Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to
Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for
Evacuations (22-DEC-06, GAO-07-44).
During the evacuation of New Orleans in response to Hurricane
Katrina in 2005, many of those who did not own a vehicle and
could not evacuate were among the over 1,300 people who died.
This raised questions about how well state and local governments,
primarily responsible for disaster planning, integrate
transportation-disadvantaged populations into such planning. GAO
assessed the challenges and barriers state and local officials
face; how prepared these governments are and steps they are
taking to address challenges and barriers; and federal efforts to
provide evacuation assistance. GAO reviewed evacuation plans;
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of
Transportation (DOT), and other studies; and interviewed
officials in five major city and four state governments.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-44
ACCNO: A64426
TITLE: Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed
to Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for
Evacuations
DATE: 12/22/2006
SUBJECT: Disadvantaged persons
Disaster planning
Emergency management
Emergency preparedness
Evacuation
Evacuation plans
Federal aid for transportation
Federal/state relations
Government information dissemination
Hurricane Katrina
Local governments
Persons with disabilities
Requirements definition
State/local relations
Strategic planning
Transportation
National Response Plan
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-44
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]Challenges and Barriers Exist in Evacuation Preparedness for
* [4]State and Local Governments Face Challenges in Identifying a
* [5]Legal and Social Barriers to Addressing Transportation-Disad
* [6]State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prepared
* [7]Many State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prep
* [8]Some State and Local Governments Have Taken Steps to Address
* [9]While the Federal Government Provides Some Evacuation Assist
* [10]The Federal Government Provides Some Evacuation Preparedness
* [11]Despite Some Federal Assistance to State and Local Governmen
* [12]Gaps Also Remain in Federal Agencies' Role and Responsibilit
* [13]Conclusions
* [14]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [15]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [16]GAO Comments
* [17]GAO Contact
* [18]Staff Acknowledgments
* [19]GAO's Mission
* [20]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [21]Order by Mail or Phone
* [22]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [23]Congressional Relations
* [24]Public Affairs
Report to Congressional Committees
United States Government Accountability Office
GAO
December 2006
TRANSPORTATION-DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS
Actions Needed
to Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations
GAO-07-44
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 5
Background 12
Challenges and Barriers Exist in Evacuation Preparedness for
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 14
State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prepared to Evacuate
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations, but Some Have Taken Steps to
Improve Preparedness 24
While the Federal Government Provides Some Evacuation Assistance, Gaps
Remain 32
Conclusions 42
Recommendations for Executive Action 43
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44
Appendix I Scope and Methodology 48
Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 52
GAO Comments 56
Appendix III GAO's Observations on Federal Proposed Recommendations and
Initial Conclusions 58
Appendix IV Other Federal Initiatives Related to Evacuating
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 62
Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64
Related GAO Products 65
Table
Table 1: GAO's Observations on Federal Recommendations and Initial
Conclusions Addressing Evacuation Planning for
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 58
Figures
Figure 1: Challenges in Evacuating Transportation-Disadvantaged
Populations 7
Figure 2: Major Barriers to Addressing Challenges in Evacuating
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 19
Abbreviations
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOT Department of Transportation
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
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. However, 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.
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
December 22, 2006
Congressional Committees:
The evacuation of New Orleans in response to Hurricane Katrina was
considered relatively successful for people with their own vehicles;
approximately 1 million people evacuated Louisiana prior to landfall.^1 In
contrast, about 100,000 people were not evacuated prior to the storm--many
of whom lacked access to a vehicle. Hurricane Katrina ultimately resulted
in over 1,300 deaths. Among those who could not evacuate were some of
society's most vulnerable populations: the elderly, low-income
individuals, and persons with disabilities.^2 These populations often lack
the ability to provide for their own transportation and may also have
difficulty accessing conventional public transportation. As a result,
evacuating these "transportation-disadvantaged" populations during
emergencies has become an important topic of public policy discussion.^3
Evacuations of varying scales are common in the United States and can be
triggered by a variety of events, including natural disasters such as
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, wildfires, and terrorist attacks like those
committed on September 11, 2001. In fact, emergency evacuations of more
than 1,000 people occur more than three times a month. While evacuation is
only one option in response to an emergency, it is complex and contains
several critical components, including transportation, shelter, supplies,
and security, among others. Each of these components is itself complex and
often interrelated to transportation. Those who, by choice or
circumstance, do not have access to a personal vehicle or are precluded
from driving may require evacuation assistance during emergencies. The
2000 U.S. Census indicates that the population categories we have
previously defined as transportation-disadvantaged--the elderly,
low-income individuals, and persons with disabilities--comprise a large
segment of the country's total population (now over 300 million). For
example, Census data indicated that, in 2000, 12 percent of Americans were
age 65 and over, 12 percent were living below the poverty line, and 23
percent had a disability.^4 However, the transportation-disadvantaged not
only include vulnerable populations, but all those who are car-less during
an emergency. In 2000, the top 10 car-less cities had between 29 and 56
percent of households without a vehicle. However, people who require
transportation assistance in an evacuation may be an even larger group
because, in an emergency, anyone without immediate access to
transportation may require assistance.
^1For the purposes of this report, we define evacuations as "organized,
phased, and supervised withdrawal, dispersal, or removal of civilians from
dangerous or potentially dangerous areas, and their reception and care in
safe areas."
^2As we discuss in this report, transportation-disadvantaged populations
can include numerous categories of people without personal vehicles, such
as: the elderly and persons with disabilities who have mobility
impairments that preclude them from driving or who need medical equipment
in order to travel; low-income, homeless, or transient persons who do not
have a permanent residence or who do not own or have access to a personal
vehicle; children without an adult present during a disaster; tourists and
commuters who are frequent users of public transportation; those with
limited English proficiency who tend to rely on public transit more than
English speakers (see GAO, Transportation Services: Better Dissemination
and Oversight of DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited
English-Proficient Populations, [25]GAO-06-52 [Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2,
2006]); or those who, for any other reason, do not own or have access to a
personal vehicle.
^3Our previous studies have examined the ability of
transportation-disadvantaged populations to access public transportation
for employment opportunities, health and medical services, educational
services, and the community at large.
State and local governments are primarily responsible for managing
responses to disasters. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) establishes a disaster
management framework for state and local governments^5 and indicates that
disasters should be managed at the lowest possible governmental level. As
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reaffirmed in July 2006,^6 this
approach also applies to evacuations whereby state and local officials may
suggest or require the evacuation of residents from homes and communities
before certain catastrophes occur using the authority set out in state
laws and local ordinances. The federal government provides assistance to
state and local governments in their evacuation preparedness, including
requirements, funding, and guidance and technical guidance. If state and
local governments are overwhelmed by a catastrophic disaster, the federal
government can also provide evacuation assistance. For example, the
Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Department of Defense (DOD)
worked with state and local officials to conduct evacuations during
Hurricane Katrina. Other entities that may be available to assist state
and local governments in preparing for evacuations include social service
agencies, nonprofit organizations, public transportation providers (such
as transit agencies) and private transportation providers (such as
ambulance and bus companies), and regional planning organizations--also
known as metropolitan planning organizations--which collect transportation
and transit data as part of their involvement in planning highway and
transit investments. Some of these entities receive DOT grants for
programs that provide transportation for the elderly, low-income
individuals, persons with disabilities, and other
transportation-disadvantaged populations, among other activities.^7 The
federal government's plan for disaster response is the DHS National
Response Plan.
^4Only those individuals age 21 and over are included in this disability
determination. Also, while there is some overlap among
transportation-disadvantaged populations--an elderly person with a
disability, for example--the numbers of these populations are still large.
In addition, it is unlikely that all of those who compromise the
aforementioned data would require transportation during an evacuation.
^5For the purposes of this report, language regarding state and local
governments is inclusive of tribal governments.
^6Letters sent by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to the
Governors of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi in July 2006.
Reports by the White House,^8 Senate,^9 and other federal entities studied
federal, state, and local evacuation preparedness and response to
Hurricane Katrina and issued related recommendations. The Congress
mandated that reviews and assessments be conducted in response to concerns
raised by Hurricane Katrina. As a result, DHS issued the Nationwide Plan
Review Phase I and II Reports, a comprehensive assessment of catastrophic
planning, in all 50 states and in 75 of the largest urban areas (February
and June 2006).^10 In addition, DOT issued the Catastrophic Hurricane
Evacuation Plan Evaluation: A Report to Congress, a review of hurricane
evacuation plans of five states and 58 counties and parishes on the Gulf
Coast, in June 2006.^11 Because of this broad-based congressional interest
in concerns raised by Hurricane Katrina, we assessed issues surrounding
the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations under the
Comptroller General's authority, which allows him to conduct evaluations
on his own initiative.^12 In May 2006, we reported on preliminary
observations from our work.^13 To complete our assessment, we examined (1)
the challenges state and local governments face in preparing for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations and the barriers
these governments confront in addressing such challenges; (2) how prepared
state and local governments are to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged
populations, and what steps the governments are taking to address
challenges associated with preparing for the evacuation of these
populations; and (3) the extent to which the federal government (a) has
provided assistance to state and local governments' efforts to prepare for
the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations and (b) is
responsible for providing evacuation assistance when state and local
governments are overwhelmed by a catastrophic disaster.
^7Such programs include the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom programs.
^8White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to Hurricane
Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2006)
^9Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Hurricane
Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 2006).
^10DHS, Nationwide Plan Review: Phase I Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10,
2006). DHS, Nationwide Plan Review: Phase II Report (Washington, D.C.:
June 16, 2006).
^11DOT in cooperation with DHS, Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan
Evaluation: A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2006).
To address these questions, we conducted literature and document reviews
of federal, state, and local emergency plans; activity reports issued
after Hurricane Katrina and other recent disasters; studies conducted by
the federal government, experts, national associations, and organizations
that represent transportation-disadvantaged populations and transportation
providers; and related laws and proposed legislation. We interviewed
federal officials from DOT, DHS, Health and Human Services, and DOD, in
addition to experts in the field of emergency preparedness. We conducted
site visits to five major cities: Los Angeles, California; Miami, Florida;
New Orleans, Louisiana; Buffalo, New York; and Washington, D.C.^14 We
selected these cities based on several factors, including large
concentrations of car-less, elderly, disabled, and low-income populations
(according to the 2000 U.S. Census); a medium or high overall
vulnerability to hazards; and transportation ridership. At these
locations, we interviewed local emergency management, public safety, and
transit and transportation agency officials; transportation planners and
representatives of advocacy groups for the elderly and persons with
disabilities. We also interviewed state emergency management and
transportation agency officials at the four state capitals for the cities
we visited: Sacramento, California; Tallahassee, Florida; Baton Rouge,
Louisiana; and Albany, New York. We issued a report in July 2006 on the
evacuation of health facilities, including hospitals and nursing homes.^15
As such, this report does not address the evacuation of those who are
under the care of these health facilities. In addition, aside from
transportation, this report does not address other key considerations in
evacuating these populations, such as shelter, security, food and water,
and other associated issues.
^1231 U.S.C. S 717(b)(1)(2000).
^13GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation
of Vulnerable Populations Due to Hurricanes and Other Disasters,
[26]GAO-06-790T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006). Also see a list of
related GAO products at the end of this report.
^14While the District of Columbia is neither a city nor a state, for the
purposes of this report, we refer to the District of Columbia as one of
the major cities we visited. We, therefore, did not visit a respective
state for the District of Columbia.
We conducted our review from December 2005 through December 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See
app. I for additional information on our scope and methodology.)
Results in Brief
When preparing for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations, state and local emergency management officials face
challenges in identifying and locating these populations, determining
their transportation needs, and providing for their transportation. For
instance, when preparing evacuation plans, it is difficult for officials
to identify transportation-disadvantaged populations because they are
large, diverse, and constantly changing. In addition, locating
transportation-disadvantaged populations is a challenge for state and
local officials because information on their locations has not been or
cannot be collected, is not centrally compiled, or has not been
traditionally shared with officials responsible for preparing to evacuate
these populations. Determining the evacuation transportation needs of
these populations is a challenge because the needs of such populations
vary--some require little assistance beyond basic transportation, while
others may require transportation that is accessible to those with
mobility impairments (such as buses with wheelchair lifts) and medical
assistance from the home to the shelter. Additionally, officials face
challenges in providing for the evacuation transportation of these
populations, such as acquiring the appropriate vehicles and other
equipment, employing the professionals (such as drivers) necessary to
carry out evacuations, and providing relevant training to those
professionals, including how to move persons with disabilities in and out
of vehicles. For example, 48 percent of respondents to DHS's Nationwide
Plan Review stated that they needed to improve their use of all available
transportation modes. State and local officials also confront legal and
social barriers in addressing these evacuation challenges for
transportation-disadvantaged populations. One legal barrier is officials'
concern about obtaining client medical information from transportation
providers that is used to service clients. Although officials would use
this information in evacuation preparedness efforts, privacy issues
remain. Another legal barrier is that public and private sector
transportation providers--for example, those who transport persons with
disabilities, "Meals on Wheels" programs for the elderly, and job access
services for low-income individuals--may be dissuaded, along with
volunteers, from providing evacuation assistance in an emergency because
of liability concerns. An example of this concern is the possibility of
being sued for damages if an evacuee becomes injured while boarding a bus.
Further, social barriers, which can affect the willingness of any
population to evacuate, may make transportation-disadvantaged populations
even less likely to accept assistance in evacuating. This can include
concerns about a pet, one's health, or fear of losing financial assets. It
can also include the risk of adverse health effects if these populations
evacuate without their assistance devices, such as life-support systems or
service animals. (See fig. 1.)
^15GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation
Assistance for Health Facilities Should Be Addressed, [27]GAO-06-826
(Washington, D.C.: Jul. 20, 2006). This report discusses evacuation
challenges faced by hospitals and nursing homes, such as in deciding
whether to evacuate, securing transportation, and maintaining
communications outside of their facilities.
