Disaster Assistance
Federal Efforts to Assist Group Site Residents with Employment, Services for Families with Children, and Transportation Gao ID: GAO-09-81 December 11, 2008In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused more damage than any other single natural disaster in U.S. history, with Hurricane Rita adding to the devastation. The hurricanes hit some of the most distressed areas in the country. Louisiana and Mississippi had the highest poverty rates in the United States, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Hurricane Katrina destroyed or made uninhabitable an estimated 300,000 homes, many of which had families with children. In response to this destruction, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided many affected households with trailers for temporary housing in Louisiana and Mississippi. Those trailers not placed on homeowners' property were located in group sites. Although FEMA's guidance suggests that group sites should be located near existing supermarkets, public transportation, schools, and health care facilities, FEMA officials said the agency was not always able to locate temporary housing in these settings because of the level of destruction and, sometimes, opposition from communities. As of May 2008, several thousand households remained in group sites. Given the number of people who remained in group sites more than 2 years after Hurricane Katrina, GAO was asked to address a range of disaster assistance services and is conducting work looking at case management, housing, health care, and the role of not-for-profit organizations in disaster recovery. This report focuses on the federal government's efforts to assist group site residents with employment, services for families with children, and transportation. Specifically, this report addresses the following key questions: (1) What is known about the number and location of the group sites and their residents? (2) What did the federal government do to assist group site residents with employment, services for families with children, and transportation? (3) What challenges did federal and state agencies face in providing this assistance to group site residents?
FEMA located more than 500 group sites, housing over 20,000 households over time, throughout counties in Louisiana and Mississippi. About another 106,000 households received trailers that were placed on their property while repairs were being made to their homes. The majority of group sites had less than 50 households, although some group sites had several hundred households residing in them. Most of the households who were placed in group sites reported that they were renters before the storm. While the majority of individuals who received a FEMA trailer reported being employed, about 65 percent reported less than $20,000 in income. About one-fifth reported no source of income, in some cases, they were unemployed and disabled. While FEMA does not update data on group site residents to reflect current employment status or income levels, some state and FEMA officials we spoke with in early 2008 stated that those who remained in the sites the longest were the hardest to serve people including the elderly, persons with disabilities, and unemployed people. Federal agencies provided assistance to hurricane victims through a variety of programs; group site residents may have received services, but data generally do not distinguish group site residents from other recipients. Federal agencies offered flexibilities within existing programs, distributed additional funding, and created new programs to assist states in providing employment services, services to families with children, and transportation for all eligible hurricane victims. Many of these federal actions were time-limited and available in 2005 and 2006. While federal agencies took actions to help all eligible hurricane victims, we identified only one federal program--LA Moves, a bus service--that specifically targeted group site residents, but services were limited and underutilized. This program started in January 2007, but the retirement of routes began immediately, with only two group sites receiving services as of June 2007. Some state agencies and not-for-profit organizations did provide outreach for other services to group sites. The largest group site, Renaissance Village, had several services offered on-site, including early childhood education programs, after-school programs, employment services, and transit for persons with disabilities, but was unique in this regard, according to some service providers. Federal and state agencies faced challenges obtaining information about group sites and group site residents and having available guidance to determine the type and scope of emergency transportation to fund. Regarding the first challenge, state agencies said they faced challenges in obtaining information from FEMA about group sites or their residents. However, these state officials may not have been aware of or understood FEMA's information sharing guidelines or procedural requirements for requesting data. Regarding the second challenge, FEMA did not have clear guidance or criteria to assist with emergency transportation planning including guidance that defined the types or scope of transit it would fund or criteria for determining the duration of that funding. In the absence of such guidance, FEMA had to make difficult decisions about the extent of its authority to fund transit operations.
GAO-09-81, Disaster Assistance: Federal Efforts to Assist Group Site Residents with Employment, Services for Families with Children, and Transportation
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-81
entitled 'Disaster Assistance: Federal Efforts to Assist Group Site
Residents with Employment, Services for Families with Children, and
Transportation' which was released on December 15, 2008.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Requesters:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
December 2008:
Disaster Assistance:
Federal Efforts to Assist Group Site Residents with Employment,
Services for Families with Children, and Transportation:
GAO-09-81:
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Briefing to Staff of Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
Appendix II: Analysis of FEMA Data:
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Related GAO Products:
Abbreviations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency:
FRRATS: FEMA Response and Recovery Applicant Tracking System:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
NEMIS: National Emergency Management Information System:
UI: Unemployment Insurance:
USDA: United States Department of Agriculture:
WIA: Workforce Investment Act:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
December 11, 2008:
The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Mary Landrieu:
Chairman:
Ad Hoc Subcommittee on Disaster Recovery:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:
In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused more damage than any other
single natural disaster in U.S. history, with Hurricane Rita adding to
the devastation. The hurricanes hit some of the most distressed areas
in the country. Louisiana and Mississippi had the highest poverty rates
in the United States, according to the 2000 U.S. Census. Hurricane
Katrina destroyed or made uninhabitable an estimated 300,000 homes,
many of which had families with children.
In response to this destruction, the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) provided many affected households with trailers for
temporary housing in Louisiana and Mississippi. Those trailers not
placed on homeowners' property were located in group sites.[Footnote 1]
Although FEMA's guidance suggests that group sites should be located
near existing supermarkets, public transportation, schools, and health
care facilities, FEMA officials said the agency was not always able to
locate temporary housing in these settings because of the level of
destruction and, sometimes, opposition from communities. As of May
2008, several thousand households remained in group sites.
Given the number of people who remained in group sites more than 2
years after Hurricane Katrina, GAO was asked to address a range of
disaster assistance services and is conducting work looking at case
management, housing, health care, and the role of not-for-profit
organizations in disaster recovery. This report focuses on the federal
government's efforts to assist group site residents with employment,
services for families with children,[Footnote 2] and transportation.
Specifically, this report addresses the following key questions: (1)
What is known about the number and location of the group sites and
their residents? (2) What did the federal government do to assist group
site residents with employment, services for families with children,
and transportation? (3) What challenges did federal and state agencies
face in providing this assistance to group site residents?
To develop our findings for this engagement, we reviewed relevant law,
regulations, and guidance on disaster-related programs and grants, as
well as other selected programs that provided assistance to hurricane
victims. We also reviewed available FEMA data on the demographics of
group site residents. We assessed the reliability of the data by (1)
performing electronic testing of required data elements, (2) reviewing
existing information about the data and the system that produced them,
and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We
determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of
this report. (See app. II for a further description of how we tested
and used the FEMA data.) For employment services, we reviewed those
programs and services administered through the Department of Labor
(Labor). For services for families with children, we reviewed nutrition
assistance programs administered through the Department of Agriculture
(USDA), educational programs administered through the Departments of
Education (Education) and Health and Human Services (HHS), and other
available social support programs such as Temporary Assistance for
Needy Families administered by HHS. For transportation services, we
reviewed services provided by the Department of Transportation (DOT).
We also reviewed the role that FEMA plays in providing these types of
services during a disaster.[Footnote 3] We focused our review on
Louisiana and Mississippi. (Other states affected by the storm had few
group sites.) In addition, we interviewed officials from the relevant
federal agencies and, from Louisiana and Mississippi, state agencies
and not-for-profit organizations that provide employment services,
services for families with children, and transportation. We conducted
site visits to Baton Rouge and New Orleans; these included visits to
three group sites, including Renaissance Village--the largest group
site--to better understand the living conditions.
Finally, we reviewed relevant literature, including GAO, Office of the
Inspector General, and Congressional Research Service reports. Drawing
on information collected from prior audit work, we conducted this
performance audit from June 2008 to December 2008, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient,
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions
based on our audit objectives.
On September 5, 2008, we briefed your staff on the results of our
analysis, which are included in appendix I. This report formally
conveys information provided during that briefing.
Results in Brief:
FEMA located more than 500 group sites, housing over 20,000 households
over time, throughout counties in Louisiana and Mississippi. About
another 106,000 households received trailers that were placed on their
property while repairs were being made to their homes. The majority of
group sites had less than 50 households, although some group sites had
several hundred households residing in them. Most of the households who
were placed in group sites reported that they were renters before the
storm. While the majority of individuals who received a FEMA trailer
reported being employed, about 65 percent reported less than $20,000 in
income. About one-fifth reported no source of income, in some cases,
they were unemployed and disabled. While FEMA does not update data on
group site residents to reflect current employment status or income
levels, some state and FEMA officials we spoke with in early 2008
stated that those who remained in the sites the longest were the
hardest to serve people including the elderly, persons with
disabilities, and unemployed people.
Federal agencies provided assistance to hurricane victims through a
variety of programs; group site residents may have received services,
but data generally do not distinguish group site residents from other
recipients. Federal agencies offered flexibilities within existing
programs, distributed additional funding, and created new programs to
assist states in providing employment services, services to families
with children, and transportation for all eligible hurricane victims.
