This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-44 
entitled 'Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Actions Needed to 
Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness for Evacuations' 
which was released on December 22, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to Congressional 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: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-44, a report to congressional committees 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

What GAO Found: 

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. 

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. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-44]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Kate Siggerud at (202) 
512-2834 or SiggerudK@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Challenges and Barriers Exist in Evacuation Preparedness for 
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: 

State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prepared to Evacuate 
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations, but Some Have Taken Steps to 
Improve Preparedness: 

While the Federal Government Provides Some Evacuation Assistance, Gaps 
Remain: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

GAO Comments: 

Appendix III: GAO's Observations on Federal Proposed Recommendations 
and Initial Conclusions: 

Appendix IV: Other Federal Initiatives Related to Evacuating 
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Table: 

Table 1: GAO's Observations on Federal Recommendations and Initial 
Conclusions Addressing Evacuation Planning for Transportation- 
Disadvantaged Populations: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Challenges in Evacuating Transportation-Disadvantaged 
Populations: 

Figure 2: Major Barriers to Addressing Challenges in Evacuating 
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: 

Abbreviations: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

DOT: Department of Transportation: 

FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

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[Footnote 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,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 7] The federal government's plan for disaster 
response is the DHS National Response Plan. 

Reports by the White House,[Footnote 8] Senate,[Footnote 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).[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 12] In May 2006, we 
reported on preliminary observations from our work.[Footnote 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. 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 
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. 

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.) 

Figure 1: Challenges in Evacuating Transportation-Disadvantaged 
Populations: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

* 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.) 

* 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. 

* 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: 

* 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.[Footnote 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[Footnote 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. 

* 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. 

* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 Transportation: 

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: 

* 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;[Footnote 21] or: 

* 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: 

* have not previously been collected; 

* 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; 

* 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; 

* 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: 

* 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.[Footnote 22] These needs can vary 
widely from those who can travel by themselves to a government-assisted 
evacuation pick-up point to those who: 

* need to be transported to a government-assisted evacuation pick-up 
point, but do not require medical assistance or additional 
transportation; 

* live in group homes for persons with mental disabilities and may 
require medical assistance, but not accessible transportation in an 
evacuation; or: 

* 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.) 

Figure 2: Major Barriers to Addressing Challenges in Evacuating 
Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

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-à-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,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 
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. 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

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: 

* medical situation, whereby the privacy of their personal medical 
information may be compromised; 

* financial situation, such that their financial assets will be taken 
or reduced; and: 

* 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: 

* are dispersed; 

* may lack access to a radio or television; 

* may not trust emergency announcements; or: 

* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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: 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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: 

* 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. 

* 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.[Footnote 30] 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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: 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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 Evacuation Preparedness Assistance 
to State and Local Governments: 

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: 

* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 34] These include: 

* 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; 

* the appointment of a Disability Coordinator to ensure that needs of 
individuals with disabilities are being properly addressed in emergency 
preparedness and disaster relief; 

* 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: 

* 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. 

* 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 ìdevelop 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.î 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.[Footnote 35] 

* 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.[Footnote 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: 

* 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.[Footnote 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. 

* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

* 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 41] Because chemical stockpile and 
radiological emergency preparedness programs work with communities that 
include transportation-disadvantaged populations, some of the studies 
and lessons learned about these programs address evacuation challenges 
for these populations. For example, a Department of Energy National 
Laboratory study on emergency preparedness in Alabama includes 
information on how to address the needs of transportation-disadvantaged 
populations in evacuations. However, officials from the chemical 
stockpile and radiological emergency preparedness programs told us that 
DHS has not widely disseminated these studies and lessons learned or 
made them easily available to state and local officials. The federal 
government has provided technical assistance primarily focused on self- 
evacuations. Therefore, while Louisiana and surrounding states received 
technical assistance from FEMA, DOT, and the National Hurricane Center 
to help manage evacuation traffic prior to Hurricane Katrina, federal 
officials with whom we spoke were unaware of any similar technical 
assistance provided for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged 
populations and other populations. In preparation for the 2006 
hurricane season, DHS officials reported to us that DHS, along with 
DOT, provided some technical assistance to three Gulf Coast states on 
evacuating persons with disabilities and those with function and 
medical limitations. 