Figure 1: Challenges in Evacuating Transportation-Disadvantaged
Populations
Many state and local governments are generally not well prepared--that is,
they do not have the appropriate plans, training, and exercises--to
evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations. DHS's Nationwide Plan
Review of emergency plans from all 50 states and 75 of the largest urban
areas reported that about 10 percent of states and about 12 percent of
urban areas adequately addressed evacuating transportation-disadvantaged
populations. DOT's evaluation reported that most state and local
evacuation plans focus on highway evacuations by personal vehicles.
According to the Nationwide Plan Review and our site visits, one reason
for this lack of preparedness is the limited awareness or understanding of
the importance of preparing to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged
populations by many state and local governments. Emergency management
officials in one major city we visited after Hurricane Katrina stated that
few residents would require transportation assistance and, therefore,
these officials did not believe that they needed to plan, train, and
conduct exercises for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations. However, 2000 U.S. Census data reported 16.5 percent of
households in that major city are car-less, and many of these households
may not be able to self-evacuate. While it is uncertain whether state and
local governments' ability to evacuate these populations would be
successful--in part because of limited training and conducting of
exercises--we found that some state and local governments we visited have
taken steps to address some of the evacuation preparedness challenges and
related legal and social barriers. These include the following:
o Identifying and locating transportation-disadvantaged
populations: One of the five major cities we visited conducted a
disaster preparedness survey of some of its
transportation-disadvantaged populations, and another has begun to
develop computerized maps that locate transportation-disadvantaged
populations. However, while some state and local entities (some of
which are DOT grant recipients and stakeholders) can provide
information on how to identify and locate
transportation-disadvantaged populations, the five major cities
and four states we visited have generally not taken advantage of
these entities' information. (These entities include social
service agencies; nonprofit organizations; public and private
sector transportation providers for the elderly, low-income
individuals, and persons with disabilities; and metropolitan
planning organizations, among others.)
o Determining needs and providing transportation: Two of the five
major cities we visited have involved state and local
entities--such as advocacy groups and social service
transportation providers--in planning efforts to make use of these
entities' understanding of, and experience with, the needs of
transportation-disadvantaged populations.
o Legal and social barriers: To help address legal barriers, four
of the five major cities we visited have developed memoranda of
understanding and mutual aid agreements for the use of vehicles
and drivers in an emergency; these contracts help address
liability concerns. To help overcome social barriers, two of the
five major cities we visited have established plans to evacuate
and shelter pets and ensured that evacuees can bring assistance
devices, such as wheelchairs and life-support systems.
The federal government has provided some evacuation preparedness
assistance to state and local governments for
transportation-disadvantaged populations, but gaps have hindered
many of these governments' ability to sufficiently prepare to
address the complex challenges and barriers they face. These gaps
include the following:
o Requirements: Until October 2006, while federal law required
that emergency plans include an evacuation plan, there was no
specific requirement that the evacuation plan address how to
transport those who cannot self-evacuate.^16 Federal law now
requires that state and local governments with mass evacuation
plans incorporate special needs populations into their plan.
However, this requirement does not necessarily ensure the
incorporation of all transportation-disadvantaged populations.
This is because state and local governments do not share a
consistent definition of special needs populations, as we found in
the course of our review, and this term did not encompass all
transportation-disadvantaged populations which are important to
evacuation preparedness. In addition, a July 2005 report from the
National Council on Disability^17 found little evidence that DHS
has encouraged state or local grant recipients to include
disability and access issues in their emergency preparedness
efforts. Changes in federal law from October 2006 will also
further protect some transportation-disadvantaged populations.
o Funding: Although DHS grants may be used by state and local
governments to plan, train, and conduct exercises for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations, officials
from only two of the five major cities and one state we visited
had requested a DHS grant for such purposes. These officials told
us that such grants were seldom used to prepare these populations
for evacuation because these officials believe DHS placed a
greater emphasis on the procurement of equipment (rather than
planning) and on terrorism preparedness (as opposed to
preparedness for natural or other disasters). In addition, DHS
officials told us that they currently do not know how much of the
department's grant funds have been used, or are being used, by
state and local governments to prepare for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations.
o Guidance and technical assistance: The primary federal guidance
for evacuation preparedness recommends planning for
transportation-disadvantaged populations, but does not provide any
further details for how to do so. As a result, state and local
officials told us that additional guidance on how to approach
planning for these populations would be helpful. About one-third
of DHS's Nationwide Plan Review respondents stated that they would
like additional guidance in this area. Further, while DHS has an
online portal for sharing existing emergency preparedness
guidance, best practices, and other information--its Lessons
Learned Information Sharing online portal--information on
preparing to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations is
difficult to access because of poor search and organizational
functions. While several federal agencies, such as the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), coordinate technical
assistance for evacuations, such assistance is generally focused
on self-evacuation.
While DHS and DOT have taken several actions in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina to improve the federal government's ability to
provide evacuation assistance when state and local governments are
overwhelmed by a catastrophic disaster, gaps remain. Although the
Stafford Act gives the federal government the authority to assist
state and local governments with evacuations and to respond in a
catastrophic disaster, the National Response Plan does not clarify
the lead, coordinating, and supporting agencies to provide
evacuation assistance for transportation-disadvantaged and other
populations when state and local governments are overwhelmed. The
absence of lead, coordinating, and supporting agencies for
providing evacuation assistance was evident in the federal
response for New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. As both the
White House Homeland Security Council report and the Senate
Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee report noted,
the federal government was not prepared to evacuate
transportation-disadvantaged populations, and this severely
complicated and hampered the federal response.^18 Both reports
recommended that DOT develop plans to assist states and local
governments overwhelmed by catastrophic disasters, and that DHS
and DOT work with other agencies to develop the federal
government's capability to conduct mass evacuations. To remedy
this, the White House report also recommended that DOT be
designated as the federal agency responsible for leading and
coordinating evacuations when state and local governments are
overwhelmed. Amendments to the Stafford Act from October 2006
clarified the responsibility of FEMA (an agency within DHS) in
leading and coordinating evacuation assistance when state and
local governments are overwhelmed by a catastrophic disaster. In
the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the federal government has
taken several steps to improve its ability to respond to a
catastrophic disaster. For instance, during the 2006 hurricane
season, the government provided additional evacuation assistance
to state and local governments. However, despite these
improvements, DHS has not yet clarified in the National Response
Plan which federal agencies are responsible for leading,
coordinating, and supporting evacuation assistance.
To improve the federal government's ability to assist state and
local governments in evacuating transportation-disadvantaged
populations, we are making several recommendations to DHS. We
recommend, for instance, that DHS clarify in the National Response
Plan (as already stated in federal law) that FEMA is the single
federal agency responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation
assistance when state and local governments are overwhelmed. We
also recommend that DHS clarify the supporting federal agencies'
roles and responsibilities in providing evacuation assistance. In
addition, we are also recommending that DHS use its authority
under its various grant programs to require that all state and
local governments plan, train, and exercise for the evacuation of
these populations; develop additional preparedness guidance and
technical assistance; and improve its information sharing online
portal to encourage better evacuation preparedness for these
populations. We are making a recommendation to DOT that it
encourage its grant recipients and stakeholders, through guidance
and outreach, to share information that would assist emergency
management and transportation officials in identifying and
locating as well as determining the evacuation needs of and
providing transportation for these populations.
We provided a draft of this report to DHS and DOT for comment. We
received written comments from DHS and oral comments from DOT
officials, including the National Response Program Manager, Office
of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, Office of the
Secretary. DOT officials generally agreed with the information
contained in our report, and both DOT officials and DHS's letter
stated that they would consider our recommendations. DHS's letter
also stated that it has partly implemented some recommendations in
our draft report, including improvements to its Lessons Learned
Information Sharing portal. We recognize that DHS has made
improvements to this portal, but some of the issues we previously
identified, particularly regarding its limited search functions,
remain. We therefore revised our recommendation to recognize DHS's
efforts, but retained the recommendation to reflect the need for
continued improvement. DHS's letter also noted, in contrast to an
earlier discussion we had with DHS officials, that DHS is the
single agency responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation
support to the states, and that this responsibility was emphasized
by amendments to the Stafford Act in October 2006. We therefore
modified our draft as appropriate and retained our recommendation
that DHS clarify the lead, coordinating, and supporting federal
agencies to provide evacuation assistance and these agencies'
responsibilities in the National Response Plan. DHS's letter
raised a number of other concerns, including how we characterized
its role and responsibilities, and how we characterized the events
surrounding Hurricane Katrina, which we have addressed in the
report as appropriate. In addition, both DHS and DOT officials
offered technical and clarifying comments which we incorporated.
Background
State and local governments are primarily responsible for carrying
out evacuations. However, if these governments become overwhelmed
by a catastrophic disaster, the federal government can provide
essential support, such as evacuation assistance for
transportation-disadvantaged and other populations. Such support
would require adequate preparation on the part of the federal
government.
The Stafford Act outlines the framework for state and local
governments to obtain federal support in response to a disaster.
First, a governor must submit a request to the President in order
for the President to declare a federal disaster. Once the
declaration is granted, the state can request specific assistance
from FEMA (part of DHS), such as physical assets, personnel,
funding, and technical assistance, among others. While the
President can declare a disaster without a request from a
governor, this does not frequently occur. The Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 amended sections of the
Stafford Act whereby the President can provide accelerated federal
assistance and support where necessary to save lives absent a
specific request from a governor and can direct any federal agency
to provide assistance to state and local governments in support of
"precautionary evacuations." DHS's role is to coordinate federal
resources used in disaster response, including evacuations. DHS
created the National Response Plan in 2004 to create a
comprehensive "all-hazards" approach to enhance the ability of the
United States to manage domestic incidents. Under the National
Response Plan, DOT is the lead and coordinating federal agency for
transportation in a disaster. DOT is primarily responsible for
coordinating the provision of federal and civil transportation
services, and the recovery, restoration, safety, and security of
the transportation infrastructure. However, with respect to
evacuations, DOT is only responsible for providing technical
assistance in evacuation planning to other federal agencies as
well as state and local governments.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 also
included numerous provisions to help strengthen federal, state,
and local evacuation preparedness for some
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Among these provisions
are: the establishment of the National Advisory Council to advise
FEMA on all aspects of emergency management that will include
disability and other special needs representatives; the
institution of a DHS disability coordinator to assist in emergency
preparedness for persons with disabilities; the creation of the
National Training Program and the National Exercise Program which
are designed to address the unique requirements of special needs
populations; and a requirement that federal agencies develop
operational plans to respond effectively to disasters, which must
address support of state and local governments in conducting mass
evacuations, including transportation and provisions for
populations with special needs.
To facilitate evacuation preparedness, state and local entities
not traditionally involved in emergency management can provide
assistance--such as information or vehicles--that would be helpful
in state and local evacuation-preparedness efforts for
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Some such entities
receive DOT grants to provide transportation for the elderly,
low-income individuals, persons with disabilities, and other
transportation-disadvantaged populations. These include social
service agencies, nonprofit organizations, and public and private
sector transportation providers that coordinate the daily
transportation of the elderly, low-income individuals, and persons
with disabilities, to provide meals or transportation to and from
jobs, medical appointments, and other activities. Finally, as a
condition for spending federal highway or transit funds in
urbanized areas, federal highway and transit statutes require
metropolitan planning organizations to plan, program, and
coordinate federal highway and transit investments. To carry out
these activities, metropolitan planning organizations collect
transportation and transit data. In March 2006, DOT issued
guidance that recommends increased interaction between some of its
grant recipients and emergency management agencies, among other
entities.^19
To assess state and local evacuation preparedness, DHS's
Nationwide Plan Review examined the emergency plans of all 50
states and 75 of the largest urban areas, including evacuation
plans and annexes. DOT's report to the Congress, entitled
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation: A Report to
Congress also reviewed the evacuation plans of many of the Gulf
Coast region's counties and parishes. Both of these federal
reports also recommend that additional actions be taken to address
this issue.
There are many relevant federal entities and other entities that
have served as advocates for all or subsets of
transportation-disadvantaged populations. In the federal
government, these include the National Council on Disability; and
interagency councils such as the Coordinating Council on Access
and Mobility, the Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency
Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities, and the
Interagency Council on Homelessness. Outside of the federal
government, relevant entities that have advocated for these
populations include the National Organization on Disability and
the American Association of Retired Persons, as well as
transportation groups such as the American Public Transportation
Association, the Community Transportation Association of America,
and the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Challenges and Barriers Exist in Evacuation Preparedness for
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
State and local emergency management officials face several
challenges in preparing for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations.^20 For example, state
and local officials face difficulties in obtaining information
about where transportation-disadvantaged populations are located.
These state and local officials also face challenges in
determining transportation-disadvantaged populations' needs and
providing for their transportation, such as arranging for the use
of appropriate equipment--buses and vans, for example--to evacuate
these populations. Additionally, officials confront legal and
social barriers in addressing these challenges, such as concerns
about being unable to obtain client medical information from
public or private sector transportation providers for use in
evacuation preparedness efforts because of privacy issues.
State and Local Governments Face Challenges in Identifying and
Locating Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations, Determining
Their Evacuation Needs, and Providing for Their Transportat
According to experts and officials, the challenges state and local
governments face in preparing for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations include identifying and
locating these populations, determining their evacuation needs,
and providing for their transportation. It is difficult for state
and local officials to acquire the necessary information to both
identify and locate transportation-disadvantaged populations. The
difficulty in identifying these populations is due to the fact
that these populations represent large, diverse, and constantly
changing groups, and that information about them is not always
readily available. Transportation-disadvantaged populations can
include numerous categories of people without personal vehicles,
such as the following:
o the elderly and persons with disabilities who have mobility
impairments that preclude them from driving, or who need medical
equipment in order to travel;
o low-income, homeless, or transient persons who do not have a
permanent residence or who do not own or have access to a personal
vehicle;
o children without an adult present during a disaster;
o tourists and commuters who are frequent users of public
transportation;
o those with limited English proficiency who tend to rely on
public transit more than English speakers;^21 or
o those who, for any other reason, do not own or have access to a
personal vehicle.
