Coast Guard officials noted that a  challenging environment like the Arctic may result in a higher likelihood of  incidents occurring. Further, responding to incidents with search and  rescue operations are riskier to execute than in non-polar environments.  In addition, the lack of infrastructure and logistical support in the Arctic  affects maritime activities through that region.

	Agency Comments

We are not making any recommendations in this report. We provided a  draft of our report to DOD, Department of Homeland Security, and the  Department of State for comment. DOD, Department of Homeland  Security, and Department of State provided technical comments, which  we incorporated into this report as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Defense,  Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition,  this report will be available at no charge on our website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-3489 or pendletonj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are  listed in appendix II.

Appendix I: Organizations We Interviewed

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

	GAO Contact

	Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact named above, Suzanne Wren (Assistant  Director), Delia Zee (Analyst-in-Charge), John Beauchamp, Mae Jones,  Amie Lesser, Ned Malone, and Shahrzad Nikoo made key contributions  to this report.

Related GAO Products

Coast Guard Acquisitions: Polar Icebreaker Program Needs to Address  Risks before Committing Resources. GAO-18-600. Washington, D.C.:  September 4, 2018.
Navy Shipbuilding: Past Performance Provides Valuable Lessons for  Future Investments. GAO-18-238SP. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2018.
Coast Guard Acquisitions: Status of Coast Guard’s Heavy Polar  Icebreaker Acquisition. GAO-18-385R. Washington, D.C.: April 13, 2018.
Coast Guard: Status of Polar Icebreaking Fleet Capability and  Recapitalization Plan. GAO-17-698R. Washington, D.C.: September 25,  2017.
High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial  Efforts Needed on Others. GAO-17-317. Washington, D.C.: February 15,  2017.
Arctic Planning: DOD Expects to Play a Supporting Role to Other Federal  Agencies and Has Efforts Under Way to Address Capability Needs and  Update Plans. GAO-15-566. Washington, D.C.: June 19, 2015.
Climate Change Adaptation: DOD Can Improve Infrastructure Planning  and Processes to Better Account for Potential Impacts. GAO-14-446.  Washington, D.C.: May 30, 2014.
Arctic Issues: Better Direction and Management of Voluntary  Recommendations Could Enhance U.S. Arctic Council Participation.  GAO-14-435. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2014.
Maritime Infrastructure: Key Issues Related to Commercial Activity in the  U.S. Arctic over the Next Decade. GAO-14-299. Washington, D.C.: March  19, 2014.
Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance  Collaboration in Interagency Groups. GAO-14-220. Washington, D.C.:  February 14, 2014.
Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency  Collaborative Mechanisms. GAO-12-1022. Washington, D.C.: September  27, 2012.
Arctic Capabilities: DOD Addressed Many Specified Reporting Elements  in Its 2011 Arctic Report but Should Take Steps to Meet Near- and Long- term Needs. GAO-12-180. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2012.
Coast Guard: Efforts to Identify Arctic Requirements Are Ongoing, but  More Communication about Agency Planning Efforts Would Be  Beneficial. GAO-10-870. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2010.
Alaska Native Villages: Limited Progress Has Been Made on Relocating  Villages Threatened by Flooding and Erosion. GAO-09-551. Washington,  D.C.: June 3, 2009.

Output:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Navy is responsible for providing ready forces for current operations and contingency response in the Arctic Ocean. According to data from the National Snow and Ice Data Center, the coverage of sea ice in the Arctic has diminished significantly since 1981. This could potentially increase maritime activities there, leading to a need for a greater U.S. military and homeland security presence in the region.
Public Law 115-91 required the Navy to report to Congress on the Navy's capabilities in the Arctic, including any capability gaps and requirements for ice-hardened vessels. It also included a provision for GAO to review the Navy's report. This report (1) assesses the extent to which the Navy's report aligns with current assessments of Arctic threat levels and capabilities required to execute DOD's 2016 Arctic Strategy and (2) describes any current requirements for ice-hardened vessels and DOD's approach for evaluating the capabilities needed as Arctic requirements evolve.
GAO reviewed the Navy's report along with DOD's assessments of Arctic threats and naval capabilities. GAO also reviewed the 2016 DOD Arctic Strategy— the most current strategy, DOD and Department of State information on the freedom of navigation program as well as DOD's processes for developing capabilities and assessing Arctic capability gaps.
GAO is not making any recommendations in this report. DOD provided written technical comments which were incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

The Navy's June 2018 report aligns with Department of Defense (DOD) assessments that the Arctic is at low risk for conflict and that DOD has the capabilities to execute the 2016 DOD Arctic Strategy . The June 2018 report also aligns with assessments of Arctic capabilities and gaps in the Navy's 2014 roadmap for implementing the strategy. The June 2018 report states that the Navy can execute the strategy with subsurface, aviation, and surface assets. The report notes the significant limitations for operating surface ships in the Arctic, but states that the Navy has the capabilities required for executing the strategy , and so has no plan to design ice-hardened surface ships. In addition, DOD officials stated that the United States has options other than Navy surface ships for demonstrating the U.S. right to operate in the Arctic, including using Coast Guard vessels, Navy submarines, or military aircraft.
Navy officials said that the Navy does not have a specific requirement for ice-hardening existing vessels or constructing new ones. The Navy plans to continue to use DOD's established process, the Joint Capabilities Integration and Development System to reassess Arctic-related requirements as conditions evolve (see fig.). In October 2017, the Joint Requirements Oversight Council validated U.S. Northern Command's initial capabilities document identifying three gaps in the ability to exercise/deploy, position, and conduct deterrence/decisive operations in ice-diminished Arctic waters. At the time of GAO's review, the Joint Staff had validated the capability gaps, which will now compete for resources with other issues designated for further study. Officials said additional study may identify alternative solutions such as adding capabilities to Coast Guard ships or partnering with allies to achieve common strategic goals in the Arctic.