Gaps Also Remain in Federal Agencies' Role and Responsibilities for 
Providing Evacuation Assistance When State and Local Governments are 
Overwhelmed: 

Although the Stafford Act gives the federal government the authority to 
assist state and local governments with an evacuation,[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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: 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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: 

* 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 [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 
512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report 
are listed in appendix V. 

Signed by: 

Katherine Siggerud: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

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: 

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 45] 

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 Governorís 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. 

[End of section] 

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. 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security Washington, DC 20528: 

December 7, 2006: 

Ms. Katherine Siggerud: 
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Ms. Siggerud: 

RE: Draft Report GAO-07-44, Transportation Disadvantaged Populations: 
Actions Needed to Clarify Responsibilities and Increase Preparedness 
for Evacuations (GAO Job Code 542081): 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the opportunity 
to review and comment on the draft report referenced above. The 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) makes three recommendations to 
the Department designed to improve federal, state, and local 
preparedness for the evacuation of transportation disadvantaged 
populations. This important and complex issue is being addressed 
through a number of DHS activities already underway (e.g., the National 
Response Plan Review and Revision). Additionally, some of the 
recommendations have already been partly implemented. For example, 
actions to improve the overall functionality of the lessons learned 
information sharing portal have been completed. Furthermore, many DHS 
grant programs have administrative requirements that stress the 
importance of focusing on special needs populations. 

We will take all of the recommendations under advisement and determine 
the feasibility of further implementation. Any additional concerns and 
the status of implementing the recommendations will be addressed in our 
response to appropriate Hill committees and the Office of Management 
and Budget sixty days after release of the report pursuant to the 
reporting requirements of 31 U.S.C. Section 720. 

The draft report adequately identifies the pertinent issues that have 
troubled state and local emergency management officials for many years. 
Hurricane Katrina and Rita made obvious what has been a chronic concern 
for emergency management officials since Hurricane Elena in 1985, which 
resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in the history of this 
nation at that time, with the movement of over 1.5 million residents 
from their homes along the Florida Gulf Coast from Naples to Pensacola. 
Major issues with the movement of special needs populations caused a 
thorough review of this issue in the State of Florida and resulted in 
numerous initiatives to identify such vulnerable populations and 
regulatory requirements to address their needs. 

Subsequent events have dwarfed this number of evacuees, as larger 
hurricanes have threatened populations from Texas to Maine. The need to 
determine how to identify, and actively evacuate all special needs 
populations, to include those who are transportation dependent, has 
been the cause of much concern. The draft does not adequately address 
this matter, nor does it recognize the core aspect or problem with the 
transportation of any special needs person--that is it is a local 
responsibility. This is a critical point in that the overall solution 
to this problem must occur at the local level through proper planning 
and implementation. The local jurisdiction must take ownership of the 
problem with state oversight. 

As required in the implementation guidance of the NRP, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security is conducting an interagency review to assess the 
effectiveness of the NRP, identify improvements, recommend 
modifications, and reissue the document. As the NRP is predicated on 
the National Incident Management System (NIMS), DHS is conducting an 
upgrade to the NIMS in conjunction with the NRP review. The modified 
NIMS and NRP documents will be released in tandem. 

The NRP/NIMS Review and Revision process is being conducted through a 
NRP/NIMS Task Force co-chaired by FEMA and the Preparedness 
Directorate, with participation from all levels of stakeholders to 
include internal DHS components and other Federal, state, local, 
tribal, territorial, non-governmental and private-sector partners. 
Stakeholder meetings have been conducted to introduce the review 
process and timelines, outline proposed key NRP and NIMS revision 
issues identified through review of Hurricane Katrina After Action 
Reports and other lessons learned documents, and solicit feedback on 
the process, timelines, proposed issues and any other relevant topics. 

The issue of evacuations is a complex one and encompasses several key 
revision issues identified in the NRP/NIMS Review and Revision process, 
including: 

* clarification of roles and responsibilities of key structures, 
positions and levels of the government and private sector as well as 
other nongovernmental agencies; 

* incorporation of companion animal emergency management issues; 

* proactive planning for incidents that render state and local 
governments incapable of an effective response; and: 

* consideration of special needs populations in incident management 
activities. 

The NRP/NIMS Review and Revision process will include a key revision 
issue and work group on evacuations and a special needs work group to 
ensure that these issues are fully addressed. 

