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 Agenciesï¿½ 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 [email protected]. 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: GAOï¿½s 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 [email protected].
			  
			  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.
			  
			  GAOï¿½s 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:
           [email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or
           (202) 512-7470
			  
			  Congressional Relations

           Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202)
           512-4400 U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW,
           Room 7125 Washington, D.C. 20548
			  
			  Public Affairs

           Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (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
[email protected].

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. ***