For example, USDA relaxed eligibility verification requirements and
issued guidance to states for its school-based breakfast and lunch
programs. Labor encouraged states to apply for new and previously
existing waivers available for some of its employment programs and
created new programs, including the Reintegration Counselor program
that provided intensive career and life counseling to displaced
persons. (See app. I for a listing of examples of specific federal
actions.) Many of these federal actions were time-limited and available
in 2005 and 2006. For example, the Reintegration Counselor program
provided services in Mississippi and Louisiana through February 2006.
When these programs ended, however, hurricane victims could apply for
ongoing programs that were available before the hurricanes and continue
now. For example, when the Disaster Food Stamp Program ended, affected
persons could apply for and receive, if eligible, benefits from the
long-standing Food Stamp Program. While federal agencies took actions
to help all eligible hurricane victims, we identified only one federal
program--LA Moves, a bus service--that specifically targeted group site
residents, but services were limited and underutilized. This program
started in January 2007, but the retirement of routes began
immediately, with only two group sites receiving services as of June
2007. LA Moves' services were limited to FEMA-defined "essential
services," specifically to banks, grocery stores, and pharmacies; it
did not include transportation to welfare-to-work sites, employment, or
human and medical services. The limited nature of the LA Moves'
services may have contributed to the decline in ridership. Some state
agencies and not-for-profit organizations did provide outreach for
other services to group sites. For example, Louisiana Department of
Social Services officials told us that they conducted outreach at group
sites to connect residents with services like disaster food stamps. The
largest group site, Renaissance Village, had several services offered
on-site, including early childhood education programs, after-school
programs, employment services, and transit for persons with
disabilities, but was unique in this regard, according to some service
providers. In terms of future disasters, FEMA released its draft of a
mandated disaster housing strategy in July 2008, 1 year after its due
date. The strategy did not contain all required elements, such as an
outline of disaster relief programs for low-income and special needs
populations, methods to provide housing where employment is available,
and the operations of group sites. However, FEMA said it intends to
form a task force that would develop more detailed plans. According to
FEMA it anticipates the final strategy will be released before the end
of calendar year 2008.
Federal and state agencies faced challenges obtaining information about
group sites and group site residents and having available guidance to
determine the type and scope of emergency transportation to fund.
Regarding the first challenge, state agencies said they faced
challenges in obtaining information from FEMA about group sites or
their residents. However, these state officials may not have been aware
of or understood FEMA's information sharing guidelines or procedural
requirements for requesting data. According to FEMA, it shared
information when the request met its information sharing guidelines but
turned down requests that did not. FEMA bases its decisions on its
Privacy Act routine use notice that outlines when FEMA may share
information from its Disaster Recovery Assistance Files. For example,
FEMA shared information with one state agency in order to prevent
duplication of benefit receipt but not with another that wanted the
information to help employers find displaced workers. In some cases,
states requested information on the location of group sites. FEMA met
one such request from Mississippi 6 months after it was made, but, to
date, has not met a similar request from Louisiana. FEMA officials said
they did not have a record of Louisiana's request. Regarding the second
challenge, FEMA did not have clear guidance or criteria to assist with
emergency transportation planning including guidance that defined the
types or scope of transit it would fund or criteria for determining the
duration of that funding. In the absence of such guidance, FEMA had to
make difficult decisions about the extent of its authority to fund
transit operations. We previously recommended that FEMA develop this
guidance and criteria.[Footnote 4] Such guidance and criteria would
provide a frame of reference for federal, state, and local officials
involved in responding to future disasters and could expedite future
funding decisions. FEMA has said it would take our recommendation under
advisement but has not implemented it.
Concluding Observations:
The five agencies we examined made diverse adjustments to their
programs in order to serve those affected by the hurricanes. While
these actions were not generally targeted to group site residents, they
had the potential to help this population. However, we do not know to
what extent group site residents received services from these programs.
It will be important for FEMA to complete its mandated disaster housing
strategy with the required elements, such as programs to meet the needs
of low-income and special needs populations and methods to provide
housing assistance where employment is available. The required elements
have the potential to better ensure these populations receive needed
services. However, a more complete evaluation of FEMA's progress in
developing the housing strategy was beyond the scope of this report on
group site services, but it will be addressed in ongoing GAO work.
Because the issue of information sharing in a disaster is broader than
the challenges we found with regard to group sites, we are not making a
related recommendation at this time. Instead we are conducting work
that will address such issues among the broader population affected by
the disasters. However, the challenges that state agencies faced in
obtaining such information highlight the importance of having clear and
understandable guidelines and processes regarding information sharing
in place when disasters occur. While FEMA did offer some transportation
services, the timeliness and effectiveness of those services were
limited by a lack of guidance and criteria for both types and duration
of services funded. Transportation services can provide a vital link to
other services and employment for displaced persons. We continue to
believe that FEMA should implement our previous recommendation to
develop such guidance and criteria.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) FEMA, HHS, Labor, DOT, Education, and USDA for review
and comment. DHS provided written comments on the draft of this report
in a November 18, 2008 letter, which is reprinted in appendix III. DHS
did not disagree with our report. It provided additional information on
the release date for the National Disaster Housing Strategy, which we
incorporated in the draft, and restated information it had provided
earlier about its information sharing policy. Finally, while it did not
directly address our findings or recommendation on transportation, it
said that it generally consults with state and local government when
planning transportation routes. Our recommendation on transportation,
originally made in February 2008, was that FEMA develop guidance that
defines the types and scope of public transportation services it will
fund and criteria for determining the duration of that funding. FEMA
has still not provided the written response to the recommendation as
required by law. Additionally, we received technical comments from DHS,
Labor, and USDA, which we incorporated where appropriate. HHS, DOT, and
Education had no comments.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies to relevant
congressional committees and other interested parties. The report also
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or brownke@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are
listed in appendix IV.
Signed by:
Kay Brown:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Briefing to Staff of Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
Disaster Assistance: Federal Efforts to Assist Group Site Residents
with Employment, Services for Families with Children, and
Transportation:
Briefing for Congressional Requesters:
September 5, 2008:
Introduction:
* In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused more damage than any other
single natural disaster in U.S. history, with Hurricane Rita adding to
the devastation.
* The hurricanes hit some of the most distressed areas in the country.
Louisiana (LA) and Mississippi (MS) had the highest poverty rates in the
United States (U.S.), according to the 2000 U.S. Census.
* Hurricane Katrina destroyed or made uninhabitable an estimated 300,000
homes, many of which had families with children.
* As a result, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) placed
thousands of displaced individuals and families in travel trailers or
mobile homes at group sites.[Footnote 5]
Objectives:
* To assess the federal government‘s efforts to assist Hurricane
Katrina and Rita victims, especially those in group sites, we were
asked to look at range of federal services for hurricane victims,
including housing, health care, employment, transportation, services
for families with children, and the role of not for profits.
* This report[Footnote 6] addresses employment assistance, services for
families with children,[Footnote 7] and transportation. Specifically,
for residents of group sites in LA and MS, it examines the following
key questions:
1. What is known about the number and location of the group sites and
their residents?
2. What did the federal government do to assist group site residents
with employment, services for families with children, and
transportation?
3. What challenges did federal and state agencies face in providing
this assistance to group site residents?
Scope and Methodology:
To answer these questions, we:
* reviewed relevant laws, regulations, and guidance on disaster-related
programs and grants, as well as other selected programs that provided
assistance to hurricane victims;
* interviewed officials from FEMA, the Departments of Health and Human
Services (HHS), Labor (Labor), Transportation (DOT), Education
(Education), and Agriculture (USDA);
* interviewed officials from LA and MS state agencies and not-for-
profit organizations receiving federal funds;
* conducted site visits to Baton Rouge and New Orleans, LA, where we
met with state and not-for-profit organizations to discuss services for
group site residents; these included visits to three group sites,
including Renaissance Village”the largest group site established;
* reviewed available FEMA data on the demographics of group site
residents and found it sufficiently reliable for our purposes; and;
* reviewed relevant literature, including GAO, Office of the Inspector
General, and Congressional Research Service reports.
Drawing in part on previous audit work, we conducted this performance
audit from June 2008 to December 2008, in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Summary of Findings:
About 20 percent of the households who resided in trailers in the
aftermath of the disaster did so in more than 500 group sites across the
counties of LA and MS. Most group site residents reported being renters
and having income of less than $20,000; in some cases, they were
unemployed and disabled.
Federal agencies provided assistance to hurricane victims through a
variety of programs; group site residents may have received services,
but data generally do not distinguish group site residents from other
recipients.
* Federal agencies offered flexibilities within existing programs,
distributed additional funding, and created new programs to assist
states in providing employment services, services to families with
children, and transportation for all eligible hurricane victims.
- For example, USDA relaxed eligibility verification requirements and
issued guidance to states to facilitate operation of its breakfast and
lunch programs.
* We identified only one federal program”LA Moves, a bus service”that
specifically targeted group site residents; however, its services were
limited and underutilized.
* Some state agencies and not-for-profit organizations did outreach to
group sites. For example, LA Department of Social Services officials
told us that they conducted outreach at group sites to connect
residents with services like disaster food stamps. In addition, one
large group site had on-site services, such as Head Start and job
search services.