The report raises the issue, beginning on page 11, that, ".the National 
Response Plan does not assign a single federal agency the 
responsibility for leading and coordinating evacuations of 
transportation-disadvantaged populations (not including patients 
needing hospital care) when state and local governments are 
overwhelmed." This represents a misunderstanding of the federal 
response process. The basic premise for the National Response Plan, and 
the strategy that underlies it, is that for large and complex 
disasters, no single federal agency can provide the entire response 
support required. Instead, a coordinated inter-agency effort is 
required. DHS 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 the 
recently enacted Stafford Act legislative changes will also help 
address the Federal role in evacuation support and assistance in 
relation to transportation of disadvantaged populations. 

The draft report alludes to the need to identify "special needs 
persons" and transportation dependent evacuees. This is crucial to 
local and state emergency management personnel. The lack of definition 
severely hampers the ability of emergency managers to plan for these 
evacuees. This is evident in the GAO efforts to identify these 
populations. There are many different components to special needs/ 
medical management procedures. They consist of pre-disaster special 
needs registration, special needs shelter identification/operation, 
medical management screening, medical management placement, and 
discharge procedures for the shelters/ facilities. The definition of 
transportation-disadvantaged populations has to be separated from 
"special needs", "medical management", and "disabled individuals." To 
include individuals with disabilities with evacuees whose only 
deficiency is not having transportation, whether permanently or only in 
an emergency, does a disservice to the disabled population. 

The draft report does not recognize that evacuations of transportation- 
dependent populations have successfully occurred during significant 
events of the 2004/2005 hurricane season, with the help of intrastate/ 
interstate mutual aid agreements. In some cases, evacuations have been 
almost routine (e.g., hospital evacuation in the Florida Keys by North 
Carolina Air National Guard). The draft report implies that the 
situation that occurred during Katrina was a typical occurrence. The 
problems with Katrina were caused by the sheer scale of the event, by 
conditions that contributed to not following recognized standard 
evacuation procedures (e.g., HURREVAC Timelines), and by impediments or 
failures to implement evacuations in a timely manner. The National 
Response Plan provides a mechanism for the Federal government to 
support local and state governments when they become overwhelmed. 
Properly used by an integrated team, it can and has been very 
successful. This was documented during the 2004-2005 hurricane season 
in Florida when the Department of Health and Human Services was given 
the mission to create a 5,000 bed special needs shelter in the Orange 
County Civic Center. The NRP was not signed/approved until December 15, 
2004. The federal response during the 2004 hurricane season was guided 
by the Initial National Response Plan. 

Technical comments will be provided under separate cover. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven J. Pecinovsky: 
Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

The following are GAO's comment on the Department of Homeland's letter 
dated December 7, 2006: 

GAO Comments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO's Observations on Federal Proposed Recommendations 
and Initial Conclusions: 

In 2006, the White House and several federal agencies released reports 
that reviewed federal, state, and local evacuation preparedness and 
response to Hurricane Katrina. Many of these reports include 
recommendations or initial conclusions for federal, state, and local 
governments. We have included a list of recommendations--including some 
already referenced in our report--that address the evacuation of 
transportation-disadvantaged populations. Our observations about each 
recommendation, based on our review, are also listed. (See table 1.) 

Table 1: GAO's Observations on Federal Recommendations and Initial 
Conclusions Addressing Evacuation Planning for Transportation- 
Disadvantaged Populations: 

Define "special needs" consistently. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* The federal government should develop a consistent definition of the 
term "special needs."[A]; 
GAO observation: Select federal, state, and local officials had very 
different 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.  