These populations can also include those who could be placed in,
or qualify for, more than one category among
transportation-disadvantaged populations, such as a person who has
disabilities, is homeless, and speaks limited English. Both the
large number of these populations and the potential for double
counting can make identification difficult for state and local
officials. For example, although 52 percent of the Gulf Coast
jurisdictions evaluated in DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation
Plan Evaluation had identified and located certain
transportation-disadvantaged populations, DOT reported that only
three jurisdictions had satisfactorily included provisions for
schools and day care centers, trailer parks and campgrounds,
incarcerated and transient individuals, and people with limited
English proficiency in their evacuation plans. Twenty-six percent
of respondents to a question in DHS's Nationwide Plan Review
stated that they needed to improve their identification of these
populations. Fifteen percent of respondents to this question
indicated that a standard federal definition of
"transportation-disadvantaged" would facilitate their planning.
Additionally, data on the location of transportation-disadvantaged
populations is not readily available because such data:
o have not previously been collected;
o cannot be collected because of the amount of time, staff, and
other resources required, or cannot be shared due to the
preference of some transportation-disadvantaged populations; for
example, the established registration system in one of the five
major cities we visited had only 1400--or 0.3 percent--of the
462,000 people projected to need evacuation assistance registered;
o are not compiled in a central location, but reside in separate
databases across numerous agencies, companies, or organizations,
including social service agencies, departments of motor vehicles,
and public and private sector transportation providers;
o are not traditionally shared with emergency management
officials; for example, a local metropolitan planning organization
may collect data on those who are transit-dependent, but may not
have shared that information with emergency management officials;
or
o cannot be shared with emergency officials due to privacy
restrictions; for example, social service agencies or nonprofit
organizations that regularly transport people during non-emergency
times and have information on clients' needs, but may not be able
or willing to share that data because of privacy concerns.
In addition to identifying and locating
transportation-disadvantaged populations, state and local
governments also face the challenge of determining the
transportation needs of these populations and providing for their
transportation in an evacuation. To adequately prepare for
evacuating these populations, state and local officials need
information on the medical and transportation needs of each person
in addition to his or her location.^22 These needs can vary widely
from those who can travel by themselves to a government-assisted
evacuation pick-up point to those who:
o need to be transported to a government-assisted evacuation
pick-up point, but do not require medical assistance or additional
transportation;
o live in group homes for persons with mental disabilities and may
require medical assistance, but not accessible transportation in
an evacuation; or
o are medically frail but not hospitalized, and require acute
medical assistance as well as accessible transportation in an
evacuation.
However, similar to the location data discussed earlier, it is
difficult for state and local officials to obtain information on
the transportation needs of these populations.
Another challenge that state and local officials face in preparing
for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations is
providing for the transportation of these populations. This
challenge includes identifying the appropriate equipment and
available modes of transport as well as drivers and other needed
professionals, providing training to those drivers and other
professionals, and communicating evacuation information to the
public. When preparing for an emergency, it can be difficult for
state and local officials to identify, arrange for the use of, and
determine the proper positioning of equipment needed to transport
these populations. The transportation needs of such populations
can range from persons who can be evacuated in school buses and
charter buses to the mobility-impaired who may require low floor
buses, wheelchair lift-equipped vans, and other accessible
vehicles. Because of the limited number of vehicles (accessible,
multi-passenger, or other) available among both public
transportation providers (such as transit agencies) and private
transportation providers (such as ambulance and bus companies), we
found that emergency officials have to spend additional time and
resources arranging for transportation and ensuring that those
arrangements are coordinated before an evacuation order is issued.
Further, state and local governments also need to have drivers and
other professionals trained to operate the additional vehicles
they have acquired or to move persons with disabilities in and out
of vehicles; constraints already exist on the pool of potential
drivers. One example of a constrained resource is school bus
drivers. If an evacuation is ordered during the school day, the
availability of these drivers is severely limited because such
drivers must first transport the children home. In addition,
drivers who provide transportation to these populations during
non-emergency times are often not trained or contracted to provide
emergency transportation for these populations. Further, DOT's
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation reported that,
even in urban areas where additional modes of transportation are
available, few evacuation plans recognize the potential role for
intercity buses, trains, airplanes, and ferries. These modes may
be particularly important for persons who cannot evacuate in
personal vehicles. In response to a question in DHS's Nationwide
Plan Review on how well all available modes of transportation are
incorporated into evacuation plans, 48 percent of respondents
stated that plans needed to improve the use of available modes of
transport in evacuation planning. For example, one jurisdiction is
investigating using ferries and barges in evacuations.
Legal and Social Barriers to Addressing Transportation-Disadvantaged
Evacuation Challenges Confront State and Local Governments
According to experts and officials, several legal and social
barriers confront state and local governments in addressing the
aforementioned challenges to evacuating
transportation-disadvantaged populations. (See fig. 2.)
^16Title 42 U.S.C. S 11003(c)(7).
^17National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People with
Disabilities in Emergency Planning (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2005).
^18See White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington D.C.: Feb. 2006) and Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Hurricane Katrina: A
Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 2006).
^19For fiscal year 2007, DOT's Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom programs
require some grant recipients to develop a coordinated public
transit-human services transportation plan. FTA proposes that this plan is
to be a unified, comprehensive strategy for public transportation service
delivery that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with
disabilities, older adults, and individuals with limited incomes; lays out
strategies for meeting these needs; and prioritizes services. All future
projects for these programs are to be derived from the local coordinated
public transit-human services transportation plans.
^20We issued a report in July 2006 on the evacuation of health facilities,
including hospitals and nursing homes. As such, this report does not
address the evacuation of those who are under the care of these health
facilities. See [28]GAO-06-826.
^21See [29]GAO-06-52 .
^22Medical needs may include care providers or equipment such as
wheelchairs and beds. Transportation needs may include accessible vehicles
such as those with chair lifts or low floors.
Figure 2: Major Barriers to Addressing Challenges in Evacuating
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
To begin, state and local emergency management officials often face legal
barriers in obtaining data on the identification, location, or the
transportation needs of these populations. For example, 11 percent of
respondents to a DHS Nationwide Plan Review question on addressing the
needs of transportation-disadvantaged individuals before, during, and
after emergencies, stated that they were concerned about privacy issues
vis-`a-vis obtaining medical information from public or private sector
transportation providers about their clients that would help officials in
their evacuation preparedness. These providers could include those that
provide paratransit services for persons with disabilities, "Meals on
Wheels" programs for the elderly, and job access services for low-income
individuals. DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation also
cited privacy as a legal barrier. Officials in three of the five major
cities we visited in addition to several federal officials with whom we
spoke expressed concern about what impact the Health Information
Portability and Accountability Act's Privacy Rule (the Privacy Rule) might
have on their ability to acquire such data. The act's Privacy Rule limits
the disclosure of individually identifiable health information by certain
entities or persons,^23 but does not apply to transportation providers
unless they are also covered entities. Covered entities include health
care providers that conduct certain transactions in electronic form,
health-care clearinghouses, or health plans.^24 Therefore, transportation
providers that are not covered entities would not be prohibited by the
Privacy Rule from sharing such information. However, misunderstanding
about the act's Privacy Rule may still be discouraging some from sharing
this information. Additionally, the general concerns that federal, state,
and local officials have expressed may extend to other privacy issues
beyond the Privacy Rule, such as potential contractual restrictions on
Medicare and Medicaid transportation providers.
^23See Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub.
L. No. 104-191 (August 24, 1996) and HHS Standards for Privacy of
Individually Identifiable Health Information, 45 C.F.R. parts 160 & 164
(2005).
Another example of a legal barrier is that some public or private sector
transportation providers are hesitant to evacuate these populations
because of concerns about reimbursement and liability. State and local
officials must often broker arrangements with transportation providers in
order to secure their services. However, although these providers may be
willing to help state and local officials evacuate these populations, they
will sometimes not do so without legal agreements (such as memoranda of
understanding or contracts) that ensure reimbursement and that absolve the
providers from, or reduce liability in case of, an accident or injury.
Creating such an agreement usually requires legal representation as well
as additional liability insurance to protect against potential damage or
loss of property or life--all entailing monetary costs that state or local
governments and transportation providers may not be willing or able to
cover. Officials in one of the five major cities we visited told us that
additional liability insurance would be cost prohibitive to obtain. We
learned of a school district's reluctance to provide vehicles for an
evacuation without a legal agreement in one of the five major cities we
visited. This was largely due to the fact that the school district had
provided vehicles for an evacuation 12 years ago, but FEMA has not yet
fully reimbursed it. In one of the five major cities and one of the four
states we visited, we also learned of agreements that have been pending
for months (or had fallen through) because of one party's liability
concerns; these concerns could not be adequately addressed by the state or
local government.
An additional legal barrier for state and local officials we identified
relates to volunteers (such as nonprofit organizations or Good Samaritans)
who may also be dissuaded from providing evacuation assistance in an
emergency because of liability concerns.^25 Liability concerns may be even
more of a barrier after Hurricane Katrina, where volunteers saw that
efforts to assist had unintentional consequences, some of which resulted
in lawsuits. For example, Operation Brother's Keeper is a Red Cross
program that connects transportation-disadvantaged populations in local
faith-based congregations with voluntary providers of transportation in
those congregations. However, because of liability concerns in the
provision of such transportation, voluntary participants of the program
are now less willing to provide such transportation. Given that most state
Good Samaritan laws only apply to voluntary assistance provided in
circumstances that involve urgent medical care, transportation providers
may be held liable unless they are responding to an accident scene or
transporting a patient to a medical facility. Moreover, we found that in
one state, an addendum introduced to modify an existing Good Samaritan law
that would indemnify volunteers assisting in evacuations did not pass. The
absence of protection from potential liability may also jeopardize efforts
to enlist the assistance of volunteers in evacuating the
transportation-disadvantaged.
^2445 C.F.R. S 165.104 (2005).
Furthermore, private transportation providers raise an additional legal
barrier for emergency officials, as these providers are hesitant to offer
evacuation assistance without formal sheltering arrangements already in
place. Sheltering arrangements ensure that such transportation providers
will not face unexpected complications once they arrive at an evacuation
destination. The providers' requirement for sheltering arrangements
highlights the fact that there are other significant evacuation barriers
for state and local governments which extend beyond transportation.
Experts who participated in an August 2006 panel we hosted on disaster
housing assistance also described similar sheltering challenges that were
discussed earlier in this report, such as challenges related to evacuation
preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged populations.^26 For example,
some of the panelists discussed difficulty in obtaining information on
those who require sheltering, where they are located, and what their
sheltering needs are.^27 Further, providing shelter for transient
populations, persons with disabilities, undocumented workers, and those
with limited English proficiency--many of whom are also
transportation-disadvantaged--is a complex task. Finally, as we will
discuss in the next section, sharing information to increase preparedness
needs improvement.
^25Good Samaritan laws are enacted by states to protect health care
providers and other volunteer rescuers from being sued when they are
giving emergency medical help to a victim.
^26We are planning to issue a report on disaster housing assistance in
February 2007.
^27The GAO Expert Panel on Disaster Housing Assistance was conducted in
cooperation with and held at the National Academies in Washington, D.C. on
August 17, 2006.
Social barriers that may affect evacuation efforts for all populations may
pose another major obstacle for state and local officials in addressing
challenges to evacuating these populations. While social barriers extend
beyond transportation-disadvantaged populations to include many of those
with access to a car, there are two reasons why such barriers are
particularly pronounced when state and local officials prepare for the
evacuation of such populations. First, as opposed to those who have access
to a personal vehicle, state and local officials must be able to identify,
locate, and determine the needs of transportation-disadvantaged
populations in order to evacuate them. Second, the unwillingness to
evacuate may be more widespread for the car-less than other populations
due to health, financial, or other personal reasons that are related to
their transportation-disadvantaged status.
Even if the identification, location, or transportation needs data are
available for use by state and local officials, we learned that some
people may not want to disclose their information to these officials
because of concerns that sharing such data will adversely affect their
o medical situation, whereby the privacy of their personal medical
information may be compromised;
o financial situation, such that their financial assets will be
taken or reduced; and
o legal situation, such that they face consequences if, for
example, the government learns that they are undocumented workers.
This barrier may therefore prevent state and local governments
from determining which populations require evacuation
transportation, where they are located, and what their specific
transportation needs are.
In addition, if state and local officials are able to prepare for
the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations, these
officials still may confront the unwillingness of these
populations to evacuate. State and local officials have the
difficult task of making evacuation in advance of emergencies a
better alternative for such populations than sheltering in place.
Even when the local or state government issues a "mandatory"
evacuation order, most state governments do not have the authority
to forcibly remove people from their homes or other areas.
Instead, state governments must decide whether they can, or are
willing to, voluntarily comply with the order. Further, even if
emergency management officials provide transportation to these
populations, they may not want to evacuate. One example of this
unwillingness to evacuate is that transportation-disadvantaged
populations may be concerned about being separated from family
members or caregivers upon whom they may depend for mobility or
the provision of medical services, or pets upon which they may
rely for companionship. In addition, shelters that receive
evacuees may not be set up to receive pets. Health concerns may
also cause these populations to be reluctant to evacuate. For
example, some may be reluctant or unable to leave without the
medication or medical equipment (e.g., oxygen tanks or dialysis
machines) that are critical to their well-being, or may be
concerned that riding on an evacuation vehicle would be extremely
painful given their medical condition. In addition, some may feel
anxiety concerning the lack of information about their
destination, including whether they know someone there or whether
the destination will meet their needs.
These populations' unwillingness to evacuate can also stem from
fear of losing physical or financial assets. For example, some
transportation-disadvantaged populations have limited assets and
do not feel safe leaving whatever assets they do have--such as
their home or belongings--behind. This sentiment is exacerbated
among those whose families have lived in their homes for
generations. Further, as was observed during Hurricane Katrina,
people may be unwilling to evacuate even if they do have a car;
they may not have money to pay for gas or are unwilling to move to
a place where their financial situation is less certain.