* When these temporary measures expired, eligible individuals and
households could receive benefits and services from the longer term
programs that were available prior to the hurricanes.
While the programs we examined collected data on eligible persons who
received services, these data generally do not distinguish group site
residents from other recipients. As a result, data are not readily
available to determine to what extent group site residents received
services.
FEMA released its draft of a mandated disaster housing strategy in July
2008, 1 year after its due date. The strategy did not contain all
required elements, such as an outline of disaster relief programs for
low-income and special needs populations and methods to provide housing
where employment is available. However, FEMA said it intends to form a
task force that would develop more detailed plans. According to FEMA,
it anticipates the final strategy to be released before the end of
calendar year 2008.
Federal and state agencies faced challenges in obtaining information
about group site residents and guidance to determine the type and scope
of emergency transportation to fund.
* State officials, working with their federal counterparts, said they
did not always receive information on group sites, and they may not
have fully understood FEMA‘s policy for sharing information. According
to FEMA, it based its decisions on whether the proposed use of the
information was consistent with the reason for which it was originally
collected.
* Another challenge was that FEMA did not have clear guidance or
criteria to assist with emergency transportation planning including
guidance that defined the types or scope of transit it would fund or
criteria for determining the duration of that funding. GAO has
previously recommended that FEMA develop this guidance and criteria.
Background:
The Stafford Act:
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
[Footnote 8] (the Stafford Act) is the primary authority under which
the federal government provides major disaster and emergency
assistance. [Footnote 9]
Under the Stafford Act, FEMA is authorized, among other things, to
provide or fund:[Footnote 10]
* Temporary housing units directly to disaster victims, who, because of
a lack of available housing resources, would be unable to make use of
financial assistance to rent alternate housing accommodations. This
generally can be up to 18 months after a disaster but may be extended.
* Disaster unemployment assistance, such as benefits or reemployment
assistance for generally up to 26 weeks, to individuals unemployed as a
result of a major disaster when the individual is not entitled to any
other state or Federal unemployment compensation.
* Coupon allotments to low-income households who are unable to purchase
adequate amounts of nutritious food.
* Temporary public transportation services to meet emergency needs and
to provide transportation to governmental offices, supply centers,
stores, post offices, schools, major employment centers, and such other
places that may be necessary for a community to resume its normal
pattern of life as soon as possible.
FEMA Provided Temporary Housing Units in Several Settings:
These included:
* units that remain on the homeowner‘s property while repairs are being
made to his or her home, and;
* units at group sites, which are primarily provided to people who were
renting before the disaster.
According to FEMA, its policy is to use existing commercial parks
whenever possible rather than build any group sites.
In instances where FEMA creates group sites,
* FEMA guidance states that services to group sites should include
security, emergency services (fire and medical response), utilities
(water, power, sewage), and other essential services.
* FEMA guidance also suggests that group sites should be located near
existing supermarkets, public transportation, schools, and health care
facilities.
FEMA officials stated that given the level of destruction and, in some
cases, opposition from communities, FEMA was not always able to locate
temporary housing in places with easy access to existing
infrastructure.[Footnote 11]
Thousands of Households Lived in Group Sites Nearly 3 Years After the
Storms:
Figure 1: Estimated Number of Households Remaining in Group Sites:
[Footnote 12]
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a multiple line graph depicting the estimated number of
households remaining in group sites in Louisiana and Mississippi. The
vertical axis of the graph represents number of households. The
horizontal axis of the graph represents dates from October 2005 through
May 2008.
Estimated Number of Households Remaining in Group Sites:
Date: October 2005;
Louisiana: 13,832;
Mississippi: 7,662.
Date: January 2006;
Louisiana: 13,789;
Mississippi: 7,595.
Date: March 2006;
Louisiana: 13,647;
Mississippi: 7,381.
Date: May 2006;
Louisiana: 13,317;
Mississippi: 7,090.
Date: August 2006;
Louisiana: 12,636;
Mississippi: 6,540.
Date: October 2006;
Louisiana: 12,072;
Mississippi: 6,118.
Date: January 2007;
Louisiana: 11,362;
Mississippi: 5,683.
Date: March 2007;
Louisiana: 10,753;
Mississippi: 5,371.
Date: May 2007;
Louisiana: 9,963;
Mississippi: 5,034.
Date: August 2007;
Louisiana: 8,980;
Mississippi: 4,625.
Date: October 2007;
Louisiana: 7,632;
Mississippi: 4,209.
Date: January 2008;
Louisiana: 5,234;
Mississippi: 3,496.
Date: March 2008;
Louisiana: 3,980;
Mississippi: 3,098.
Date: May 2008;
Louisiana: 2,609;
Mississippi: 2,433.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.
[End of figure]
A Variety of Factors Probably Contributed to the Depopulation of the
Group Sites:
These include:
* FEMA‘s announced closure dates,
* the discovery of formaldehyde levels that may have posed a health
hazard in the trailers leading to some residents requesting to be
relocated,[Footnote 13] and;
* residents moving back to their prior residences or to another
area.
FEMA officials at the Transitional Recovery Office in Louisiana stated
that its primary goal when transitioning residents out of group sites
was to find safe housing for the households. Officials acknowledged
that the housing options may not be permanent or affordable in the long-
term.
Labor, HHS, Education, USDA, and DOT Oversee Federal Programs and
Services for Employment, Families with Children, and Transportation:
Examples of some of the programs and services overseen by these
agencies are as follows:[Footnote 14]
* Labor offers assistance with job search and training, which may
include career and individual counseling, case management, and
necessary support services, through One-Stop Career Centers established
under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA).[Footnote 15]
* Among other things, HHS, Education, and USDA provide assistance for
low-income children, including: the Head Start program which offers
educational, health, nutritional, and other services; the Education for
Homeless Children and Youth grant which helps ensure equal access to
free and appropriate public education; and school lunch and breakfast
programs, respectively.
* Transportation‘s Federal Transit Administration (FTA) administers a
number of transit program grants that can be used for capital
improvements, such as purchasing buses, as well as provides operating
assistance to transit systems located in areas with populations under
200,000.
These programs are generally administered through state and local
agencies.
[End of section]
Finding One: Group Site Locations and Residents:
Group Sites Were Dispersed Across Counties and Housed Residents Who Had
Been Renters, Had Less than $20,000 in Income and, in Some Cases, Were
Unemployed and Disabled:
Overview of Finding:
* About 20 percent of the households who resided in trailers in the
aftermath of the disaster did so in more than 500 group sites across
the counties of LA and MS.
* Most group sites residents had been renters and reported having
limited income; in some cases, they were unemployed and disabled.
The Majority of FEMA-Provided Trailers Went To Households Who Placed
Them on Their Property:
* 21,501 households in LA and MS lived in group sites.[Footnote 16]
* 106,128 households in LA and MS lived in FEMA trailers on their own
property.
Figure 2: Number and Percentage of Households Who Lived in a Trailer
Anytime between 2005 and 2008, by Trailer Site Type:
[Refer to ODF for image]
This figure contains two pie-charts depicting the following
information:
Number and Percentage of Households Who Lived in a Trailer Anytime
between 2005 and 2008, by Trailer Site Type:
State: Louisiana;
Group site: 17% (13,832);
Private site: 83% (69,231).
State: Mississippi;
Group site: 17% (7,669);
Private site: 83% (36,897).
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.
[End of figure]
Most Group Sites[Footnote 17] at Their Peak Occupancy Had 50 or Less
Households Living in Trailers:
FEMA placed trailers in:[Footnote 18]
* 368 group sites across Louisiana;
- Almost 80 percent of these group sites had 50 or fewer households
living in trailers.
- The largest site housed almost 540 households.
* 189 group sites across Mississippi;
- Approximately 70 percent of these sites had 50 or fewer households
living in trailers.
- The largest site housed about 190 households.
Group Sites Were Distributed Across the Counties of Louisiana and
Mississippi:
Figure 3: Number of Group Sites and Range of Total Estimated Households
per County:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure contains a map of the states of Louisiana and Mississippi
indicating the number of group sites as well as the range of households
by county in the following categories:
1 to 101: 45 counties;
101 to 502: 16 counties;
501 to 1,001: 3 counties;
1,001 to 3,530: 7 counties.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.
[End of figure]
Group Sites Residents Had Been Renters, Had Less than $20,000 in Income
and, in Some Cases, Were Unemployed and Disabled:
According to demographic data available from FEMA:[Footnote 19]
* About three-quarters reported they were renters before the
hurricanes.
* Approximately 70 percent were under the age of 50.
* Approximately 21 percent of applicants reported no source of
employment. Of that percentage,
- 37 percent reported a disability, and,
-• 29 percent reported being retired.
* While the majority of applicants reported being employed,
approximately 65 percent reported earning less than $20,000.
Figure 4: Self-reported Household Income of Group Site Residents at the
Time of Registration:
[Refer to PDF for image]
This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the self-reported
household income of group site residents at the time of registration.
The vertical axis of the graph represents number of households. The
horizontal axis of the graph represents self-reported income in
dollars.
Self-reported Household Income of Group Site Residents at the
Time of Registration:
Self-reported income: $0;
Number of households: 1,948.
Self-reported income: $1–$10,000;
Number of households: 5,885.
Self-reported income: $10,001–$20,000;
Number of households: 6,106.
Self-reported income: $20,001–$30,000;
Number of households: 3,479.
Self-reported income: $30,001–$40,000;
Number of households: 1,839.
Self-reported income: $40,001–$50,000;
Number of households: 914.
Self-reported income: $50,001–$60,000;
Number of households: 444.
Self-reported income: $60,001–$70,000;
Number of households: 263.
Self-reported income: $70,001–$80,000;
Number of households: 173.
Self-reported income: $80,001–$90,000;
Number of households: 115.
Self-reported income: $90,001–$100,000;
Number of households: 86.
Self-reported income: $100,000 and over;
Number of households: 219.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.
[End of figure]
While FEMA does not update data on group site residents to reflect
current employment status or income levels, some state and FEMA
officials we spoke with stated that those who remained in the sites
were the hardest to serve people including the elderly, persons with
disabilities, and unemployed people.
[End of section]
Summary of Finding Two: Federal Efforts:
While Federal Agencies Assisted States in Providing Services to All
Eligible Hurricane Victims, Services Specifically for Group Sites Were
Limited, and Data on Services Provided Generally Do Not Distinguish
Group Site Residents from Other Recipients:
Overview of Finding:
Federal agencies provided assistance to hurricane victims through a
variety of programs; group site residents may have received services,
but data generally do not distinguish group site residents from other
recipients.
* Federal agencies offered flexibilities within existing programs,
distributed additional funding, and created new programs to assist
states in providing employment services, services to families with
children, and transportation for all eligible hurricane victims.
- For example, USDA relaxed eligibility verification requirements and
issued guidance to states for its school-based breakfast and lunch
programs.
* We identified only one federal program”LA Moves, a bus service”that
specifically targeted group site residents, but services were limited
and underutilized.
* Many of these federal actions were time-limited. When they ended,
hurricane victims could apply for ongoing programs that were available
before the hurricanes and continue now.
* Some state agencies and not for profit organizations did outreach to
group sites. For example, LA Department of Social Services officials
told us that they conducted outreach at group sites to connect
residents with services like disaster food stamps.
* One large group site had on-site services, such as Head Start and job
search services.
* While the federal programs we examined collected data on eligible
persons who received services, these data do not distinguish group site
residents from other recipients. As a result, it is not possible to
isolate group site residents to determine whether they received these
services.
* FEMA released its draft of a mandated disaster housing strategy in
July 2008, 1 year after its due date. The strategy did not contain all
required elements, such as an outline of disaster relief programs for
low-income and special needs populations and methods to provide housing
where employment is available. However, FEMA said it intends to form a
task force that would develop more detailed plans. According to FEMA,
it anticipates the final strategy to be released before the end of
calendar year 2008.
Federal Agencies Offered Flexibilities within Existing Programs to
Assist All Eligible Hurricane Victims:
For example:[Footnote 20]
* Labor waived some reporting requirements and encouraged states to use
funding and service flexibilities under WIA to develop workforce
strategies to assist hurricane-impacted individuals and businesses.
* USDA relaxed eligibility verification requirements and issued
guidance to states for its school-based breakfast and lunch programs.
* HHS eased Head Start program requirements for income eligibility and
birth certificate documents and offered waivers of class size
requirements.
* FTA waived matching share requirements and allowed transit providers
to use capital grants for operations and disaster recovery.
Federal Agencies Distributed Additional Funding for Existing Programs
to Assist All Eligible Hurricane Victims:
For example:
* Labor distributed more than $200 million (including $125 million in
supplemental emergency grant funds) to affected states.[Footnote 21]
According to LA and MS employment officials, these states used these
funds for a range of services including temporary jobs and job
training.
* HHS distributed $550 million in supplemental funds for the Social
Services Block Grant, a grant that provides funding to assist states in
providing social services to eligible low-income individuals or
families.[Footnote 21] MS and LA received a portion of these funds,
which they used for a variety of purposes including health-related
services, assistance for day care centers, and hiring youth counselors.
* Education distributed $5 million in supplemental funding[Footnote 21]
to provide assistance to local educational agencies for the education
of children and youth made homeless by the hurricanes, as required by
section 106 of the Hurricane Education Recovery Act.[Footnote 22] This
assistance was provided consistent with the existing Education for
Homeless Children and Youth program. Examples of authorized uses of the
funds included identification of displaced students, transportation,
and purchasing supplies.
* Between 2005 and 2007, FEMA provided $88 million to DOT to fund
regular and supplementary transportation services through public
transit providers in LA and MS, including funds to serve displaced
Katrina populations.
- $67 million to the New Orleans Regional Transit Authority, in part,
to provide transit services to residents of FEMA group sites in Baton
Rouge.
- $19 million to the Louisiana Department of Transportation and
Development to provide public transportation service to 62 parishes in
Louisiana including new routes and new services to group sites.
- $1.4 million and $0.3 million to the Coast Transit Authority in
Gulfport, MS, and to the Mississippi Department of Transportation,
respectively, to provide public transportation services, including
service to group sites.
* Funding for these services ended in December 2006.[Footnote 23]
Federal Agencies Created a New Program Specifically for Group Sites:
* LA Moves: provided free, statewide transit service for residents in LA
group sites starting in January 2007 to replace the transportation
services FEMA funded through DOT using public transit providers.
- FEMA contracted with DOT‘s Volpe National Transportation Systems
Center[Footnote 24] to develop the system.
- FEMA did not follow the Volpe Center‘s proposal to continue to use
public transit providers.
- Use of public transit providers, in some areas, would have provided
broader coverage than LA Moves did.
* LA Moves‘ service was limited to FEMA defined ’essential services“”
specifically, banks, grocery stores, and pharmacies. LA Moves did not
include transportation to welfare-to-work sites, employment, and
human and medical services. FEMA did not provide a rationale for this
decision.
* When it began in 2007, LA Moves had 50 routes and served a total of
111 group sites in 26 parishes.[Footnote 25]
* However, the retirement of routes began immediately, as ridership
declined. By June 2007, 2 routes remained, and only $2.7 million of the
$55 million LA Moves contract was spent.
- The decline in ridership was likely caused by factors such as the
ongoing closure of group sites and the limited nature of the services.
We did not determine the extent to which each factor contributed to
this decline.
- DOT‘s Volpe Center requested that FEMA allow it to conduct a
ridership survey of group site residents to obtain a more accurate
figure for determining the need for the LA Moves service, but FEMA
instead estimated that 25 percent of all group site residents would use
this service. This may have contributed to service being underutilized.
Federal Agencies Created New Programs to Assist All Eligible Hurricane
Victims:
For example:
* LA Swift: provided bus service between Baton Rouge and New Orleans
from January to November 2006.
- FEMA provided $8.5 million through DOT to fund the service.
- In November 2006, the service continued with funding provided through
the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development.
* Reintegration Counselors (Labor): provided intensive career and life
counseling to eligible hurricane victims who were displaced because of
the hurricanes.
* Pathways to Construction Employment Initiative (Labor): supported
economic revitalization in LA and MS by helping persons to enter the
construction industry through apprenticeships or basic craft training.
Generally Flexibilities within Existing Programs, Additional Funding,
and New Programs Offered by Federal Agencies Were Time Limited:
Many of the actions federal agencies took in response to Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita were available between 2005 and 2006.
* For example, reintegration counselors who provided intensive career
and life counseling to hurricane evacuees to support their reemployment
provided services through February 2006.
When these temporary measures expired, eligible individuals and
households could receive benefits and services from the longer term
programs that were available prior to the hurricanes.[Footnote 26]
* For example, when the Disaster Food Stamp program ended, affected
persons could apply for and receive, if eligible, benefits from the
longstanding Food Stamp Program.
Some State Agencies Made Efforts to Connect Group Site Residents with
Federal Programs Available to All Eligible Hurricane Victims:
Despite there being limited programs and services developed
specifically for residents at group sites, some state agencies did use
federal funds to connect residents with programs available to all
eligible hurricane victims. For example:
* LA and MS labor agencies stated that Disability Program Navigators”who
connect persons with disabilities to employment or appropriate benefit
programs”and Reintegration Counselors worked with residents at some of
the group sites.
* LA Labor officials also said that they used mobile units to connect
residents in group sites with employment services.[Footnote 27]
* LA Department of Social Services officials stated that they conducted
outreach at group sites to connect residents with services like
disaster food stamps.
* Head Start officials in Region IV, which includes MS, stated that
their staff went to group sites to identify previously enrolled
families.
One Group Site Had On-site Services:
Some not-for-profits and state agencies provided services on-site at
the largest group site”Renaissance Village”which at its peak had over
500 households.[Footnote 28] Services available included:
* Head Start and Early Head Start,
* after-school programs for children,
* job search and employment services, and,
* transit service including service for persons with disabilities.
In addition, a social service resource fair was held there in March
2008.
However, some of the providers of these services stated that no other
group site received this number or variety of services on-site.
Although Agencies Collected Data on Those Receiving Services, the Data
Generally Do Not Distinguish Group Site Residents from Other
Recipients:
The federal programs we examined collected data on eligible persons who
received their services.
* For example, labor agencies collected information on unemployment
receipt, types of employment services provided, and the numbers served
through other Labor programs such as the Reintegration Counselor
program.
However, most of these programs were not designed specifically to serve
group site residents, and agencies focused their efforts on serving
disaster victims in general. The data they collected generally do not
distinguish group site residents from other recipients. As a result,
data are not readily available to determine whether group site
residents received these services.
The exception was transportation programs, which did conduct ridership
counts for routes serving group sites.
While state agencies conducted outreach, no data are readily available
to determine whether this outreach connected residents of the group
sites to services they may have needed.
FEMA Has Begun, but Not Completed, a Strategy to Address the Needs of
Displaced Persons in Disasters:
Our prior work recognized a disaster can exacerbate the long-standing
challenges at-risk populations have in accessing needed assistance from
multiple programs.[Footnote 29]
In 2006, Congress directed FEMA to develop a National Disaster Housing
Strategy[Footnote 30] that addresses the short-term and long-term
housing needs of individuals and households affected by a major
disaster. This strategy was to be completed by July 2007.
* The strategy was to outline, among other things:
- programs directed to meet the needs of special needs and low-income
populations;
- methods to provide housing assistance where employment and other
resources for living are available; and;
- plans to address access to public services, site management,
security, and site density.
* The draft strategy FEMA released for public comment in July 2008 did
not address all of the required information. According to FEMA, it
anticipates the final strategy will be released before the end of
calendar year 2008.
- The draft strategy says, that in future disasters, group sites will
be created as a last resort.
* The draft strategy leaves much of the planning on how this should be
done to a task force.
[End of section]
Summary of Finding Three: Challenges:
Federal and State Agencies Faced Challenges in Serving Residents of
Group Sites:
Overview of Finding:
* State agencies said they faced challenges in obtaining information
about group sites and group site residents.
* FEMA said it shared information when requests met its information
sharing guidelines but turned down requests that did not.
* Federal and state agencies faced challenges in determining the type
and scope of emergency transportation to fund.
- FEMA did not have clear guidance or criteria to assist with emergency
transportation planning including guidance that defined the types of
transit it would fund or criteria for determining the duration of that
funding. GAO has previously recommended that FEMA develop this guidance
and criteria.
State Agencies Said They Did Not Always Receive Requested Group Site
Information; FEMA Said It Met Requests That Were Consistent with
Allowed Uses:
Some state agency officials said they requested, but did not receive,
information from FEMA that they believed would have helped them serve
group site residents. However, in some cases these officials may not
have been aware of or understood FEMA‘s information sharing guidelines
or FEMA‘s procedural requirements for requesting data.
Under the Privacy Act, an agency may disclose information without the
permission of the individual to whom the information relates for a
number of statutorily permitted purposes, including if it is determined
to be a ’routine use“ - a use compatible with the purpose for which the
data was collected. FEMA has published a routine use notice outlining
the instances where it may share data from its Disaster Recovery
Assistance Files.
FEMA officials told us they fulfilled many requests for information on
individuals and group sites and worked with states on how to request
information.
* For example, FEMA approved LA Department of Social Services‘ (DSS)
request for information on persons who LA DSS identified as having been
provided disaster-related human services, including cash assistance and
food stamp benefits, to prevent duplication of efforts or benefits in
determining eligibility for disaster assistance, a purpose FEMA has
identified as compatible with the purpose for which the information was
collected.
However, in some cases, FEMA officials said the requests did not meet
their requirements for information sharing. For example:
* LA Labor officials said they requested individuals‘ contact
information to help employers locate their employees, but FEMA did not
provide this information. According to FEMA, it would not provide such
information because it does not meet the Privacy Act‘s requirement that
the information release be compatible with the purpose for which the
information was collected.
* In May 2008, LA DSS submitted a request to FEMA for contact
information for individuals living in trailers who had or would receive
an eviction notice to connect them with state assistance programs. FEMA
did not fulfill the data request due to a misunderstanding between FEMA
and DSS over the language required to fill the request. A FEMA official
said DSS needed to submit a new data request using the correct
terminology, and that FEMA had provided this information to DSS.
LA and MS labor agencies said they requested information on the location
of group sites from FEMA to allow them to offer employment services to
group site residents. According to MS officials, they received the
information about 6 months after making the request. LA officials said
they had not yet received the information.
* As a result, these agencies relied on other means, such as the use
of mobile one-stops, to locate group sites.[Footnote 31]
* FEMA officials told us they did not have any record of this request.
In a previous report, we identified as a lesson learned the value of
standing agreements for data sharing among FEMA and state not-for-
profit agencies as a means to expedite recovery services. Such
agreements can clarify what data can be shared and the procedures for
sharing it while protecting the data from improper disclosure.[Footnote
32]
FEMA Did Not Have Clear Guidance or Criteria to Assist with Emergency
Transportation Planning:
GAO‘s February 2008 report[Footnote 33] on Emergency Transit Assistance
found that FEMA lacked guidance and criteria for the types and duration
of transit services it would fund and recommended that FEMA:
* develop guidance or regulations on the types of transit operating
assistance FEMA will or will not fund following a disaster, and;
* develop criteria for determining the duration of such funding.
In the absence of such guidance, FEMA had to make difficult decisions
about the extent of its authority to fund transit operations.
* Such guidance and criteria would provide a frame of reference for
federal, state, and local officials involved in responding to future
disasters and could expedite future funding decisions.
[End of section]
Concluding Observations:
The five agencies we examined made diverse adjustments to their
programs in order to serve those affected by the hurricanes. While these
actions were not generally targeted to group site residents, they had
the potential to help this population; however, we do not know if group
site residents received services.
It will be important for FEMA to complete its mandated disaster strategy
with the required elements, such as programs to meet the needs of low-
income and special needs populations and methods to provide housing
assistance where employment is available. The required elements have
the potential to better ensure that these populations receive needed
services.
Because the issue of information sharing in a disaster is broader than
the challenges we found with regard to groups sites, we are not making a
related recommendation at this time. Instead we are conducting work that
will address such issues among the broader population affected by the
disasters. However, the challenges that state agencies faced in
obtaining such information highlights the importance of having clear and
understandable guidelines and processes regarding information sharing in
place when disasters occur.
While FEMA did offer some transportation services, the timeliness and
effectiveness of those services were limited by a lack of guidance and
criteria for both types and duration of services funded. Transportation
services can provide a vital link to other services and employment for
displaced persons. GAO continues to believe that FEMA should implement
our previous recommendation to develop such guidance and criteria.
[End of section]
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland
Security‘s (DHS) FEMA, HHS, Labor, DOT, Education, and USDA for review
and comment.
DHS provided written comments on the draft of this report in a November
18, 2008 letter. DHS did not disagree with our report. It provided
additional information on the release date for the National Disaster
Housing Strategy, which we incorporated in the draft, and restated
information it had provided earlier about its information sharing
policy. Finally, while it did not directly address our finding or
recommendation on transportation, it said that it generally consults
with state and local government when planning transportation routes.
* Our recommendation on transportation, originally made in February
2008, was that FEMA develop guidance that defines the types and scope
of public transportation services it will fund and criteria for
determining duration of that funding. FEMA has still not provided the
written response to the recommendation as required by law.
Additionally, we received technical comments from DHS, Labor, and USDA,
which we incorporated where appropriate.
HHS, DOT, and Education had no comments.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Examples of Existing Federal Programs Available to All
Eligible Individuals:
Table 1: Examples of Existing Employment Programs:
Programs and services: WIA Youth, Adult, and Dislocated Worker
Programs;
Purpose: Provide youth, adults, and dislocated workers[A] with
employment services, such as job search, placement, and training
through one-stop centers.
Programs and services: National Emergency Grants;
Purpose: Fund, among other things, disaster relief employment”temporary
jobs for cleanup, restoration, and humanitarian assistance to
communities that have been affected by a disaster”and dislocated worker
training.
Programs and services: Disability Program Navigators;
Purpose: Provide staff expertise on disability and workforce issues to
enhance comprehensive, seamless services for job seekers with
disabilities.
Programs and services: Unemployment Insurance (UI);
Purpose: Provides temporary benefits to eligible workers who are
unemployed for nondisqualifying reasons (as determined under state law)
and who meet other UI eligibility requirements.
Programs and services: Disaster Unemployment Assistance;
Purpose: Provides temporary benefits to individuals whose employment or
self-employment has been lost or interrupted as a direct result of a
major disaster and who are not eligible for any other state or Federal
UI benefits.
Programs and services: Job Corps;
Purpose: Provides no-cost education and career technical training for
low-income persons ages 16 through 24.
Source: GAO review of selected federal programs.
[A] In general, dislocated workers are those who have been laid off and
are unlikely to return to their previous employment. See WIA §101(9).
[End of table]
Table 2: Examples of Existing Programs for Families with Children:
Programs and services: Education for Homeless Children and Youth;
Purpose: To ensure that homeless children, including preschoolers and
youth, have equal access to free and appropriate public education.
Programs and services: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
Purpose: Provides cash assistance and services targeted to needy
families including emergency payments, child care, transportation
assistance, and other social services.
Programs and services: Head Start;
Purpose: Promotes the school readiness of low-income children by
enhancing their cognitive, social, and emotional development by
providing a range of individualized services to preschool aged children
and their families.
Programs and services: Food Stamp Program[A];
Purpose: Provides nutrition assistance to low-income households.
Programs and services: National School Lunch Program and School
Breakfast Program;
Purpose: Provides free or reduced price lunches and breakfasts to low-
income children.
Programs and services: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);
Purpose: Provides nutritious foods, nutrition education, and referrals
to health and other social services to low-income women, infants, and
children.
Source: GAO review of selected federal programs.
[A] Recently renamed Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Examples of Actions Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita:
Table 1: Examples of Labor‘s Actions to Assist States:
Programs and services: WIA Youth, Adult, and Dislocated Worker
Programs;
Examples of actions taken: Labor identified flexibilities in the law,
as well as statutory provisions, which could be waived that may have
enabled states to better serve hurricane victims. Labor also informed
states of the procedures for requesting waivers;
Duration: Not time limited.
Programs and services: Disaster Unemployment Assistance[A];
Examples of actions taken: Labor extended the time period for filing
DUA claims from 30 to 90 days;
Duration: Sept. 2005”June 2006.
Programs and services: National Emergency Grants;
Examples of actions taken: Labor issued a guidance letter on
preexisting and new flexibilities for the use of NEG funds including
expanded eligibility for employment services and the opportunity to
apply for grant use extensions for an additional 6 months (up to 12
months total).[B]
Duration: Waivers still available on a case-by-case basis; NEG grants
continue to be offered.
Programs and services: Pathways to Construction Employment Initiative;
Examples of actions taken: Labor provided grants of $5 million to LA
and MS to fund partnerships between the state workforce agencies and
community colleges to train individuals for construction careers and
help them pursue construction employment opportunities;
Duration: LA: Dec. 2005”March 2008; MS: March 2006”Feb. 2009.
Programs and services: Katrina Recovery Job Connection Site;
Examples of actions taken: Labor created this Web site to connect
impacted workers with employers who want to hire them and to support
hiring associated with critical clean-up efforts, as well as permanent
employment;
Duration: Sept. 2005”July 2007.
Programs and services: Pathways to Employment Initiative: Job Corps;
Examples of actions taken: Labor modified its program by expediting the
enrollment process for hurricane victims;
Duration: Expedited process ended in Feb. 2006.
Programs and services: Pathways to Employment Initiative: Reintegration
Counselors;
Examples of actions taken: In response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,
Labor committed $15 million in grants to 12 states to secure
reintegration counselors who would provide intensive career and life
counseling directly to hurricane evacuees to support successful
reemployment and reintegration;
Duration: Sept. 2005”Feb. 2006.
Programs and services: Pathways to Employment Initiative: Disability
Program Navigators;
Examples of actions taken: Labor coordinated the temporary reassignment
of DPN staff from other states to LA and MS along with several mobile
One-stop units;
Duration: Reassignment of counselors in MS ended Nov. 2005;
Reassignment of counselors in LA ended Dec. 2005.
Source: GAO review of selected federal programs.
[A] The Katrina Emergency Assistance Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-176,
extended DUA benefits 13 weeks beyond the 26 weeks typically available.
[B] New flexibilities were made available through the Flexibility for
Displaced Workers Act, Pub. L. No. 109-72.
[End of table]
Table 2: Examples of Education‘s Actions to Assist with Services for
Families with Children:
Programs and services: Assistance for Homeless Youth;
Examples of actions taken: As required by the Hurricane Education
Relief Act, Education assisted local educational agencies serving
homeless children and youth displaced by the hurricanes.a This
assistance was provided consistent with the existing Education for
Homeless Children and Youth program. Examples of authorized uses of the
funds included identification of displaced students, transportation, and
purchasing supplies;
Duration: Dec. 30, 2005[B]”Sept. 30, 2007.
Programs and services: Emergency Impact Aid for Displaced Students;
Examples of actions taken: As required by the Hurricane Education
Relief Act, Education administered this program for the purpose of
assisting local educational agencies with the cost of educating
students displaced by the hurricanes.[A] Examples of authorized use of
funds for this program included providing basic instructional services,
acquiring classroom supplies, and paying reasonable transportation
costs for displaced students;
Duration: School year 2005”2006.
Source: GAO review of selected federal programs.
[A] Title IV, Division B of the Department of Defense, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations to Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico
and Pandemic Influenza Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-148.
[B] We have used the date the legislation was enacted as start date of
availability. Fund may have been provided to recipients at a later
date.
[End of table]
Table 3: Examples of HHS‘ Actions to Assist with Services for Families
with Children:
Programs and services: Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF);
Examples of actions taken: As authorized by the TANF Emergency Response
and Recovery Act of 2005, HHS reimbursed state for TANF benefits
provided to assist families from other states affected by Hurricane
Katrina and made additional loan funds available to Alabama, LA, and
MS.[A] Some states used TANF loan funds to provide one time, emergency
payments to victims, and LA established a contract with LA Family
Recovery Corps to provide case management services;
Duration: Reimbursement: Sept. 2005”Aug. 2006; Additional loan funds
available to AL, LA, and MS: Sept. 2005”Sept. 2006.
Programs and services: Head Start;
Examples of actions taken: HHS provided short-term emergency funding to
grantees, eased program requirements for income eligibility and birth
certificate documents, and offered waivers of class size requirements;
Duration: A Head Start official stated that funding was available from
Sept. 2005 to Dec. 2005 and waivers were available for the 2005/2006
program year.
Programs and services: Head Start;
Examples of actions taken: As authorized by Congress in 2005, HHS
distributed supplemental funds to provide services to displaced
children and to cover the costs of replacing or repairing facilities
that were not covered by insurance or FEMA[B];
Duration: Dec. 30, 2005[C]”Sept. 2006.
Programs and services: Head Start;
Examples of actions taken: HHS approved the redistribution of some of
the funding for the New Orleans program to other areas of the state to
accommodate population shifts;
Duration: Oct. 2006”June 2009 (end date estimated by Head Start
officials).
Programs and services: Social Services Block Grant;
Examples of actions taken: As authorized by Congress in 2005, HHS
distributed supplemental funds for hurricane relief efforts.b LA used
these funds for a variety of purposes including preventative and
primary health care and provisions for clothing and other immediate
needs. MS also used the funds for a variety of purposes including
assistance for day care centers and hiring youth counselors to work in
heavily impacted area;
Duration: Dec. 30, 2005[C]”Sept. 30, 2009[D].
Source: GAO review of selected federal programs.
[A] TANF Emergency Response and Recovery Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-
68.
[B] Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to
Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico and Pandemic Influenza Act of
2006, Pub. L. No. 109-148.
[C] The start date of the availability of these funds is based on the
date the legislation was signed.
[D] As provided by the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans‘ Care, Katrina
Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No.
110-28, § 4702, states have until September 30, 2009 to expend these
funds.
[End of table]
Table 4: Examples of USDA‘s Actions to Assist with Services for
Families with Children:
Programs and services: Disaster Food Stamp Program;
Examples of actions taken: USDA adopted a policy authorizing states
across the country, not just those areas where the disaster occurred,
to provide food stamp benefits to any Katrina evacuee;
Duration: Applications accepted during Sept. and Oct. 2005.
Programs and services: Food Stamp Program;
Examples of actions taken: USDA allowed states to provide most regular
Food Stamp Program recipients with benefits to replace food destroyed
in the disaster, as well as automatic supplements without having to
apply at a disaster site;
Duration: Duration of automatic supplements varied by county. At most,
the automatic supplements were available between Sept. and Dec. 2005.
Programs and services: National School Lunch Program and School
Breakfast Program;
Examples of actions taken: USDA relaxed eligibility verification
requirements and issued guidance that provided flexibility in program
operations to states;
Duration: School year 2005-2006.
Programs and services: The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants, and Children (WIC);
Examples of actions taken: USDA allowed state agencies to mail up to a
3-month supply of food instruments to program participants who were
scheduled to receive them at a nutrition education class, but would be
unable to attend the class due to a gasoline shortage in some states;
Duration: Oct. 2005 – Dec. 2005.
Source: GAO review of selected federal programs.
[End of table]
Table 5: Actions to Assist with Transportation:
Programs and services: Louisiana: New Orleans Regional Transit
Authority;
Examples of actions taken: Supplemented public transit in Baton Rouge
following the influx of displaced persons from New Orleans; provided
emergency transit services to residents of FEMA group sites in the
Baton Rouge area; reestablished transit in New Orleans ($67.3 million);
Duration: Oct. 2005”Dec. 2006.
Programs and services: Louisiana: Louisiana Department of
Transportation and Development;
Examples of actions taken: Supplemented public transit service to 62
parishes in Louisiana (excluding Baton Rouge and New Orleans). Services
included new routes and new service to group sites, and paratransit
service ($19 million);
Duration: Jan. 2006”Apr. 2007.
Programs and services: Mississippi: Coast Transit Authority;
Examples of actions taken: Provided emergency fixed-route and demand-
response public transit service in three Gulf Coast counties, including
transit service to temporary housing shelters, medical transportation,
and FEMA group sites ($1.4 million);
Duration: Oct. 2005”Feb. 2006.
Programs and services: : Mississippi Department of Transportation;
Examples of actions taken: Provided supplemental emergency public
transit services to three counties located north of the Gulf Coast
which included transit service to temporary shelters and demand-
response service to local residents and hurricane victims ($0.3
million);
Duration: Oct. 2005”Feb. 2006.
Source: GAO review of selected federal programs.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Analysis of FEMA Data:
We collected and analyzed data from FEMA to identify the number and
characteristics of those families who received a FEMA trailer anytime
following hurricanes Katrina and Rita through June 24, 2008. For this
report, we only analyzed data for the disaster declarations related to
Katrina and Rita in Louisiana and Mississippi. We did not include
Alabama and Texas in our scope because these states had a limited
number of group sites.
We obtained information from two of FEMA's databases--the FEMA Response
and Recovery Applicant Tracking System (FRRATS) and the National
Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS).
* FRRATS data are collected through FEMA field offices. Information
obtained from FRRATS included trailer receipt, the type of site the
trailer or mobile home was located on, lease and vacate dates for the
applicants, and the state.
* NEMIS data are collected through the national FEMA office.
Information obtained from NEMIS included: date of birth, age, employer
(or source of income), income, owner or renter status, damaged and
current addresses, state, and disaster number.
* Both FRRATS and NEMIS contain a unique registration ID that we used
to match the data we collected from these databases.
We assessed the reliability of the NEMIS and FRAATS by (1) performing
manual and electronic testing of required data elements; (2) comparing
the data with published FEMA data, when applicable; and (3)
interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about the data. We
interviewed staff who worked with these databases to understand how
data were collected and used. We also conducted basic reasonableness
tests and contacted FEMA for any clarifications or discrepancies. Where
data was not consistently reported or collected, we did not use these
data.
We determined that the data provided were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report. However, it is important to note that the
demographic data in NEMIS are largely self-reported by applicants, and
FEMA does not independently verify all of the data it collects. As an
example, while some of FEMA's assistance programs are based on income,
it does not verify reported income in NEMIS. Our analysis was based on
the highest reported income by an individual. Additionally, FEMA
collected employer data by asking applicants to report either their
employer or source of income. We recoded the employer data FEMA
provided to identify applicants' employment status, including sources
of income such as disability or social security for those who did not
report an employer. As a result, these data may be an
underrepresentation of reasons for unemployment status. Our analysis
was limited to individuals who provided the information. We did not
analyze whether nonrespondents were likely to differ from those who
responded.
Most of our analysis focused on applicants who resided in FEMA group
sites (including group and commercial site). (Most trailers were on the
private property of homeowners fixing their homes.) We did not review
the use of industrial sites or the characteristics of residents in
these sites. To identify characteristics of applicants in group sites,
we matched data obtained from FRAATS and NEMIS using the unique
registration number assigned by FEMA. The total number of unique
records used for our analysis was 127,629 applicants who ever received
a trailer following the hurricanes through June 24, 2008. This included
21,105 persons who lived in group sites and 106,128 who had a trailer
on their own property. Generally, our analysis was limited to
applicants' pre-disaster characteristics. FEMA does make corrections to
the data if it finds duplicates or a recipient provides new
information. For example, FEMA may correct employer, income, address,
or date of birth information that was reported at registration. Where
information was likely to have corrections, we used the most current
data.
[End of section]
Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
[hyperlink, http://www.dhs.gov]
November 18, 2008:
Ms. Kay E. Brown:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security:
Government Accountability Office:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Ms. Brown:
Thank you for providing the Department of Homeland Security with an
opportunity to provide comments on draft GAO Report 09-81 entitled
Federal Efforts to Assist Group Site Residents with Employment,
Services for Families with Children, and Transportation.
While the report did not contain any specific recommendations for the
agency, the report stressed the importance of: 1) the completion of
FEMA's National Disaster Housing Strategy; 2) the need for clear and
understandable FEMA guidelines for sharing information with State
agencies; and, 3) the need for clear FEMA guidance and policies on
transportation services and assistance for disaster victims.
Updates on each of these elements are offered below.
National Disaster Housing Strategy: On July 23, 2008, FEMA published
the preliminary National Disaster Housing Strategy pursuant to the Post
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (P.L. 109-295). The strategy
provides the overarching vision, goals, and principles for a national
disaster housing effort and brings together all levels of government,
nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to meet the
urgent housing needs of disaster victims. The strategy also draws on
best practices and lessons learned to identify actions that must be
taken to improve disaster housing assistance, which includes renewing
planning efforts, building baseline capabilities, and providing a
broader range of flexible disaster housing options.
A series of annexes to the strategy will address: 1) housing programs
and resources available through Federal, State, Tribal, local, and
nongovernmental organizations; 2) access to comprehensive wrap around
services (such as employment resources, child care, health care, and
senior services) for group site residents; 3) programs available to
address unique recovery needs of low income and special needs
populations, along with housing requirements for individuals with
disabilities; and 4) comprehensive group site operations guidance.
The strategy, minus the annexes, was recently posted for a 97 day
public comment period, which ended on September 29, 2008. The agency is
currently reviewing strategy comments received and incorporating
changes into the strategy as appropriate. The annexes are nearing
completion and still require final review and comment by partner
agencies.
The final strategy will be released before the end of the calendar
year.
Information Sharing: FEMA guidelines for sharing information on persons
displaced as a result of a disaster are outlined in 44 CFR Section 206.
FEMA may share information on displaced persons, including those in
FEMA trailer group sites with Federal and State agencies under FEMA
Routine Use (a)(1). FEMA would only share information with Federal and
State agencies under Routine Use (a)(1) if they administer disaster
relief programs and were able to make available additional disaster
assistance. Additionally, FEMA may share information on displaced
persons to other Federal agencies (OFA) for planning purposes as
related to hazard mitigation planning efforts, debt collection efforts,
litigation, etc.
FEMA may share information on displaced persons, including those in
FEMA trailer group sites, to local governments in accordance with
FEMA's Routine Use (a)(2) if they administer disaster relief programs
and were able to make available additional disaster assistance. The
local government would be required to provide FEMA the applicant's
name, FEMA registration number and damaged dwelling address in order to
receive specific information under Routine Use (a)(2). However, Routine
Use (f) specifically allows FEMA to release the location of the FEMA
temporary housing unit to local government emergency managers for the
sole purpose of preparing emergency evacuation plans.
FEMA does not share information with non-profit agencies under the
Routine Uses unless they meet the specific requirements as set forth in
44 CFR 206.2(a)(27), voluntary organizations ("Any chartered or
otherwise duly recognized tax-exempt local, State or national
organization or group which has provided or may provide needed services
to the State, local governments, or individuals in coping with an
emergency or major disaster") and meet the requirements of FEMA's
Routine Uses under (a)(2) & (a)(3). FEMA's Routine Use (a)(3) requires
the requester to have an established disaster assistance program, be
actively involved in the disaster and be a member of the National
Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster OR a member of that
disaster's Long Term Recovery Committee).
Transportation: Whenever FEMA constructs Group Sites during disasters,
we typically try to locate them near schools, supermarkets, public
transportation, and other types of essential services, e.g., health
care facilities. In some instances, however, this is not possible. At
these times, FEMA can provide public transportation assistance from the
Group Sites to some of the essential services, to include places of
employment. As with most community based disaster assistance, this
assistance is provided in a collective manner, with some consideration
given to individuals with disabilities. FEMA's transportation
assistance from group parks is not fashioned to meet the individualized
transportation needs of individual occupants (e.g. FEMA does not offer
a car service). FEMA coordinates with local officials to determine the
best and most effective transportation routes, drop-off/pick-up points,
etc. It is during the planning stages that the State and local
government have the opportunity to identify the best routes for public
transportation, to include making sure routes go near social service
agencies, employment agencies, etc.
Also, the transportation authority assigned to FEMA under the Post
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act is only for evacuation/return,
and not daily commutes.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jerald E. Levine:
Director, Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Kay E. Brown, (202) 512-7215, brownke@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Patrick Dibattista and Steven Cohen, Assistant Directors; Lindsay M.
Bach; Dwayne Curry; Nyree M. Ryder; Molly W. Traci; and David J. Wise
made significant contributions to this report. Melinda F. Bowman,
Charlene M. Johnson, Kathryn A. Larin, Arthur T. Merriam Jr., and Nhi
Nguyen also made key contributions. In addition, Jessica A. Botsford
provided legal assistance; Cynthia L. Grant, John W. Mingus Jr., and
Walter K. Vance analyzed and assessed reliability of data; and Jessica
S. Orr assisted in report development.
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
National Disaster Response: FEMA Should Take Action to Improve Capacity
and Coordination between Government and Voluntary Sectors. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-369]. Washington, D.C.: February 27,
2008.
Emergency Transit Assistance: Federal Funding for Recent Disasters, and
Options for the Future. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-243]. Washington, D.C.: February 15,
2008.
Hurricane Katrina: Ineffective FEMA Oversight of Housing Maintenance
Contracts in Mississippi Resulted in Millions of Dollars of Waste and
Potential Fraud. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-106].
Washington, D.C.: November 16, 2007.
Catastrophic Disasters: Federal Efforts Help States Prepare for and
Respond to Psychological Consequences, but FEMA's Crisis Counseling
Program Needs Improvements. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-22]. Washington, D.C.: February 29,
2008.
Disaster Housing: Implementation of FEMA's Alternative Housing Pilot
Program Provides Lessons for Improving Future Competitions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1143R]. Washington, D.C.: August 31,
2007.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Disaster Relief: Continued Findings of
Fraud, Waste, and Abuse. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-300]. Washington, D.C.: March 15,
2007.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Federal Actions Could Enhance Preparedness
of Certain State-Administered Federal Support Programs. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-219]. Washington, D.C.: February 7,
2007.
Disaster Assistance: Better Planning Needed for Housing Victims of
Catastrophic Disasters. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-88]. Washington, D.C.: February 28,
2007.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Unprecedented Challenges Exposed the
Individuals and Households Program to Fraud and Abuse; Actions Needed
to Reduce Such Problems in Future. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-1013]. Washington, D.C.: September
29, 2006.
Coast Guard: Observations on the Preparation, Response, and Recovery
Missions Related to Hurricane Katrina. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-903]. Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2006.
Child Welfare: Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have Plans to
Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by Disasters.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-944]. Washington, D.C.:
July 28, 2006.
Small Business Administration: Actions Needed to Provide More Timely
Disaster Assistance. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-860]. Washington, D.C.: July 28,
2006.
Disaster Relief: Government-wide Framework Needed to Collect and
Consolidate Information to Report on Billions in Federal Funding for
the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-834]. Washington, D.C.: September 6,
2006.
Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation Assistance for
Health Facilities Should Be Addressed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-826]. Washington, D.C.: July 20,
2006.
Individual Disaster Assistance Programs: Framework for Fraud
Prevention, Detection, and Prosecution. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-954T]. Washington, D.C.: July 12,
2006.
Child Welfare: Federal Action Needed to Ensure States Have Plans to
Safeguard Children in the Child Welfare System Displaced by Disasters.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-944]. Washington, D.C.:
July 28, 2006.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Improper and Potentially Fraudulent
Individual Assistance Payments Estimated to Be between $600 Million and
$1.4 Billion. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-844T].
Washington, D.C.: June 14, 2006.
Expedited Assistance for Victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: FEMA's
Control Weaknesses Exposed the Government to Significant Fraud and
Abuse. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-655]. Washington,
D.C.: June 16, 2006.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Coordination between FEMA and the Red
Cross Should Be Improved for the 2006 Hurricane Season. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-712]. Washington, D.C.: June 8,
2006.
Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating Children after the Gulf
Coast Hurricanes. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-680R].
Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: Planning for and Management of Federal Disaster
Recovery Contracts. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-622T]. Washington, D.C.: April 10,
2006.
Hurricane Katrina: Comprehensive Policies and Procedures Are Needed to
Ensure Appropriate Use of and Accountability for International
Assistance. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-460].
Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: Status of the Health Care System in New Orleans and
Difficult Decisions Related to Efforts to Rebuild It Approximately 6
Months after Hurricane Katrina. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-576R]. Washington, D.C.: March 28,
2006.
Agency Management of Contractors Responding to Hurricanes Katrina and
Rita. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-461R]. Washington,
D.C.: March 15, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: GAO's Preliminary Observations Regarding
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-442T]. Washington, D.C.: March 8,
2006.
Emergency Preparedness and Response: Some Issues and Challenges
Associated with Major Emergency Incidents. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-467T]. Washington, D.C.: February
23, 2006.
Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation of
Hospitals and Nursing Homes Due to Hurricanes. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-443R]. Washington, D.C.: February
16, 2006.
Expedited Assistance for Victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: FEMA's
Control Weaknesses Exposed the Government to Significant Fraud and
Abuse. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-403T].
Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2006.
Investigation: Military Meals, Ready-to-Eat Sold on eBay. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-410R]. Washington, D.C.: February
13, 2006.
Statement by Comptroller General David M. Walker on GAO's Preliminary
Observations Regarding Preparedness and Response to Hurricanes Katrina
and Rita. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-365R].
Washington, D.C.: February 1, 2006.
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Challenges for the National Flood
Insurance Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-335T]. Washington, D.C.: January 25,
2006.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Provision of Charitable Assistance.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-297T]. Washington, D.C.:
December 13, 2005.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] For the purposes of this report, group sites refers to both sites
established by FEMA and commercial sites that already existed and were
used to house hurricane victims.
[2] These services include nutritional assistance programs, educational
programs, and other support programs for low-income families.
[3] Under the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5201), FEMA is
authorized, among other things, to provide or fund temporary housing,
disaster unemployment assistance, nutrition assistance, and temporary
public transportation.
[4] GAO, Emergency Transit Assistance: Federal Funding for Recent
Disasters, and Options for the Future, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-243] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 15,
2008).
[5] For the purposes of this briefing, group sites refers to both sites
established by FEMA and commercial sites that already existed and
were used to house hurricane victims. FEMA also placed temporary
housing units on the property of homeowners who were repairing
their homes.
[6] GAO has Katrina and Rita work under way examining housing, health
care, case management, and the role of not for profits.
[7] These include nutritional assistance programs, educational
programs, and other support programs for low-income families.
[8] 42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5201.
[9] The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, Pub. L.
No. 109-295, § 689f, amended the Stafford Act so that it now includes a
provision for case management services to meet the needs of survivors
of major disasters.
[10] While FEMA provides funding for these programs, they are generally
administered by the relevant federal and state agencies.
[11] According to FEMA, commercial sites may also lack proximity to
existing infrastructure.
[12] Group sites refers to both group and commercial sites. The number
of households remaining represents the number of applicant cases that
did not have a lease vacate date at the start of the month. FEMA
officials stated that this may not be an exact representation of the
number of households remaining because sometimes there is a difference
between the time the household vacates and the date recorded.
[13] According to FEMA officials, issues with formaldehyde levels did
not affect closure dates. However, FEMA did offer hotel/motel
assistance to occupants who asked to be moved due to health concerns,
and this may have contributed to the depopulation of the sites.
[14] See appendix I for a list of selected programs available on an
ongoing basis for employment, and families with children.
[15] The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA), Pub. L. No. 105-220,
as amended, requires that the services of 16 federally funded programs,
administered by the Departments of Labor, Education, Health and Human
Services, and Housing and Urban Development, be provided through the
one-stop delivery system established in each local area.
[16] Group sites refers to both group and commercial sites.
[17] Group sites refers to both group and commercial sites.
[18] Source: GAO analysis of FEMA data.
[19] These data represent information individuals self-reported as part
of their application for FEMA assistance. Percentages are based on the
number of applicants reporting each characteristic.
[20] See appendix II for a summary of selected actions federal agencies
took to assist individuals with employment needs, families with
children, and those needing transportation after the hurricanes.
[21] Department of Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to
Address Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza
Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-148.
[22] Title IV, Division B of Pub. L. No. 109-148.
[23] Certain services provided through LA Department of Transportation
and Development ended in April 2007.
[24] The Volpe Center is a federal, fee-for-service organization within
DOT known for its transportation expertise, which conducts studies and
analyses for federal, state, and local governments, industry, and
academia.
[25] The implementation of LA Moves service was delayed twice”July 2006
and September 2006.
[26] GAO is currently conducting work looking at case management
services for victims of the hurricanes. These services could include an
assessment of needs and referrals for both short-term and longer term
disaster assistance, if needed.
[27] The Flexibility for Displaced Workers Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-
72, expressed the sense of Congress that one-stop operators should
increase access for workers affected by Hurricane Katrina to the one-
stop delivery systems by, for example, providing services on-site to
individuals in temporary housing.
[28] Some of these services were provided in facilities established
through private donations.
[29] GAO, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Federal Actions Could Enhance
Preparedness of Certain State-Administered Federal Support Programs,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-219] (Washington, D.C.:
Feb. 7, 2007).
[30] The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, Pub. L.
No. 109-295, §683.
[31] As shown in figure 2, the 368 group sites in LA were widely
dispersed throughout the state.
[32] GAO, Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating Children after
the Gulf Coast Hurricanes, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-680R] (Washington, D.C.: May 11,
2006).
[33] GAO, Emergency Transit Assistance: Federal Funding for Recent
Disasters, and Options for the Future, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-243] (Washington,
D.C.: Feb. 15, 2008).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