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* U.S. DOT should support state and local governments in planning, 
training, and exercising evacuation plans and ensure that these plans 
address the challenges posed by evacuating hospitals, nursing homes, 
and individuals with special needs.[B]; 
GAO observation: In addition, DOT has specialized transportation 
knowledge, and pre-existing relationships with state departments of 
transportation, transit agencies, and contracted private transportation 
providers. Therefore, DOT is well positioned in experience and 
expertise to provide preparedness assistance to state and local 
governments. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* DHS should support state and local governments in planning, training, 
and exercising evacuation plans and ensure that these plans address the 
challenges posed by evacuating hospitals, nursing homes, and 
individuals with special needs.[B]; 
GAO observation: Several select locations have not fully developed 
plans, training, and exercises to address evacuations of all segments 
of the population. In addition, another study we conducted found 
several challenges in evacuating hospitals and nursing homes. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* Federal, state, and local governments should increase the 
participation of people with disabilities and disability subject-matter 
experts in the development and execution of plans, training, and 
exercises.[A]; 
GAO observation: In addition to persons with disabilities, in select 
locations, we found that other transportation-disadvantaged 
populations, such as the elderly and persons with limited English 
proficiency, were not adequately considered in evacuation planning. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* All evacuation plans must provide for populations that do not have 
the means to evacuate. DHS and DOT should make available assistance to 
state and local governments for the development of these plans to 
ensure that the nation's most vulnerable citizens are not left behind 
in a disaster.[B]; 
GAO observation: A significant proportion of the population may require 
evacuation assistance during an emergency and the focus of evacuation 
planning at the federal, state, and local levels have primarily been 
found on those who own cars. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* States with high-risk urban areas should develop multi-phased 
evacuation plans that provide for the speediest evacuation of residents 
most at risk, particularly those who lack the means to evacuate on 
their own. Neighboring political entities should work together to 
coordinate evacuation plans in advance, and state and local governments 
should publicize their evacuation plans and ensure that citizens are 
familiar with one or more evacuation options. States whose location 
puts them at high risk of recurring hurricanes and tropical storms 
should use updated storm surge estimates to establish 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]; 
GAO observation: One select state that faces frequent natural hazards 
had developed detailed evacuation plans that provide timely evacuations 
for transportation- disadvantaged populations. Often, high-risk 
residents who need transportation assistance are evacuated first 
because this assistance can be time consuming. In addition, within the 
state, a major city communicates evacuation plans to citizens in a 
number of ways (e.g., radio and TV, leaflets and mailings, and 
community outreach efforts) to enhance individual preparedness during 
emergencies. 

Provide technical assistance for evacuation preparedness for 
transportation- disadvantaged populations. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* The federal government should provide technical assistance to clarify 
the extent to which emergency communications, including public 
information associated with emergencies, must be in accessible formats 
for persons with disabilities. This assistance should address all 
aspects of communication, including, for example, televised and other 
types of emergency notification and instructions, shelter announcement, 
and applications and forms for government and private disaster 
benefits.[A]; 
GAO observation: Select states and cities have experienced challenges 
in communicating public information, both prior to and during 
emergencies, to many populations among the transportation-
disadvantaged, including persons with disabilities, the elderly, and 
persons with limited English proficiency. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* Federal, state, and local governments should work with the private 
sector to identify and coordinate effective means of transporting 
individuals with disabilities before, during, and after an 
emergency.[A]; 
GAO observation: Private sector assets, such as buses and ambulance 
services, along with public sector assets, can be used to provide 
general and specialized transportation resources during disasters for 
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. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* Designate DOT as the primary agency responsible for developing the 
federal government's capability to conduct mass evacuations when 
disasters overwhelm state and local governments.[C]; 
GAO observation: In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, DOT plans to have a 
more active role in providing transportation to state and local 
governments for emergency evacuations. In 2006, 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. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* As the primary federal agency under Emergency Support Function-1 
(Transportation), DOT, in coordination with DHS, should develop plans 
to assist in conducting mass evacuations when an effective evacuation 
is beyond the capabilities, or is likely to be beyond the capabilities, 
of the state and affected local governments. DOT should develop plans 
to quickly deploy transportation assets to an area in need of mass 
evacuation. DHS should, in coordination with DOT, assist state and 
affected local governments in evacuating populations when requested; in 
coordination with the 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]; 
GAO observation: The National Response Plan does not clearly lay out 
evacuation responsibilities among federal agencies. We found that 
significant challenges exist in evacuating transportation-disadvantaged 
populations. Therefore, an effective federal evacuation response may 
require clarification of roles and responsibilities for the lead, 
coordinating, and supporting federal agencies to provide evacuation 
assistance for transportation- disadvantaged and other populations when 
a disaster overwhelms state and local governments. 

Better communicate information on, and incorporate analysis of, needs 
for transportation- disadvantaged populations. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* State and local agencies should work with the special needs 
communities to develop systems whereby those requiring specialized 
transportation or sheltering services during evacuations can make these 
needs known to emergency managers and operators of transportation and 
sheltering services before evacuations.[D]; 
GAO observation: Social-service and other transportation providers--
both public and private sector--have distinct knowledge about their 
customers, some of whom may have special needs. This knowledge includes 
their physical location as well as their transportation and medical 
needs. However, select 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. 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion: 
* The federal government should provide guidance to state and local 
governments on the incorporation of disability-related demographic 
analysis into emergency planning.[A]; 
GAO observation: Select locations have experienced challenges in 
locating transportation-disadvantaged populations. However, in those 
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. 