In attempting to address some of these social barriers by
informing transportation-disadvantaged populations about the
benefits of evacuating as opposed to sheltering in place, we found
that communicating with these populations can be difficult because
these populations often
o are dispersed;
o may lack access to a radio or television;
o may not trust emergency announcements; or
o may not be able to read or understand emergency materials or
announcements because of a disability, such as a cognitive or
vision impairment, or a lack of proficiency in English.^28
State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prepared to
Evacuate Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations, but Some Have
Taken Steps to Improve Preparedness
Many state and local governments have gaps in their evacuation
preparedness--including planning, training, and conducting
exercises--for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Many of
these governments generally have limited awareness or
understanding of the need to plan for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations. These governments
believe that the risk of an evacuation is too low to warrant
planning for these populations. The governments also may have
focused only on planning for self-evacuations. In addition, while
some state and local governments may be aware of the need to
prepare for evacuating these populations, some have made little
progress because of insufficient planning details and little
training for, and exercising of, plans to evacuate the
transportation-disadvantaged. Although some state and local
governments have taken steps to address challenges and related
barriers, the outcomes of these actions remain uncertain.
Many State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prepared
to Evacuate Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations for Several
Reasons
Many states and localities are generally not well
prepared--including planning, training, and conducting
exercises--to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations.
DHS's Nationwide Plan Review of emergency operation plans from all
50 states and 75 of the largest urban areas reported that 10
percent of state and 12 percent of urban area evacuation planning
documents sufficiently addressed assisting those who would not be
able to evacuate on their own. The review also identified that
such planning often consisted of little more than public
information campaigns designed to encourage residents to evacuate
by their own means. Even in hurricane-affected areas, most
evacuation plans do not fully address the needs of
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Most notably, DOT's
Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation of 63 Gulf Coast
jurisdictions (five states and 58 counties and parishes) reported
that, although plans generally address the issue of evacuating
those considered transportation-disadvantaged, most do not have
detailed information on how to identify and locate populations, or
determine their needs and secure transportation and other
resources required to carry out an evacuation. The DHS review also
reported that most state and urban area emergency plans do not
address evacuation for persons with disabilities and overlook the
availability of timely accessible transportation, such as
life-equipped vehicles, emergency communication methods, and the
need to keep people together with their family member, caregivers,
or medical equipment.
Limited awareness or understanding of the need to prepare for
evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations has
contributed to inadequate preparedness on the part of state and
local governments. The Nationwide Plan Review stated that some
state and local officials believe they will never experience a
catastrophic event. These officials also believe that the
evacuation of an entire city or state is improbable and expressed
concern that strengthening evacuation preparedness standards, such
as those related to planning, training, and conducting exercises
for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations,
could place unrealistic expectations on communities with limited
planning resources and few identified risks. Officials at two of
the five major cities we visited also told us that the likelihood
of disaster scenarios requiring mass evacuation is too low to
warrant spending limited funds on evacuation preparedness for
these populations. However, officials at one of the five major
cities we visited indicated that they are beginning to address
evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged
populations in smaller scale evacuations, which they thought would
be more likely to occur. Three of the five major cities and one of
the four states we visited have recognized, after Hurricane
Katrina, the need to include provisions in their evacuation plans
for those without access to their own transportation. Officials at
one of these three major cities said that they had not planned,
trained, or conducted exercises for these populations until late
2005, when DHS officials started to pose questions for the
Nationwide Plan Review. A senior emergency management official in
another one of those three major cities said that very few
residents are without personal vehicles. Therefore, officials in
that city focused plans, training, and exercises on evacuation by
personal vehicle. However, 2000 U.S. Census data reported that
16.5 percent of households in that major city are car-less. DOT's
evaluation reported that most state and local evacuation plans
focus on highway evacuations by personal vehicles. We found
another example of this focus on personal vehicles in one of the
four states we visited. This state spent approximately $100,000 to
develop and distribute an evacuation pamphlet with
self-preparedness information and a large evacuation map on how
those with access to a personal vehicle can use the highway system
to evacuate. Yet, the state did not conduct similar outreach for
those who require transportation assistance in evacuations.
DOT's review of evacuation plans in the Gulf Coast reported that,
although some jurisdictions have well-coordinated and tested
plans, the plans of many other jurisdictions do not include
sufficient detail--nor have staff been trained in or practiced
with the plans to ensure effective implementation. We observed a
similar phenomenon during our site visits. State and local
governments vary in their level of preparedness, with many not
well prepared to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged
populations. For example, at the time of our review, evacuation
plans from two of the five major cities and three of the four
states we visited did not address the need to prepare for
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Further, DOT reported
that many Gulf Coast jurisdictions conduct disaster training and
exercises without involving key players such as transit agencies,
state departments of transportation, and school bus operators,
even though some evacuation plans rely on the use of vehicles from
these entities. In the past year, officials at three of the five
major cities and three of the four states we visited had conducted
training or exercises that addressed evacuating
transportation-disadvantaged populations, or included such
populations in training or exercises. Government reports on
Hurricane Katrina highlighted the vulnerability of
transportation-disadvantaged populations, leading some emergency
officials to reevaluate their level of preparedness to evacuate
these populations. As a result, although state and local
governments have generally overlooked transportation-disadvantaged
populations in the past, some are now taking steps to overcome the
challenges and barriers to evacuating transportation-disadvantaged
populations.
The lack of evacuation preparedness for
transportation-disadvantaged populations may reflect a larger
problem in emergency planning, as the DHS Nationwide Plan Review
has highlighted. For example, DHS reported that responses to its
question on emergency planning actions being taken to address
transportation-disadvantaged populations received the lowest
percentage of sufficient responses from both state and urban
areas.^29 Some respondents to this question indicated that they
were not sure how to proceed in planning for
transportation-disadvantaged populations or what was expected of
them. For example, one jurisdiction requested guidance to
"understand what is expected of them and ideas on how they can
achieve it." Another respondent stated they "are wondering what
areas should be covered to ensure that a response plan is
adequate." In addition, DHS found no state or urban area emergency
plan annexes to be fully sufficient in addressing
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Such annexes pertain to
specific emergency functions, including evacuation, but also mass
care and communications, among others. DHS reported that emergency
plans lack a consistency of approach, depth of planning, or
evidence of safeguards and effective implementation. In addition,
DHS reported that few plans demonstrate the in-depth planning and
proactive thinking needed to meet the needs of these populations.
Some State and Local Governments Have Taken Steps to Address
Evacuation Preparedness Challenges and Related Barriers
Although, in general, preparedness efforts to evacuate
transportation-disadvantaged populations are lacking, state and
local governments have taken steps to address challenges in
identifying and locating these populations, determining their
evacuation needs, and providing for their transportation. With
regard to addressing the challenges of identifying and locating
transportation-disadvantaged populations, some of the five major
cities and four states we visited, as well as those reviewed as
part of the DHS and DOT reports, have taken the following steps:
o Conducting surveys and studies: Officials in all five major
cities and one of the four states we visited told us that they
have conducted surveys or collaborated with academic institutions
to locate transportation-disadvantaged populations. For example,
one major city conducted a disaster preparedness survey of
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Another major city
obtained survey data on transportation-disadvantaged populations
through collaboration with a local university's school of public
health. In a third major city, emergency management officials have
plans to collaborate with academics to create simulations of
evacuation scenarios. These scenarios would be used for evacuation
preparedness activities, such as calculating how many buses would
be needed and which routes to take for an evacuation.
o Collaborating with state and local entities: Two of the five
major cities we visited have identified, or plan to identify,
transportation-disadvantaged populations through faith-based or
community outreach programs such as Operation Brother's Keeper (a
Red Cross program that matches those with access to a personal
vehicle to those in their community without such access) and
Neighborhood Watch (a crime-prevention program). In another city,
officials stated their intent to use Citizen Corps (which brings
community and government leaders together to coordinate the
involvement of community members and nongovernmental resources in
emergency preparedness and response and whose volunteers are
trained, exercised, and managed at the local level) to help
identify, locate, and evacuate transportation-disadvantaged
populations. One respondent to DHS's Nationwide Plan Review stated
that their jurisdiction is looking at developing partnerships with
nonprofit and local social service organizations and community
groups that deal with transportation-disadvantaged populations in
order to assist in identifying and locating these populations. In
addition, two of the five major cities we visited had collaborated
with their respective metropolitan planning organizations to
collect evacuation-related data, and officials in one state we
visited told us that cities and counties in their state need to
better coordinate with metropolitan planning organizations to
identify transportation-disadvantaged populations. Officials from
all of the five metropolitan planning organizations we visited
(which are also DOT grant recipients) told us that they had
information that could be useful in evacuation preparedness.
Because these organizations are required to conduct transportation
planning as part of their federal funding agreements, they acquire
data on transit-dependent populations that would be useful for
emergency officials. Three of these organizations showed us data
and maps illustrating the location of transportation-disadvantaged
populations, but stated that emergency management officials in
their communities had not yet reached out to them for information
or assistance. The Association of Metropolitan Planning
Organizations told us that although their 385 member organizations
differ in capacity, many would be able to provide assistance to
emergency management officials in identifying and locating
transportation-disadvantaged populations.
o Mapping transportation-disadvantaged populations: DOT's
evaluation of evacuation plans in the 63 Gulf Coast jurisdictions
found that just over half (33) of those jurisdictions had
identified certain transportation-disadvantaged populations
(hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted care facilities) by
geographic location. DHS's Nationwide Plan Review found that some
participants are employing modeling software to determine the size
and location of transportation-disadvantaged populations. One of
the five major cities we visited worked with academics to use
computerized mapping technology--known as geographic information
systems--to map the location of these populations. Another major
city of the five we visited is working with the state's department
of motor vehicles to create a computerized map of households
without personal vehicles.
With regard to determining the needs of these populations and
providing for transportation, state and local governments in some
of the states we visited (as well as governments reviewed in the
DHS and DOT reports) have taken the following steps:
o Involving state and local entities that are not traditionally
involved in emergency management as part of preparedness efforts:
DHS's Nationwide Plan Review stated that federal, state, and local
governments should increase the participation of persons with
disabilities and disability subject-matter experts in the
development and execution of plans, training, and exercises.
Officials in two of the five major cities we visited have involved
social service agencies, nonprofit or other organizations, and
transportation providers--such as schools for the blind and deaf,
and paratransit providers for the disabled--in emergency
preparedness activities. Some of these state and local entities
are DOT grant recipients. Several emergency preparedness experts
with whom we spoke recommended involving, in evacuation
preparedness, state and local entities that represent or serve
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Such entities can assist
emergency management officials in efficiently determining the
needs of these populations.
o Coordinating with state and local entities that are not
traditionally involved in emergency management as part of
preparedness efforts: DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan
Evaluation found that approximately two-thirds (or 43) of the 63
Gulf Coast evacuation plans included the use of public transit
vehicles, school buses, and paratransit vehicles. The Nationwide
Plan Review states that a critical but often overlooked component
of the evacuation process is the availability of timely,
accessible transportation (especially lift-equipped vehicles). In
one of the five major cities we visited,
transportation-disadvantaged populations are evacuated using
social service transportation providers with ambulances, school
buses, and other vehicles including those with lift-equipment.^30
o Training state and local entities that are not traditionally
involved in emergency management as part of preparedness efforts:
Officials at two of the five major cities we visited have trained,
or are planning to train, social service agencies to coordinate
and communicate with emergency responders. One of the five major
cities we visited found that, during hurricanes, community-based
organizations that serve the elderly were operating on a limited
basis or not at all. Therefore, this city's government mandated
that community-based organizations have continuity of operations
plans in place to increase their ability to maintain essential
services during a disaster. This city also provided training and
technical assistance to help organizations develop such plans. In
another major city, the paratransit providers that are DOT grant
recipients received emergency response training, and have
identification that informs law enforcement officials that these
providers are authorized to assist in emergency evacuations.
o Training emergency responders to operate multi-passenger
vehicles: Two of five major cities we visited are considering
training police officers and fire fighters to obtain a type of
commercial driver's license that would allow them to operate
multi-passenger vehicles. This would provide a greater number of
available drivers and more flexibility for evacuation assistance.
o Incorporating transportation-disadvantaged populations in
exercises: DHS recommended in its Nationwide Plan Review that
jurisdictions increase the participation of persons with
disabilities and disability subject-matter experts in training and
exercises. Several experts we interviewed also emphasized the
importance of including transportation-disadvantaged populations
in exercises, and one explained that the level of understanding of
these populations' needs among emergency management and public
safety officials is very low. Three of the five major cities we
visited incorporate transportation-disadvantaged populations into
their evacuation exercises.
State and local governments in some of the states we visited, as
well as in those reviewed in the DHS and DOT reports, have taken
steps to address legal and social barriers that could prevent them
from successfully evacuating transportation-disadvantaged
populations:
o Establishing memoranda of understanding and mutual aid
agreements: Memoranda of understanding are legal arrangements that
allow jurisdictions to borrow vehicles, drivers, or other
resources in the event of an emergency. Mutual aid agreements are
contracts between jurisdictions in which the jurisdictions agree
to help each other by providing resources to respond to an
emergency. These agreements often identify resources, coordination
steps, and procedures to request and employ potential resources,
and may also address liability concerns. DHS's Nationwide Plan
Review reported that few emergency operations plans considered the
practical implementation of mutual aid, resource management, and
other logistical aspects of mutual aid requests. DHS found that 23
percent of urban areas needed to augment or initiate memoranda of
understanding to improve their use of available modes of
transportation in evacuation planning. DOT's Catastrophic
Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation report stated that Gulf Coast
evacuation plans have limited information addressing the use of
mutual aid agreements or memoranda of understanding with private
motor coach companies, paratransit providers, ambulance companies,
railroad companies, and air carriers. However, three of the five
major cities we visited have established formal arrangements, such
as memoranda of understanding and mutual aid agreements, with
neighboring jurisdictions.
o Establishing plans to evacuate and shelter pets: DHS's
Nationwide Plan Review found that 23 percent of 50 states and 9
percent of 75 of the largest urban areas satisfactorily address
evacuation, sheltering, and care of pets and service animals at
the same evacuation destination as their owners. This is important
not only to encourage the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations, but the evacuation of
those with personal vehicles as well. DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane
Evacuation Plan Evaluation found that about one-fifth (19 percent)
of 63 Gulf Coast jurisdictions were prepared to evacuate and
shelter pets and service animals. One of the five major cities we
visited worked with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals to arrange a tracking and sheltering system for pets.
Because officials at this major city have encountered difficulties
in providing shelter space for pets and their owners together,
they arranged for a pet shelter and shuttle service for owners to
care for their pets.
o Ensuring that evacuees can bring assistance devices or service
animals: Transportation-disadvantaged individuals may be unwilling
or unable to evacuate if they are unsure that they will be able to
bring assistance devices such as wheelchairs, life-support
systems, and communications equipment as well as service animals.
DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation found that
only one-third (32 percent) of 63 Gulf Coast jurisdictions had
made satisfactory provisions for transporting these items along
with evacuees.
o Providing extensive information about evacuations and
sheltering: In an effort to encourage citizens to evacuate, one of
the five major cities we visited provided detailed information
about evacuation and sheltering procedures. Despite extensive
public education campaigns to raise awareness about evacuations,
in two of five major cities we visited officials stated that some
people will still choose not to evacuate. In the officials'
experience, when an evacuation vehicle arrived at the homes of
transportation-disadvantaged populations who had registered for
evacuation assistance, some refused to evacuate. These individuals
cited multiple reasons, such as disbelief in the danger presented
by the storm, discomfort in evacuating, and the absence of a
caregiver or necessary medication.
o Emphasizing self-preparedness: Officials from three of the five
major cities and two of the four states we visited emphasized
citizen self-preparedness, such as developing an evacuation
preparedness kit that includes medications, food, water and
clothes.
While the Federal Government Provides Some Evacuation Assistance,
Gaps Remain
Although the federal government has provided some assistance to
state and local governments in preparing for their evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations, gaps in this assistance
remains. For example, federal guidance provided to state and local
emergency officials does not address preparedness challenges and
barriers for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Gaps also
exist in the federal government's role in and responsibilities for
providing evacuation assistance when state and local governments
are overwhelmed in a catastrophic disaster. For example, the
National Response Plan does not clearly assign the lead,
coordinating, and supporting agencies to provide evacuation
assistance or outline these agencies' responsibilities. Reports by
the White House and others suggest that this lack of clarity
slowed the federal response in evacuating disaster victims,
especially transportation-disadvantaged populations, during
Hurricane Katrina. Amendments to the Stafford Act in October 2006
have further clarified that FEMA, within DHS, is the single
federal agency responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation
assistance.
The federal government provides some assistance to state and local
governments in preparing for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations by establishing
requirements, funding, and guidance and technical assistance for
evacuation preparedness. Examples include:
o Requirements: Federal law requires that local emergency planning
officials develop emergency plans, including an evacuation plan
that contains provisions for a precautionary evacuation and
alternative traffic routes.^31 In any program that receives
federal funding, additional federal protections clearly exist for
persons with disabilities, who, depending on the nature of the
disability, potentially could be transportation-disadvantaged. An
executive order addresses emergency preparedness for persons with
disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the
Rehabilitation Act requires consideration of persons with
disabilities. According to Executive Order 13347, in the context
of emergency preparedness, executive departments and federal
agencies must consider the unique needs of their employees with
disabilities and those persons with disabilities whom the agency
serves; encourage this consideration for those served by state and
local governments and others; and facilitate cooperation among
federal, state, local, and other governments in the implementation
of the portions of emergency plans relating to persons with
disabilities.^32 Since October 2006, federal law now requires
federal agencies to develop operational plans that address, as
appropriate, support of state and local government in conducting
mass evacuations, including provisions for populations with
special needs, among others. Executive Order 13347 also created
the Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and
Individuals with Disabilities to focus on disability issues in
emergency preparedness. Additionally, as noted by DHS, the
Americans with Disabilities Act requires state and urban areas to
include accessibility for persons with disabilities in their
emergency preparedness process. Within DHS, the Office of Civil
Rights and Civil Liberties reviews and assesses civil rights and
civil liberties abuse allegations. Other civil rights laws might
also apply to transportation-disadvantaged populations, depending
on how such populations are identified. Federal laws prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and
national origin.^33 National origin discrimination includes
discrimination on the basis of limited English proficiency, and
states and localities are required to take reasonable steps to
ensure that people with limited English proficiency have
meaningful access to their programs. Recipients of DHS grants are
allowed to use a reasonable portion of their funding to ensure
that they are providing the meaningful access required by law. DHS
also has ongoing work to foster a culture of preparedness and
promote individual and community preparedness, such as through
information available as part of its Ready.gov Website and Citizen
Corps program. Changes in federal law were enacted in October 2006
to further protect some transportation-disadvantaged
populations.^34 These include:
o the establishment of a National Advisory Council to
ensure effective and ongoing coordination of federal
preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and
mitigation for natural disasters, acts of terrorism,
and other man-made disasters, with a cross-section of
members, including representatives of individuals
with disabilities and other populations with special
needs;
o the appointment of a Disability Coordinator to
ensure that needs of individuals with disabilities
are being properly addressed in emergency
preparedness and disaster relief;
o the establishment of an exercise program to test
the National Response Plan, whereby the program must
be designed to address the unique requirements of
populations with special needs and provide assistance
to state and local governments with the design,
implementation, and evaluation of exercises; and
o a requirement that federal agencies develop
operational plans to respond effectively to
disasters, which must address support of state and
local governments in conducting mass evacuations,
including transportation and provisions for
populations with special needs.
o Funding: DHS grants are the primary federal vehicle for funding
state and local evacuation preparedness efforts, and these grants
can be used to plan evacuations for transportation-disadvantaged
populations. DHS's 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program encourages
state and local governments to increase their emergency
preparedness by focusing on a subset of 37 target capabilities
that DHS considers integral to nationwide preparedness for all
types of hazards. The state and local governments choose which
subset of those capabilities best fits their preparedness needs.
One of these target capabilities addresses evacuations. If a state
determines that it needs to plan for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations, it can use funds from
its DHS grant for such planning activities. Changes in federal law
in October 2006 require states with mass evacuation plans funded
through Urban Area Security Initiative and Homeland Security Grant
Program grants to "develop procedures for informing the public of
evacuation plans before and during an evacuation, including
individuals with disabilities or other special needs, with limited
English proficiency, or who might otherwise have difficulty in
obtaining such information." Under this section, FEMA can
establish guidelines, standards, or requirements for ensuring
effective mass evacuation planning for states and local
governments if these governments choose to apply for grant funding
for a mass evacuation plan.^35
o Guidance and Technical Assistance: The federal government
provides evacuation preparedness guidance--including planning
considerations, studies, and lessons learned--for state and local
governments. We found that the primary source of such guidance for
state and local officials is FEMA's State and Local Guidance 101,
which includes a section on evacuation preparedness
considerations. This guidance recommends preparing to evacuate
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Additionally, DHS has a
Lessons Learned Information Sharing online portal for state and
local emergency management and public safety officials where the
aforementioned federal guidance can be found.^36 The federal
government also provides voluntary technical evacuation
assistance--such as planning consultants and modeling software--to
state and local officials. For example, FEMA, the United States
Army Corps of Engineers, and the National Weather Service conduct
hurricane evacuation studies from which they provide technical
assistance on several preparedness issues (such as analyses on
storm modeling, sheltering, and transportation) for state and
local officials. Another example is the evacuation liaison
team--comprised of FEMA, DOT, and the National Hurricane
Center--that works with state and local governments to coordinate
interstate transportation during hurricane evacuations.
The federal government has also undertaken several smaller efforts
to address evacuation preparedness for
transportation-disadvantaged populations. (See app. V.)
Despite Some Federal Assistance to State and Local Governments,
Gaps Remain in Evacuation Preparedness for Transportation-
Disadvantaged Populations
Although the federal government provides some assistance to state
and local governments for preparing to evacuate
transportation-disadvantaged populations, gaps in this assistance
remain, including the following:
o Requirements: Until October 2006, while federal law required
that emergency plans include an evacuation plan, there was no
specific requirement that the evacuation plan address how to
transport those who could not self-evacuate. Federal law now
requires that state and local governments with mass evacuation
plans incorporate special needs populations into their plan.
However, this requirement does not necessarily ensure the
incorporation of all transportation-disadvantaged populations.
This is because state and local governments do not share a
consistent definition of special needs populations. In the course
of our review, we found that state and local governments
interpreted the term in a much more narrow fashion that did not
encompass all transportation-disadvantaged populations, which are
important to evacuation preparedness. Third, even though civil
rights laws require that no person be excluded on the basis of
age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, or disability,
federal laws may not provide protection for
transportation-disadvantaged populations during federally funded
emergency preparedness efforts (including evacuation planning)
because some of these populations do not clearly fall into one of
these protected classes. For example, federal laws do not require
state and local governments to plan for the evacuation of tourists
or the homeless. In addition, although the Americans with
Disabilities Act requires state and urban areas to include
accessibility for persons with disabilities in their emergency
preparedness process, an April 2005 report from the National
Council on Disability found little evidence that DHS has
encouraged state or local grant recipients to incorporate
disability and access issues into their emergency preparedness
efforts.^37 Additionally, in four of five major cities we visited,
advocacy groups representing persons with disabilities told us
that persons with disabilities were often not involved in, or
could be better integrated into, emergency management training and
exercises. In addition, the National Council on Disability and the
Interagency Council on Emergency Preparedness for Individuals with
Disabilities are respectively working to strengthen relevant
legislation and ensure that federal agencies consider
transportation-disadvantaged populations in federally funded
planning, training, and exercises. For example, the National
Council on Disability is recommending that the Congress amend the
Stafford Act to encourage federal agencies to link a recipient's
emergency preparedness grants to compliance with civil rights
laws. Similarly, the Interagency Council on Emergency Preparedness
for Individuals with Disabilities added disability subject-matter
experts to DHS's Nationwide Plan Review and worked with DHS's
Preparedness Directorate to add transportation-disadvantaged
components to Top Officials Four, a federal, state, and local
government training exercise held in June 2006 that involved
senior agency officials from across the federal government.
o Funding: While DHS's grant programs provide funding that can be
applied toward evacuation planning, training, and exercises for
transportation-disadvantaged populations (as affirmed by language
in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006), only
two of the five major cities and none of the four states we
visited requested DHS grants for activities related to the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations. In
addition, we could not determine the amount of funds spent on
evacuation planning nationwide because, although DHS is in the
process of developing a grant tracking system, it does not
currently know how much of its grant funds have been used or are
being used by state and local governments to prepare for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations. Officials
at two of the five major cities and two of the four states we
visited told us that DHS's grant programs have a continued
emphasis on funding the procurement of equipment rather than
planning, and on preparedness for terrorist acts rather than on
other disasters.^38 For example, an official from one of the four
states we visited told us that an evacuation preparedness activity
was denied by DHS because it did not closely intersect with
terrorism preparedness, one of DHS's grant requirements prior to
fiscal year 2006.^39 Therefore, emergency management officials
believe they were discouraged from using DHS funding to plan for
natural disasters, such as hurricanes. The Office of Civil Rights
and Civil Liberties at DHS--responsible for reviewing and
assessing civil rights and civil liberties abuse allegations and,
as part of the Nationwide Plan Review, participating in the
assessment of persons with disabilities--is currently involved in
the grant-guidance development process for fiscal year 2007. DHS
has indicated that the office's involvement in the grant process
is a priority.
o Guidance and Technical Assistance: While acknowledging the need
to prepare for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations, the most widely used FEMA guidance does not provide
details about how to plan, train, and conduct exercises for
evacuating these populations or how to overcome the challenges and
barriers discussed earlier. Officials from three of the five major
cities we visited said that additional guidance from DHS would
assist their evacuation planning efforts. Further, one-third of
the respondents to a DHS Nationwide Plan Review question on
emergency planning for transportation-disadvantaged populations
requested additional guidance, lessons learned, and best practices
from DHS. DHS officials told us that they intend to release new
emergency preparedness planning guidance in early calendar year
2007. In addition, although DHS has an online portal--its Lessons
Learned Information Sharing portal--which includes the
aforementioned guidance and other emergency preparedness
information, officials from two of the five major cities and two
of the four states we visited told us that specific information is
not easy to find, in part, because the portal is difficult to
navigate. Upon using the portal, we also found this to be true.^40
For example, the search results appeared to be in no particular
order and were not sorted by date or relevant key terms, and
searched terms were not highlighted or shown anywhere in the
abstracts of listed documents. In addition, some studies were not
available through the portal, including studies from some of the
experts with whom we have spoken and provided us with useful
information on evacuation preparedness for
transportation-disadvantaged populations. In commenting on a draft
of this report, DHS officials told us that they had improved the
overall functionality of DHS's Lessons Learned Information Sharing
portal. We revisited the portal as of December 7, 2006 and it
appears to have improved some of its search and organizational
functions. We have found, however, that some of the issues we
previously identified still remain, including, when using the
portal's search function, no direct link to key evacuation
preparedness documents, such as DHS's Nationwide Plan Review Phase
I and II reports.
Aside from the portal, federal evacuation studies of, and lessons
learned from, the chemical stockpile and radiological emergency
preparedness programs could also help state and local officials
prepare for these populations.^41 Because chemical stockpile and
radiological emergency preparedness programs work with communities
that include transportation-disadvantaged populations, some of the
studies and lessons learned about these programs address
evacuation challenges for these populations. For example, a
Department of Energy National Laboratory study on emergency
preparedness in Alabama includes information on how to address the
needs of transportation-disadvantaged populations in evacuations.
However, officials from the chemical stockpile and radiological
emergency preparedness programs told us that DHS has not widely
disseminated these studies and lessons learned or made them easily
available to state and local officials. The federal government has
provided technical assistance primarily focused on
self-evacuations. Therefore, while Louisiana and surrounding
states received technical assistance from FEMA, DOT, and the
National Hurricane Center to help manage evacuation traffic prior
to Hurricane Katrina, federal officials with whom we spoke were
unaware of any similar technical assistance provided for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations and other
populations. In preparation for the 2006 hurricane season, DHS
officials reported to us that DHS, along with DOT, provided some
technical assistance to three Gulf Coast states on evacuating
persons with disabilities and those with function and medical
limitations.
Gaps Also Remain in Federal Agencies� Role and Responsibilities
for Providing Evacuation Assistance When State and Local
Governments are Overwhelmed
Although the Stafford Act gives the federal government the
authority to assist state and local governments with an
evacuation,^42 we found that the National Response Plan--the
federal government's plan for disaster response--does not clearly
define the lead, coordinating, and supporting agencies to provide
evacuation assistance for transportation-disadvantaged and other
populations or outline these agencies' responsibilities when state
and local governments are overwhelmed by a catastrophic
disaster.^43 In our conversations with DHS officials prior to
October 2006, officials did not agree that FEMA (an agency within
DHS) was the single federal agency responsible for leading and
coordinating evacuation assistance. However, after amendments to
the Stafford Act in October 2006, DHS officials have agreed that
this is DHS's responsibility.
The absence of designated lead, coordinating, and supporting
agencies to provide evacuation assistance in the National Response
Plan was evident in the federal response for New Orleans during
Hurricane Katrina. As both the White House Homeland Security
Council report and the Senate Government Affairs and Homeland
Security Committee report noted, the federal government was not
prepared to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations, and
this severely complicated and hampered the federal response.
Specifically, the Senate report stated that "the federal
government played no role in providing transportation for
pre-landfall evacuation" prior to the disaster despite federal
officials' awareness that as many as 100,000 people in New Orleans
would lack the means to evacuate. The Senate report also stated
that DHS officials did not ask state and local officials about the
steps being taken to evacuate the 100,000 people without
transportation, whether they should deploy buses and drivers to
the area, or whether the federal government could help secure
multimodal transportation (e.g., buses, trains, and airlines) for
the pre-landfall evacuation.
The White House report stated that, as a result of actions not
taken, the federal government's evacuation response suffered after
Hurricane Katrina made landfall. For example, communication
problems created difficulty in providing buses and limited
situational awareness contributed to difficulties in guiding
response efforts; the result was poor coordination with state and
local officials in receiving evacuees. This contributed to delayed
requests for vehicles and the delayed arrival of vehicles to
transport disaster victims, confusion over where vehicles should
be staged, where disaster victims would be picked up, and where
disaster victims should be taken. We found that there is no entity
under the National Response Plan that is responsible for dispatch
and control of such evacuation vehicles. Given the problems
experienced during the evacuation of New Orleans, the White House
and Senate reports concluded that the federal government must be
prepared to carry out mass evacuations when disasters overwhelm
state and local governments. To achieve that goal, the White House
report recommended that DOT be designated as the agency
responsible for developing the federal government's capability to
carry out mass evacuations when state and local governments are
overwhelmed.
In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the federal government has
taken several steps to improve its ability to respond to a
catastrophic disaster and, for the 2006 hurricane season, provide
additional evacuation support to state and local governments.
First, in May 2006, DHS made several changes to the National
Response Plan, including one related to evacuations. Consistent
with a previous recommendation we made, DHS revised the
catastrophic incident annex of the National Response Plan to
include disasters that may evolve or mature to catastrophic
magnitude (such as an approaching hurricane). Therefore, in future
disasters, if the federal government has time to assess the
requirements and plans, it will tailor its proactive federal
response and pre-positioning of assets, such as vehicles, to
address the specific situation. Second, for the 2006 hurricane
season, DOT was prepared to assist the Gulf Coast states of
Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi in providing evacuation
assistance, clarified command and control by identifying key
federal contacts, and worked with the states to finalize plans for
pre-positioning of federal assets and commodities in the region.
In addition, a DOT official responsible for overseeing DOT's
emergency activities told us that, while the agency was providing
transportation services or technical assistance to some of the
Gulf Coast states for the 2006 hurricane season, it had not taken
the role of lead or coordinating federal agency responsible for
providing evacuation assistance. This official also stated that if
additional federal evacuation assistance beyond transportation
services and technical assistance are needed, DHS would need to
delegate such support to other agencies. Further, this official
told us that DOT does not yet have any specific plans to provide
similar evacuation support in catastrophic disasters after the
2006 hurricane season. Further, because of the damage caused by
Hurricane Katrina and the continuing vulnerabilities of
southeastern Louisiana, DOT, in cooperation with DHS, has provided
additional support to Louisiana. This additional support included
working with the state to identify those who could not evacuate on
their own; establishing an interagency transportation management
unit to coordinate the routing of buses; entering into contracts
to provide transportation by bus, rail, and air; and providing
transportation from state and local pre-established collection
points to shelters, rail sites, or air transportation sites. DHS
and DOT planned to assist Louisiana in evacuating the estimated
96,000 persons who could not evacuate by their own means if the
state orders an evacuation. Finally, amendments to the Stafford
Act in October 2006 have further clarified that FEMA, within DHS,
is the single federal agency responsible for leading and
coordinating evacuation assistance.^44 DHS officials have since
agreed that this is DHS's responsibility.
However, despite these improvements, DHS has not yet clarified, in
the National Response Plan, the leading, coordinating, and
supporting federal agencies to provide evacuation assistance when
state and local governments are overwhelmed, and what their
responsibilities are. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS
told us that as part of its National Response Plan review and
revision process, DHS plans to encompass several key revisions
regarding evacuations, including clarifying roles and
responsibilities of federal agencies as well as private sector and
nongovernmental agencies.
Conclusions
The experience of Hurricane Katrina illustrated that when state,
local, and federal governments are not well prepared to evacuate
transportation-disadvantaged populations during a disaster,
thousands of people may not have the ability to evacuate on their
own and may be left in extremely hazardous circumstances. While
state and local governments have primary responsibility for
planning, training, and conducting exercises for the evacuation of
these populations, gaps in federal assistance have hindered the
ability of many state and local governments to sufficiently
prepare to address the complex challenges and barriers of
evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations. This includes
the lack of any requirement to plan, train, and conduct exercises
for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations as
well as gaps in guidance and technical assistance, such as
problems with DHS's Lessons Learned Information Sharing online
portal. In addition, information that DOT grantees and
stakeholders have could be useful in evacuation preparedness
efforts. It is uncertain whether state and local governments will
be better positioned to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged
populations in the future.
Furthermore, the experience of Hurricane Katrina reinforced the
fact that some disasters are likely to overwhelm the ability of
state and local governments to respond, and that the federal
government needs to be prepared in these instances to carry out an
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations. Because
DHS has not yet clarified in the National Response Plan the lead,
coordinating, and supporting federal agencies to provide
evacuation support for other transportation-disadvantaged
populations nor outlined these agencies' responsibilities, the
federal government cannot ensure that it is taking the necessary
steps to prepare for evacuating such populations; this could
contribute to leaving behind of some of society's most vulnerable
populations in a future catastrophic disaster. The National
Response Plan review and revision process provides DHS with the
opportunity to clarify the lead, coordinating, and supporting
agencies to provide evacuation assistance and outline these
agencies' responsibilities in order to strengthen the federal
government's evacuation preparedness.
Recommendations for Executive Action
To improve federal, state, and local preparedness for the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations, we are
making three recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland
Security:
o Clarify, in the National Response Plan, that FEMA is the lead
and coordinating agency to provide evacuation assistance when
state and local governments are overwhelmed, and also clarify the
supporting federal agencies and their responsibilities.
o Require that, as part of its grant programs, all state and local
governments plan, train, and conduct exercises for the evacuation
of transportation-disadvantaged populations.
o Improve technical assistance by (1) working with DOT to provide
more detailed guidance and technical assistance on how to plan,
train, and conduct exercises for evacuating
transportation-disadvantaged populations; and (2) continuing to
improve the organization of and search functions for its Lessons
Learned Information Sharing online portal to better facilitate
access to information on evacuations of
transportation-disadvantaged for federal, state, and local
officials.
In addition, to encourage state and local information sharing as
part of their evacuation preparedness for
transportation-disadvantaged populations, we are making one
recommendation to the Secretary of Transportation:
o Encourage DOT's grant recipients and stakeholders, through
guidance and outreach, to share information that would assist
emergency management and transportation officials in identifying
and locating as well as determining the evacuation needs of and
providing transportation for transportation-disadvantaged
populations.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
We received written comments on a draft of this report from DHS.
(See app. II). DHS also offered additional technical and
clarifying comments which we incorporated as appropriate. DHS's
letter stated that the draft adequately identified the pertinent
issues that have troubled state and local emergency management
officials, and that it would consider our recommendations. DHS's
letter also stated that some recommendations in our draft report
have been partly implemented, including improvements to the
overall functionality of the lessons learned information sharing
portal. We revisited DHS's Lessons Learned Information Sharing
portal as of December 7, 2006 and it appears to have improved some
of its search and organizational functions. We have found,
however, that some of the issues we previously identified still
remain. Therefore, we revised our recommendation to reflect the
need for continued improvement of this portal.
DHS's letter raised concerns that our discussion of a single
federal agency to lead and coordinate evacuations reflected a
misunderstanding of the federal response process because, for
large and complex disasters, no single federal agency can provide
the entire response support required. We did not intend to suggest
that a single federal agency can provide such support for
evacuation. Rather, we stated that the lead, coordinating, and
supporting federal agencies to provide evacuation assistance when
state and local governments are overwhelmed were not clear in the
National Response Plan. DHS's letter notes, in contrast to an
earlier discussion we had with DHS officials, that DHS is the
single agency responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation
support to the states, and that this responsibility was emphasized
by the amendments to the Stafford Act in October 2006. We modified
our draft as appropriate to reflect DHS's role in response to
these amendments, but we retained our recommendation related to
this issue because agency roles and responsibilities to provide
evacuation assistance still need to be clarified in the National
Response Plan. DHS's letter stated that many issues related to
evacuations are being considered in ongoing revisions to the
National Response Plan, including the roles and responsibilities
of federal agencies as well as and private sector and
nongovernmental agencies. We are encouraged to learn that these
issues are part of the National Response Plan review and revision
process. DHS also commented that our draft report implied that the
events of Hurricane Katrina were a "typical occurrence." This is
not an accurate summary of our findings. Rather, our report
emphasizes that there has been a heightened awareness of
evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged
populations as a result of Hurricane Katrina, and that we and
others remain concerned about the level of preparedness among
federal, state, and local governments.
We received oral comments on a draft of this report from DOT
officials, including the National Response Program Manager, Office
of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, Office of the
Secretary. DOT officials generally agreed with the information
contained in the report and stated they would consider our
recommendation. DOT officials offered additional technical and
clarifying comments which we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees
and subcommittees with responsibilities for DHS and DOT. We will
also make copies available to others upon request. This report
will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at
http://www.gao.gov .
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at
(202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. Staff who made key contributions
to this report are listed in appendix V.
Katherine Siggerud
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
^28We are planning to issue a report on the Emergency Alert System, one of
several federally managed public warning systems, in March 2007. The
system does not currently require multilingual alerts and accessibility
for disabled persons.
^29For the DHS Nationwide Plan Review, "sufficient" is the highest rating
that can be received. The other ratings DHS used to evaluate plans were
"partially sufficient" and "not sufficient."
^30These social service transportation providers are funded in part by DOT
grants.
^31Title 42 U.S.C. S 11003(c)(7).
^32The President signed this executive order on July 22, 2004. In January
2005, the Secretary of Homeland Security wrote a letter to all state and
territorial governors emphasizing their emergency preparedness
responsibilities to individuals with disabilities and listed several steps
that emergency planners should undertake in order to ensure that their
plans are as comprehensive as possible with regard to the needs of their
constituents with disabilities.
^33See Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42. U.S.C.
2000 et. seq.; Rehabilitation Act of 1973 S 504, as amended, 29 U.S.C.
794; Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, 20 U.S.C.
1681 et. seq.; The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 20 U.S.C.
6101 et. seq.; and Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Exec. Order 12898, 59
Fed. Reg. 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994).
^34Pub. L. No. 109-294, S 508, 513, 648, 653 (Oct. 4, 2006).
^35Pub. L. No. 109-294, S 512 (Oct. 4, 2006).
^36DHS's Lessons Learned Portal can be accessed at www.llis.gov . The
portal states that it seeks to improve preparedness nationwide by allowing
local, state, and federal homeland security and response professionals to
access information on the most effective planning, training, equipping,
and operating practices for preventing, preparing for, responding to, and
recovering from acts of terrorism.
^37National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People with
Disabilities in Emergency Planning (Washington, DC: Apr. 15, 2005). DHS
officials told us that they disagree with the conclusion of the National
Council on Disability's report.
^38In addition, a previous GAO report indicates that officials from four
state and local governments believe DHS's grant process had too much of an
emphasis on terrorism-related activities. See GAO, Homeland Security: DHS'
Efforts to Enhance First Responders' All-Hazards Capabilities Continue to
Evolve, [32]GAO-05-652 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 11, 2005).
^39As of fiscal year 2006, DHS's grant guidance allows for dual-use of
grants. The term "dual-use" refers to homeland security projects or
activities that are primarily for terrorism response, but could be used in
the event of a natural or technical disaster.
^40According to DHS, our comments about the search engine and general
navigation of the system echo the results of a user survey that DHS
conducted in summer 2006.
^41The Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program and the
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program are federal programs that work
closely with communities located near the nation's chemical weapons
stockpiles and radiological facilities.
^42The Stafford Act gives the federal government the authority to assist
state and local governments in an evacuation with or without a request
from those governments. See Senate Homeland Security and Government
Affairs Committee, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared
(Washington, D.C.: May 2006).
^43As we have previously reported, a single federal agency, supporting
agencies, and their roles and responsibilities for evacuating patients
needing hospital care is clear under the National Response Plan. However,
we also found limitations in how the federal government provides
assistance with the evacuations of health care facilities when state and
local governments are overwhelmed. We recommended that the Secretary of
Homeland Security (1) clearly delineate how the federal government will
assist state and local governments with the movement of patients and
residents out of hospitals and nursing homes to a mobilization center
where National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) transportation begins; and
(2) in consultation with the other NDMS partners, including the
Secretaries of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs,
clearly delineate how to address the needs of nursing home residents
during evacuations, including arrangements necessary to relocate these
residents. See GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the
Evacuation of Vulnerable Populations due to Hurricanes and Other
Disasters, [33]GAO-06-790T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006). Also see
related GAO products at the end of this report.
^44Pub. L. No. 109-295, S 503, 504 (Oct. 4, 2006).
Congressional Committees:
The Honorable Susan Collins
Chairman
The Honorable Joseph Lieberman
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable James Inhofe
Chairman
Committee on Environment and Public Works
United States Senate
The Honorable Richard Shelby
Chairman
The Honorable Paul Sarbanes
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs
United States Senate
The Honorable Tom Davis
Chairman
The Honorable Henry Waxman
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Government Reform
House of Representatives
The Honorable Daniel Petri
Chairman
Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipeline
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
House of Representatives
The Honorable Bennie Thompson
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Homeland Security
House of Representatives
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
Our review focuses on the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Because we issued a
report in July 2006 on the evacuation of hospitals and nursing
homes, we did not include them in the scope of this review.^1
To assess the challenges state and local governments face in
evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations, we reviewed
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Nationwide Plan Review
and the Department of Transportation's (DOT) Catastrophic
Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation. These reports describe many
more states, urban areas, counties, and parishes than we were able
to visit, providing a broader context to our findings. To assess
the experience of transportation-disadvantaged populations during
Hurricane Katrina, we reviewed the White House Report: Federal
Response to Hurricane Katrina--Lessons Learned; the House of
Representatives' report, A Failure of Initiative: Final Report of
the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for
and Response to Hurricane Katrina; the Senate report, Hurricane
Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared; the DHS Inspector General's
report, A Performance Review of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's Disaster Management Activities in Response to Hurricane
Katrina; the National Organization on Disability's Report on
Special Needs Assessment for Katrina Evacuees Project; and the
American Highway Users Alliance Emergency Evacuation Report 2006.
We also held a panel organized in cooperation with, and held at,
the National Academies. The panelists are experts in the field of
disaster housing and were selected from a list of 20 provided by
the National Academies. We asked for a mix of academics and
practioners with knowledge on sheltering issues related to
hurricanes Katrina and Rita as well as previous disasters. These
panelists were Pamela Dashiell (Holy Cross Neighborhood
Association), Buddy Grantham (Joint Hurricane Housing Task Force),
Robert Olshansky (University of Illinois), Jae Park (Mississippi
Governor's Office of Recovery and Renewal), Walter Peacock (Texas
A&M University), Lori Peek (Colorado State University), Brenda
Phillips (Oklahoma State University), and Debra Washington
(Louisiana Housing Finance Agency).
To identify challenges and barriers, we reviewed selected reports
on evacuations. Studies and papers from Argonne National
Laboratory, the National Consortium on the Coordination of Human
Services Transportation, and the Congressional Research Service
contributed to our identification of challenges to evacuating
transportation-disadvantaged populations. To obtain perspectives
from officials involved in preparing for the evacuation of these
populations, we reviewed the aforementioned federal reports. We
also conducted interviews with state and local emergency
management, transit and transportation, and public safety agency
officials, as well as local metropolitan planning and advocacy
organizations at five major cities and four state capitals:
Buffalo and Albany, New York; Los Angeles and Sacramento,
California; Miami and Tallahassee, Florida; New Orleans and Baton
Rouge, Louisiana; and the District of Columbia. Because these
sites were selected as part of a non-probability sample, the
results cannot be generalized. We undertook site visits to these
locations between March 2006 and June 2006. In selecting these
major cities, we applied the following criteria: regional
diversity; major city with a population of over 250,000; high
percentage of population without personal vehicles; high or medium
overall vulnerability to hazards; high percent of total population
who are elderly, low income, or have a disability; and varied
public transit ridership levels.
In making our site selections, we used data from the 2000 U.S.
Census on the percentage of occupied housing units with no vehicle
available, city populations aged 65 and older, civilian
non-institutionalized disabled persons aged five and older, and
persons below the poverty level. To determine overall
vulnerability, we applied Dr. Susan Cutter's "Overall
Vulnerability Index" from her presentation "Preparedness and
Response: Learning from Natural Disasters" to DHS on February 14,
2006. Dr. Cutter is a professor of geography at the University of
South Carolina, and is part of the National Consortium for the
Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, which is funded by
DHS. The Overall Vulnerability Index incorporates three indices
measuring social, environmental, and all-hazards vulnerability.
The social vulnerability index incorporates social demographic
factors such as race and income, but also includes factors such as
distance from hospitals. The environmental index includes the
proximity of dangerous facilities (such as chemical and nuclear
plants) and the condition of roadways, among other factors. The
all-hazards vulnerability index analyzed all disasters recorded in
the last 60 years, and rated urban areas for the frequency of
hazards and the resulting financial impact. Public transit
ridership was taken from data in the Federal Transit
Administration's National Transit Database. We determined that all
the data we used were sufficiently reliable for use as criteria in
our site selection process.
To better understand issues related to emergency management and
evacuations, particularly of transportation-disadvantaged
populations, we interviewed several academics and experts who
presented at the 2006 Transportation Research Board conference and
the 2006 Working Conference on Emergency Management and
Individuals with Disabilities and the Elderly; we also interviewed
other academics and experts who were recommended to us by
officials, associations, organizations, and others. These
academics and experts were Madhu Beriwal (Innovative Emergency
Management); Susan Cutter (University of South Carolina);
Elizabeth Davis (EAD and Associates); Jay Goodwill and Amber Reep
(University of South Florida); John Renne (University of New
Orleans); William Metz and Edward Tanzman (Argonne National
Laboratory); Brenda Phillips (Oklahoma State University); Tom
Sanchez (Virginia Tech); and Kathleen Tierney (University of
Colorado at Denver).
To determine what actions state and local governments have taken
to address challenges in evacuating transportation-disadvantaged
populations, we interviewed, at the four states and five major
cities we visited, state and local emergency management agency
officials (who prepare for and coordinate evacuations), transit
and transportation agency officials (who provide and manage
transportation during evacuations), and public safety (fire and
police) agency officials (who assist with
transportation-disadvantaged populations during an evacuation). We
also interviewed advocacy organizations. Much of the work that
state and local governments are conducting to address these
challenges is ongoing.
In assessing how federal assistance has aided the state and local
governments we visited in addressing these challenges and what
further assistance the federal government is proposing, we
reviewed the Stafford Act; the Homeland Security Act of 2002; the
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006; the National
Response Plan (including the Catastrophic Incident Annex and the
Catastrophic Incident Supplement); DHS's Nationwide Plan Review
and DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation; and
various studies and reports on Hurricane Katrina such as those
prepared by the White House, House of Representatives, and Senate.
We interviewed officials from DHS, DOT, and DOD to obtain their
perspective on the federal role in evacuations. To obtain the
perspective of federal agencies and councils focused on issues
specifically related to transportation-disadvantaged populations,
we interviewed representatives from the Administration on Aging,
the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility, the Interagency Coordinating Council on Emergency
Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities, the National
Council on Disability, and the Interagency Council on
Homelessness. We also interviewed representatives from several
national organizations and associations to help evaluate how
federal programs and policies on evacuations have affected
transportation-disadvantaged populations. These organizations and
associations include the National Organization on Disability, the
American Association of Retired Persons, the American Public
Transportation Association, the Association of Metropolitan
Planning Organizations, and the Community Transportation
Association of America.
^1Hospitals and nursing homes are subject to federal and state
requirements relating to evacuations and disaster plans. We found that
they also face challenges in evacuation, including deciding whether to
evacuate, securing transportation, and maintaining communications outside
of their facilities. See GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in
Federal Evacuation Assistance for Health Facilities Should be Addressed,
[34]GAO-06-826 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2006).
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
See comment 2.
See comment 1.
See comment 4.
See comment 3.
See comment 8.
See comment 7.
See comment 6.
See comment 5.
GAO Comments
The following are GAO's comment on the Department of Homeland's
letter dated December 7, 2006
1. DHS commented that it partially implemented one of
our recommendations by improving the overall
functionality of the lessons learned information
sharing portal. We revisited DHS's Lessons Learned
Information Sharing portal as of December 7, 2006 and
it appears to have improved some of its search and
organizational functions. We have found, however,
that some of the issues we previously identified
still remain. For example, when using the portal's
search function, there was no direct link to key
evacuation preparedness documents, such as to DHS's
Nationwide Plan Review reports. Therefore, we revised
our recommendation to reflect the need for continued
improvement of this portal.
2. DHS commented that grant programs have
administrative requirements that stress the
importance of focusing on special needs populations.
These requirements, while encouraging, do not ensure
that state and local governments plan, train, and
conduct exercises for the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations. During the
course of our review, we found that state and local
officials do not share a consistent definition of
special needs and had interpreted the term in a
manner which does not encompass all
transportation-disadvantaged populations that should
be included in evacuation preparedness. We define
transportation-disadvantaged populations to include
individuals who, by choice or other reasons, do not
have access to a personal vehicle. These can include
persons with disabilities, low-income, homeless, or
transient persons; children without an adult present
at home, tourists and commuters who are frequent
users of public transportation; and those with
limited English proficiency who tend to rely on
public transit more than English speakers.
3. DHS commented that our draft report did not
adequately address the need to determine how to
identify, and actively evacuate all special needs
populations, including those who are
transportation-disadvantaged. We recognize, in our
report, the difficulty that state and local emergency
management officials face in identifying and locating
transportation-disadvantaged populations, determining
their transportation needs, and providing for their
transportation. Two of our report's three sections
address this very issue.
4. DHS commented that our draft report did not
recognize that transportation of special needs
populations is primarily a local responsibility. Our
report recognizes this fact and clearly states that
state and local governments are primarily responsible
for managing responses to disasters, including the
evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged
populations.
5. DHS commented that its National Response Plan
Review and Revision process is currently being
conducted and that it will address clarification of
roles and responsibilities of key structures,
positions and levels of the government and private
sector as well as other nongovernmental agencies
among other issues related to evacuations. We are
encouraged by DHS's efforts in this regard.
6. DHS commented for large and complex disasters, no
single federal agency can provide the entire response
support required. We agree that disaster response is
a coordinated interagency effort, but believe that
clarification of the lead, coordinating, and
supporting agencies for evacuation support is needed
in the National Response Plan to ensure a successful
response. DHS also commented that it is responsible
for managing that interagency effort and is, in fact,
the single federal agency responsible for leading and
coordinating evacuation support to states.
Implementation of enacted Stafford Act legislative
changes from October 2006 will help address the
federal role in providing evacuation assistance for
transportation of disadvantaged populations. We agree
that DHS, more specifically FEMA, is responsible for
leading and coordinating evacuation support to
states.
7. DHS commented that our definition of
transportation-disadvantaged populations was a
disservice to the disabled population. While we
recognize that evacuation is a complex issue and
believe that persons with disabilities are faced with
significant evacuation challenges in the event of a
disaster and should be a focus of evacuation
preparedness, it is important that federal, state,
and local government emergency preparedness efforts
address planning for all transportation-disadvantaged
populations.
8. DHS commented that our draft report implies that
the situation that occurred during Katrina was a
"typical occurrence." It is not our intent to imply
this. However, the events of Hurricane Katrina raised
significant awareness about federal, state, and local
preparedness to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged
populations, and reports, such as DHS's Nationwide
Plan Review and DOT's Catastrophic Hurricane
Evacuation Plan Evaluation, have further highlighted
the need for increased evacuation preparedness by
these governments.
Appendix III: GAO�s Observations on Federal Proposed Recommendations
and Initial Conclusions
In 2006, the White House and several federal agencies released
reports that reviewed federal, state, and local evacuation
preparedness and response to Hurricane Katrina. Many of these
reports include recommendations or initial conclusions for
federal, state, and local governments. We have included a list of
recommendations--including some already referenced in our
report--that address the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Our observations about
each recommendation, based on our review, are also listed. (See
table 1.)
Table 1: GAO's Observations on Federal Recommendations and Initial
Conclusions Addressing Evacuation Planning for
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Federal recommendation or initial
conclusion GAO observation
Define "special needs" consistently
o The federal government should Select federal, state, and local
develop a consistent definition of officials had very different
the term "special needs."^a definitions of special needs
populations. Moreover, some state
and local officials did not have
definitions that fully encompassed
all special needs populations
among the
transportation-disadvantaged.
Encourage evacuation preparedness to address transportation-disadvantaged
populations
o U.S. DOT should support state and In addition, DOT has specialized
local governments in planning, transportation knowledge, and
training, and exercising evacuation pre-existing relationships with
plans and ensure that these plans state departments of
address the challenges posed by transportation, transit agencies,
evacuating hospitals, nursing homes, and contracted private
and individuals with special transportation providers.
needs.^b Therefore, DOT is well positioned
in experience and expertise to
provide preparedness assistance to
state and local governments.
o DHS should support state and local Several select locations have not
governments in planning, training, fully developed plans, training,
and exercising evacuation plans and and exercises to address
ensure that these plans address the evacuations of all segments of the
challenges posed by evacuating population. In addition, another
hospitals, nursing homes, and study we conducted found several
individuals with special needs.^b challenges in evacuating hospitals
and nursing homes.
o Federal, state, and local In addition to persons with
governments should increase the disabilities, in select locations,
participation of people with we found that other
disabilities and disability transportation-disadvantaged
subject-matter experts in the populations, such as the elderly
development and execution of plans, and persons with limited English
training, and exercises.^a proficiency, were not adequately
considered in evacuation planning.
o All evacuation plans must provide A significant proportion of the
for populations that do not have the population may require evacuation
means to evacuate. DHS and DOT assistance during an emergency and
should make available assistance to the focus of evacuation planning
state and local governments for the at the federal, state, and local
development of these plans to ensure levels have primarily been found
that the nation's most vulnerable on those who own cars.
citizens are not left behind in a
disaster.^b
o States with high-risk urban areas One select state that faces
should develop multi-phased frequent natural hazards had
evacuation plans that provide for developed detailed evacuation
the speediest evacuation of plans that provide timely
residents most at risk, particularly evacuations for
those who lack the means to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged
on their own. Neighboring political populations. Often, high-risk
entities should work together to residents who need transportation
coordinate evacuation plans in assistance are evacuated first
advance, and state and local because this assistance can be
governments should publicize their time consuming. In addition,
evacuation plans and ensure that within the state, a major city
citizens are familiar with one or communicates evacuation plans to
more evacuation options. States citizens in a number of ways
whose location puts them at high (e.g., radio and TV, leaflets and
risk of recurring hurricanes and mailings, and community outreach
tropical storms should use updated efforts) to enhance individual
storm surge estimates to establish preparedness during emergencies.
evacuation zones and evacuation
clearance times. States whose
locations put them at risk of other
types of natural disasters should
evaluate those risks and consider
evacuation zones and clearance times
in line with them. ^b
Provide technical assistance for evacuation preparedness for
transportation-disadvantaged populations
o The federal government should Select states and cities have
provide technical assistance to experienced challenges in
clarify the extent to which communicating public information,
emergency communications, including both prior to and during
public information associated with emergencies, to many populations
emergencies, must be in accessible among the
formats for persons with transportation-disadvantaged,
disabilities. This assistance should including persons with
address all aspects of disabilities, the elderly, and
communication, including, for persons with limited English
example, televised and other types proficiency.
of emergency notification and
instructions, shelter announcement,
and applications and forms for
government and private disaster
benefits.^a
o Federal, state, and local Private sector assets, such as
governments should work with the buses and ambulance services,
private sector to identify and along with public sector assets,
coordinate effective means of can be used to provide general and
transporting individuals with specialized transportation
disabilities before, during, and resources during disasters for
after an emergency.^a transportation-disadvantaged
populations. Several social
service providers from select
cities told us that emergency
management officials often do not
consider these providers useful
partners in the planning process.
Clarify federal role regarding
evacuations
o Designate DOT as the primary In the wake of Hurricane Katrina,
agency responsible for developing DOT plans to have a more active
the federal government's capability role in providing transportation
to conduct mass evacuations when to state and local governments for
disasters overwhelm state and local emergency evacuations. In 2006,
governments.^c DOT officials said that, while DOT
has not been officially designated
under the National Response Plan
as the lead and coordinating
agency for carrying out
evacuations when state and local
governments are overwhelmed, it
has taken additional steps
necessary to provide additional
evacuation capabilities.
o As the primary federal agency The National Response Plan does
under Emergency Support Function-1 not clearly lay out evacuation
(Transportation), DOT, in responsibilities among federal
coordination with DHS, should agencies. We found that
develop plans to assist in significant challenges exist in
conducting mass evacuations when an evacuating
effective evacuation is beyond the transportation-disadvantaged
capabilities, or is likely to be populations. Therefore, an
beyond the capabilities, of the effective federal evacuation
state and affected local response may require clarification
governments. DOT should develop of roles and responsibilities for
plans to quickly deploy the lead, coordinating, and
transportation assets to an area in supporting federal agencies to
need of mass evacuation. DHS should, provide evacuation assistance for
in coordination with DOT, assist transportation-disadvantaged and
state and affected local governments other populations when a disaster
in evacuating populations when overwhelms state and local
requested; in coordination with the governments.
states, DOT should plan, train, and
exercise for evacuations, including
evacuations of medical patients and
others with special needs. These
evacuations would be conducted in
coordination with other relevant
federal agencies, the American Red
Cross, and state and local partners.
DOT should consider using a variety
of transportation modes, including
air medical services. DOT should
also work with state and local
emergency planners--in particular,
state and local agencies charged
with Emergency Support Function-1
responsibilities--to help them (1)
assess the resources needed to
assist with evacuations, which of
these resources are locally
available, and what shortfalls
exist; (2) determine unique
geographical/demographic obstacles
to evacuation in particular areas;
and (3) develop catalogues of
regionally available
evacuation-related assets, including
transit agencies from various
municipalities. Establish liaisons
with ESF-6 (Mass Care, Housing, and
Human Services) to coordinate
sheltering destinations for evacuees
from various areas, and work with
ESF-13 (Public Safety and Security)
to ensure that air, bus, and other
transportation providers have
appropriate security escorts to
ensure safety during evacuation
activities.^b
Better communicate information on, and incorporate analysis of, needs for
transportation-disadvantaged populations
o State and local agencies should Social-service and other
work with the special needs transportation providers--both
communities to develop systems public and private sector--have
whereby those requiring specialized distinct knowledge about their
transportation or sheltering customers, some of whom may have
services during evacuations can make special needs. This knowledge
these needs known to emergency includes their physical location
managers and operators of as well as their transportation
transportation and sheltering and medical needs. However, select
services before evacuations.^d local site visits revealed that
emergency management officials
have often not worked with such
providers to enhance their ability
to identify, locate, and transport
special needs populations during
emergencies.
o The federal government should Select locations have experienced
provide guidance to state and local challenges in locating
governments on the incorporation of transportation-disadvantaged
disability-related demographic populations. However, in those
analysis into emergency planning.^a same communities, metropolitan
planning organizations have
already carried out demographic
analysis specific to
transportation-disadvantaged
populations (including but not
limited to persons with
disabilities) that can be helpful
to emergency planners.
Source: GAO analysis of White House, Senate, DHS and DOT data.
^aDHS, Nationwide Plan Review: Phase II Report (Washington, D.C.: Jun. 16,
2006).
^bSenate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Hurricane
Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 2006).
^cWhite House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to Hurricane
Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2006).
^dDOT in cooperation with DHS, Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan
Evaluation: A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2006).
Appendix IV: Other Federal Initiatives Related to Evacuating
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
The following is a list of initiatives we identified during our review
that the federal government has undertaken to address the evacuation of
transportation-disadvantaged populations.
o The Federal Transit Administration has awarded the American
Public Transportation Association a $300,000 grant to establish
and administer a transit mutual aid program. The goal of the
program is to provide immediate assistance to a community in need
of emergency transit services, with a focus on evacuation and
business continuity support. The American Public Transportation
Association will obtain formal commitments from willing transit
agencies and, with committed resources, develop and maintain a
database of transit vehicles, personnel, and equipment. The target
for the database is to have between 250 and 500 buses nationwide,
as well as support equipment and personnel, ready to respond at
any time. Moreover, the American Public Transportation Association
will reach out to federal, state, and regional agencies to ensure
that during an emergency, these agencies can provide a coordinated
and effective response.
o The Community Transportation Association of America conducted an
expert panel discussion--sponsored by the National Consortium on
the Coordination of Human Services Transportation--on the role of
public and community transportation services during an emergency.
The resulting white paper (which outlines community strategies to
evacuate and challenges for transportation-disadvantaged
populations during emergencies) and emergency preparedness
checklist is intended as guidance for transportation providers and
their partner organizations. This panel was conducted in
cooperation with the Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on
Access and Mobility, and DHS's Interagency Coordinating Council on
Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities.
o The Federal Transit Administration has awarded a grant to the
University of New Orleans to develop a manual and professional
development course for transit agencies to enhance their emergency
preparedness.
o The Federal Transit Administration, along with the Federal
Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, has
created a pamphlet entitled "Disaster Response and Recovery
Resource for Transit Agencies" to provide local transit agencies
and transportation providers with useful information and best
practices in emergency preparedness and disaster response and
recovery. The resource provides summary information for general
background, and includes best practices and links to more specific
resources and more detailed information for local agencies
concerning critical disaster related elements such as emergency
preparedness, disaster response, and disaster recovery.
o The Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and
Mobility--which awards grants to states for human service
transportation coordination between state agencies--added an
emergency preparedness priority to its grant guidelines, thereby
encouraging state to consider emergency preparedness among its
grant priorities. As of July 2006, nine states have addressed
emergency preparedness as a priority.
o The Federal Highway Administration is producing a series of
primers for state and local emergency managers and transportation
officials to aid them in developing evacuation plans for incidents
that occur with or without notice. A special primer is under
development to aid state and local officials in designing
evacuation plans that include transportation-disadvantaged
populations. This primer will be released no later than March
2007.
o The Transportation Research Board has convened a committee to
examine the role of public transportation in emergency evacuation.
The committee will evaluate the role that the public
transportation systems serving the 38 largest urbanized areas in
the United States could play in the evacuation of, egress, and
ingress of people to or from critical locations in times of
emergency. The committee is expected to issue a report by April
20, 2008.^1
^1The committee and report are mandated by the Safe, Accountable,
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Section
3046 (a)(1).
Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contact
Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov.
Staff Acknowledgments
In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen, Assistant
Director; Ashley Alley; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Colin Fallon;
Deborah Landis; Christopher Lyons; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Laina Poon;
Tina Won Sherman; and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to
this report.
Related GAO Products
Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and
Accountability Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation's
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System. [35]GAO-06-618 .
Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2006.
Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation
Assistance for Health Facilities Should Be Addressed.
[36]GAO-06-826 . Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2006.
Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation
of Vulnerable Populations due to Hurricanes and Other Disasters.
[37]GAO-06-790T . Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: GAO's Preliminary Observations Regarding
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. [38]GAO-06-442T .
Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2006.
Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation
of Hospitals and Nursing Homes Due to Hurricanes. [39]GAO-06-443R
. Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2006.
Statement by Comptroller General David M. Walker on GAO's
Preliminary Observations Regarding Preparedness and Response to
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. [40]GAO-06-365R . Washington, D.C.:
February 1, 2006.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of
DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited
English-Proficient Populations. [41]GAO-06-52 . Washington, D.C.:
November 2, 2005.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of
DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited
English-Proficient Populations (Chinese Edition). [42]GAO-06-186 .
Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2005.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of
DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited
English-Proficient Populations (Korean Version). [43]GAO-06-188 .
Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2005.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of
DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited
English-Proficient Populations (Spanish Version). [44]GAO-06-185 .
Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2005.
Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of
DOT's Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited
English-Proficient Populations (Vietnamese Version).
[45]GAO-06-187 . Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2005.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance Senior
Mobility Could Benefit from Additional Guidance and Information.
[46]GAO-04-971 . Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2004.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal Agencies Are
Taking Steps to Assist States and Local Agencies in Coordinating
Transportation Services. [47]GAO-04-420R . Washington, D.C.:
February 24, 2004.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination
Efforts Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but
Obstacles Persist. [48]GAO-03-697 . Washington, D.C.: June 30,
2003.
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Many Federal Programs
Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination
Persist. [49]GAO-03-698T . Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003.
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 ( 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 www.gao.gov and
select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies
are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the
Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard.
Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax:
(202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
fraudnet@gao.gov Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
(202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202)
512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202)
512-4800 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
(542081)
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-44.
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Kate Siggerud at (202) 512-2834 or
SiggerudK@gao.gov.
Highlights of GAO-07-44, a report to congressional committees
December2006
TRANSPORTATION-DISADVANTAGED POPULATIONS
Actions Needed to Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for
Evacuations
During the evacuation of New Orleans in response to Hurricane Katrina in
2005, many of those who did not own a vehicle and could not evacuate were
among the over 1,300 people who died. This raised questions about how well
state and local governments, primarily responsible for disaster planning,
integrate transportation-disadvantaged populations into such planning. GAO
assessed the challenges and barriers state and local officials face; how
prepared these governments are and steps they are taking to address
challenges and barriers; and federal efforts to provide evacuation
assistance. GAO reviewed evacuation plans; Department of Homeland Security
(DHS), Department of Transportation (DOT), and other studies; and
interviewed officials in five major city and four state governments.
[56]What GAO Recommends
DHS should clarify federal agencies' roles and responsibilities for
providing evacuation assistance when state and local governments are
overwhelmed. DHS should require state and local evacuation preparedness
for transportation-disadvantaged populations and improve information to
assist these governments. DOT should encourage its grant recipients to
share information to assist in evacuation preparedness for these
populations. DOT and DHS agreed to consider our recommendations, and DHS
stated it has partly implemented some of them.
State and local governments face evacuation challenges in identifying and
locating transportation-disadvantaged populations, determining their
needs, and providing for their transportation. These populations are
diverse and constantly changing, and information on their location is
often not readily available. In addition, these populations' evacuation
needs vary widely; some require basic transportation while others need
accessible equipment, such as buses with chair lifts. Legal and social
barriers impede addressing these evacuation challenges. For example,
transportation providers may be unwilling to provide evacuation assistance
because of liability concerns.
State and local governments are generally not well prepared--in terms of
planning, training, and conducting exercises--to evacuate
transportation-disadvantaged populations, but some have begun to address
challenges and barriers. For example, DHS reported in June 2006 that only
about 10 percent of state and about 12 percent of urban area emergency
plans it reviewed adequately addressed evacuating these populations.
Furthermore, in one of five major cities GAO visited, officials believed
that few residents would require evacuation assistance despite the U.S.
Census reporting 16.5 percent of car-less households in that major city.
DHS also found that most states and urban areas significantly
underestimated the advance planning and coordination required to
effectively address the needs of persons with disabilities. Steps being
taken by some such governments include collaboration with social service
and transportation providers and transportation planning
organizations--some of which are DOT grantees and stakeholders--to
determine transportation needs and develop agreements for emergency use of
drivers and vehicles.
The federal government provides evacuation assistance to state and local
governments, but gaps in this assistance have hindered many of these
governments' ability to sufficiently prepare for evacuations. This
includes the lack of any specific requirement to plan, train, and conduct
exercises for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations
as well as gaps in the usefulness of DHS's guidance. Although federal law
requires that state and local governments with mass evacuation plans
incorporate special needs populations into their plans, this requirement
does not necessarily ensure the incorporation of all
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Additionally, while DHS has made
improvements to an online portal for sharing related information, this
information remains difficult to access because of poor search and
organizational functions. Moreover, although the federal government can
provide evacuation assistance when state and local governments are
overwhelmed, the federal government is not prepared to do so. Amendments
to the Stafford Act in October 2006 affirmed that FEMA (an agency within
DHS) is responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation assistance.
DHS has not yet clarified, in the National Response Plan, the lead,
coordinating, or supporting agencies in such cases.
References
Visible links
25. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-52
26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-790T
27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-826
28. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-826
29. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-52
32. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-652
33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-790T
34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-826
35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-618
36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-826
37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-790T
38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-442T
39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-443R
40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-365R
41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-52
42. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-186
43. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-188
44. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-185
45. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-187
46. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-971
47. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-420R
48. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-697
49. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-698T
*** End of document. ***