[A] DHS, Nationwide Plan Review: Phase II Report (Washington, D.C.: 
Jun. 16, 2006). 

[B] Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 
Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 
2006). 

[C] White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to 
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2006). 

[D] DOT in cooperation with DHS, Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan 
Evaluation: A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2006). 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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. 

* 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.[Footnote 46] 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Katherine Siggerud, (202) 512-2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen, Assistant 
Director; Ashley Alley; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Colin Fallon; Deborah 
Landis; Christopher Lyons; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Laina Poon; Tina Won 
Sherman; and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this report. 

Related GAO Products: 

Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and 
Accountability Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation's 
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System. GAO-06-618. Washington, 
D.C.: September 6, 2006. 

Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation Assistance for 
Health Facilities Should Be Addressed. 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. GAO-06- 
790T. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006. 


Hurricane Katrina: GAO's Preliminary Observations Regarding 
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. GAO-06-442T. Washington, D.C.: 
March 8, 2006. 

Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation of 
Hospitals and Nursing Homes Due to Hurricanes. 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. 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. 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). 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). 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). 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). GAO-06-187. Washington, D.C.: 
November 2, 2005. 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance Senior 
Mobility Could Benefit from Additional Guidance and Information. 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. GAO-04-420R. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 
2004. 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts 
Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles 
Persist. GAO-03-697. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003. 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Many Federal Programs Fund 
Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination Persist. GAO- 03-
698T. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] For 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." 

[2] As 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, 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. 

[3] Our 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. 

[4] Only 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. 

[5] For the purposes of this report, language regarding state and local 
governments is inclusive of tribal governments. 

[6] Letters sent by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to 
the Governors of Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi in July 2006. 

[7] Such programs include the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with 
Disabilities, Job Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom programs. 

[8] White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to 
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2006) 

[9] Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, 
Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 
2006). 

[10] DHS, 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). 

[11] DOT in cooperation with DHS, Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation 
Plan Evaluation: A Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2006). 

[12] 31 U.S.C. § 717(b)(1)(2000). 

[13] GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the 
Evacuation of Vulnerable Populations Due to Hurricanes and Other 
Disasters, GAO06790T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006). Also see a list 
of related GAO products at the end of this report. 

[14] While 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. 

[15] GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation 
Assistance for Health Facilities Should Be Addressed, GAO06826 
(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. 

[16] Title 42 U.S.C. § 11003(c)(7). 

[17] National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People 
with Disabilities in Emergency Planning (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 
2005). 

[18] See 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). 

[19] For 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. 

[20] We 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 GAO-06-826. 

[21] See GAO-06-52. 

[22] Medical 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. 

[23] See 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). 

[24] 45 C.F.R. § 165.104 (2005). 

[25] Good 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. 

[26] We are planning to issue a report on disaster housing assistance 
in February 2007. 

[27] The 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. 

[28] We 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. 

[29] For 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." 

[30] These social service transportation providers are funded in part 
by DOT grants. 

[31] Title 42 U.S.C. § 11003(c)(7). 

[32] The 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. 

[33] See Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42. 
U.S.C. 2000 et. seq; Rehabilitation Act of 1973 § 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). 

[34] Pub. L. No. 109-294, § 508, 513, 648, 653 (Oct. 4, 2006). 

[35] Pub. L. No. 109-294, § 512 (Oct. 4, 2006). 

[36] DHS'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. 

[37] National 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. 

[38] In 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, GAO-05-652 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 11, 
2005). 

[39] As of fiscal year 2006, DHS's grant guidance allows for dual-use 
of grants. The term ìdual-useî 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. 

[40] According 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. 

[41] The 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. 

[42] The 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). 

[43] As 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, GAO06790T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006). Also see related 
GAO products at the end of this report. 

[44] Pub. L. No. 109-295, § 503, 504 (Oct. 4, 2006). 

[45] Hospitals 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, GAO06826 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2006). 

[46] The committee and report are mandated by the Safe, Accountable, 
Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, 
Section 3046 (a)(1). 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. 
To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, 
go to www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates." 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 
512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S. 
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 
Washington, D.C. 20548: