Order Code RL34087
FEMA Disaster Housing and Hurricane Katrina:
Overview, Analysis, and Congressional Options
July 16, 2007
Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst, American National Government
Government and Finance Division
FEMA Disaster Housing and Hurricane Katrina:
Overview, Analysis, and Congressional Options
Summary
In light of the post-Hurricane Katrina criticism directed at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) housing policies and overall
performance of its mission, Congress could opt to consider how disaster housing
needs are traditionally addressed under the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288, as amended). How did FEMA’s approach during
Katrina differ from previous disasters and why? Should FEMA have pursued
expanded authorities at the start of the disaster? Should housing vouchers have been
used earlier and tailored to the disaster event? With a substantial amount of available
funding provided by Congress, but without requesting expanded authority, FEMA
found its sole option was to use traditional disaster housing practices. Those
practices, successful for disasters of a historically familiar size, were hard-pressed to
meet the unprecedented demands of the Katrina catastrophic disaster.
There are potential events (New Madrid earthquake or other large natural or
terrorist events) that could conceivably produce many of the same challenges
presented by the Gulf Coast hurricane season of 2005. Those challenges include
large, displaced populations spread across the nation and separated families unable
to return because of the loss of not only their homes but also their places of
employment. In short, federal disaster housing policy may be at issue in the 110th
Congress, because, as Hurricane Katrina illustrated, the continued existence of
communities after a catastrophic event involves extensive federal assistance issues.
In the past, FEMA’s approaches have turned on practical and theoretical
considerations. Practical considerations include the agency’s ability to house
families and individuals within a short time frame and in proximity to the original
disaster, and to make contact with the hundreds of thousands of applicants who
registered for assistance after the disaster. Some of the theoretical policy
considerations include questions of equity, self-reliance, federalism, and the duration
of federal assistance. Those considerations, in turn, lead to process questions of
program stewardship and the potential for waste, fraud, and abuse of federal
resources.
The Post-Katrina Act, enacted in October of 2006 (P. L. 109-295), includes
changes in FEMA housing policy that provide the President with greater flexibility
for meeting the challenges of disasters on a large scale. Also, legislation before the
110th Congress, such as H.R. 1144, would ease the cost-share burden for some
housing costs and other disaster relief programs. Future debate on the housing issue
will also be informed by the report on the National Disaster Housing Strategy (as
directed in P.L. 109-295) that is due to Congress in 2007. The 110th Congress could
opt to continue to examine and debate whether those legislative changes, as well as
the Administration’s implementation of them, suffice.
This report will be updated as warranted by events.
Contents
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Stafford Act Section 403 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Traditional Stafford Act Sheltering/Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Traditional Mass Shelters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The Transition to Section 408 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Stafford Act Section 408 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Traditional Housing Repair and Replacement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Traditional Manufactured Housing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Housing Inspections: Strengths and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Issues for Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FEMA Group Site Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FEMA Group Site Management of Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Delivering Housing: When and Where . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Equity in Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Choice for Disaster Assistance Applicants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Incentives for Communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Unintended Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Closer to Home”: FEMA’s Original Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Victims Without Homes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
The Road Home . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Mortgage and Rental Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Katrina Cottages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Legislative Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Appendix A - HUD and Other Federal Housing Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Appendix B - Victims Without Homes: The Loma Prieta Earthquake and
Hurricane Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Loma Prieta Earthquake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Hurricane Andrew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
FEMA Disaster Housing and Hurricane
Katrina: Overview, Analysis, and
Congressional Options
Background
Federal involvement in disaster housing can be traced back at least as far as the
Great Mississippi River Flood of 1927. At that time, federal assistance was indirect,
supporting the American National Red Cross (ANRC), championing ANRC fund-
raising and donations to support the ANRC’s housing/sheltering mission, and
generally coordinating assistance.1
In 1951 President Truman built on the ANRC partnership in Executive Order
10221, which delegated the responsibility for federal supplemental disaster assistance
to the Housing and Home Finance Administration (HHFA).2 Just over two decades
later, President Nixon continued to exercise presidential prerogative with his decision
to place that responsibility in HHFA’s successor organization, the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Administration officials created the
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA) to carry out temporary housing
and other disaster response and recovery programs. The FDAA was one of the
legacy components subsequently absorbed into FEMA in 1979 under Reorganization
Plan Number 3.3 The federal government’s temporary disaster housing mission (an
integral part of its overall authorities for disaster response and recovery) has
remained at FEMA for more than a quarter of a century.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-
288, as amended) authorizes the President to provide temporary housing and other
disaster response and recovery activities. Through Executive Orders this authority
has been delegated to FEMA, and other federal departments or agencies as assigned
1 For more information, see CRS Report RL33126, Disaster Response and Appointment of
a Recovery Czar: The Executive Branch’s Response to the Flood of 1927, by Kevin R.
Kosar. Almost 80 years later the same process (working through the ANRC and a network
and system established by that organization)would be the initial entry point for the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the housing response to the needs of Hurricane
Katrina victims.
2 Executive Order 10221, Federal Register, vol. 16, March 6, 1951, p. 2051.
3 Executive Order 12127, Federal Register, vol. 44, April 3, 1979, p. 19367. For more
information , see CRS Report RL33369, Federal Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Organization: Historical Developments and Legislative Options, by Henry B.
Hogue and Keith Bea.
CRS-2
by FEMA.4 This act authorized discrete programs, including the Individual and
Households Program (IHP), along with other programs intended to address the unmet
needs resulting from a major disaster of families, individuals, and state and local
governments.
Assessing the performance of government at every level to respond to disaster
victims who need housing assistance involves consideration of the continuum of
options available to FEMA in its sheltering and housing mission. FEMA
traditionally uses two separate Stafford Act authorities to carry out this mission —
Section 403 authorities for emergency sheltering and Section 408 for temporary
housing.5 Distinct units within FEMA implement these housing authorities. The 403
provisions are administered by the Public Assistance (Infrastructure) Branch in the
Recovery Division, while the 408 provisions are under the purview of the Individual
Assistance Branch within that same division.6
Stafford Act Section 403
Section 403 provides for general federal assistance to meet immediate threats
to life and property. This aid may include medicine, food and other consumables,
and work and services performed on public or private land. It is the work and
services category that is further defined to include debris removal, search and rescue
services, emergency medical services, emergency mass care, and emergency shelter.
The assistance provided by states and/or FEMA immediately following a disaster is
usually referred to as “emergency shelter.”7 Emergency sheltering can take a variety
of forms, some of which were adapted to meet the special needs following Hurricane
Katrina.
Traditional Stafford Act Sheltering/Housing. This type of 403
assistance can take the form of mass shelters (such as those run by the Red Cross and
designated by local governments), cruise ships (used for the first time after Hurricane
Katrina), emergency group sites (using manufactured housing), rental assistance, and
other supporting services paid for by state governments and reimbursed by FEMA.
While elements of 403 are occasionally employed for disaster response, the sheltering
provision is rarely used on a vast scale. The emergency aid in Section 403 is
generally cost-shared, like other elements of the Stafford Act, on a 75% federal
share, 25% state share. Since 403 is emergency sheltering, this program is used to
house victims immediately and does not include a test for eligibility before shelter
4 For more information, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster
Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith
Bea.
5 42 U.S.C. §5170b and 42 U.S. C. §5174.
6 In a letter dated January 18, 2007, from DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff to Senate
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chair Joseph Lieberman, DHS
announced it was changing the name of the Recovery Division to the Disaster Assistance
Division.
7 42 U.S.C. § 5170b.
CRS-3
is provided, unlike Section 408.8 Help under Section 403 generally is short term in
nature and is provided in facilities close to the disaster area.
The Katrina Experience. Due to the unusually severe, widespread destruction,
and dispersal of victims caused by Hurricane Katrina, Section 403 shelters were
funded throughout the nation. Accordingly, FEMA issued disaster-specific guidance
and other supporting documents delineating section 403 eligibility for the multitude
of states involved in this unique catastrophic event. Though 403 sheltering aid is
intended to be limited term help, after Katrina those limits were stretched due to the
magnitude of this event. That stretching also included a 100% federal share for the
emergency sheltering costs for all states hosting FEMA evacuees for up to 12
months, though shorter leases were encouraged.9
Traditional Mass Shelters. The cooperation between FEMA and the ANRC
has been stipulated in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the two
agencies that specifically references their coordination of emergency mass care. 10
They are also the two parties charged with the responsibility for carrying out
Emergency Support Function #6 - Mass Care, in the National Response Plan
(NRP).11 The great majority of the hundreds of shelters used following Katrina (and
most disasters) were managed by the ANRC. In addition, many other independent
shelters were and continue to be run by state and local governments and non-
governmental organizations.
The Katrina Experience. The shared responsibility in the NRP for mass care
was a change from the past operational practices under the Federal Response Plan
(FRP), which identified the Red Cross as the sole lead for the function. Shared
responsibilities had begun prior to Katrina, but this disaster was the most strenuous
test of this new arrangement. In the context of the Hurricane Katrina experience, the
quantity and quality of the available emergency shelter space has been questioned by
various reports, including the House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the
Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina Report, which noted that “State
and local governments made inappropriate selections of shelters of last resort. The
lack of a regional database of shelters contributed to an inefficient and ineffective
8 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Frequently Asked Questions: Section 403 Sheltering, August 11, 2006.
[http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/pa/faq_403 sheltering1.shtm], visited March 13,
2007.
9 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Hurricane Katrina Fact Sheet, Frequently Asked Questions Section 403 Sheltering,
September 29, 2005, p. 6.
10 Memorandum of Understanding Between the U.S. Department of Homeland Security,
Federal Emergency Management Agency, and The American National Red Cross, May 30,
2006.
11 An NRP revision is being drafted to give primary authority to FEMA with the Red Cross
as a supporting partner, and thus still responsible for emergency feeding and sheltering for
the general population. See letter from Neal Denton and other ANRC officials to Congress,
February 21, 2007.
CRS-4
evacuation and sheltering process.”12 The committee also acknowledged the
difficulty of the task. The report noted that some experts believed that the shelter
system eventually built up over the opening weeks of the Katrina disaster, with the
inherent coordination that was necessary, was similar to “opening a Fortune 500
company in a couple days’ time.”13
FEMA provided to the states and their shelter partners disaster-specific-
guidance that listed, in great detail, the costs that would be eligible for
reimbursement.14 Despite the guidelines, the ANRC and others involved in
sheltering still coped with significant questions raised by the scope of the event.
Emergency shelters are dependent not only on adequate space but also on many other
logistical concerns including health and safety, the ability to serve special needs
populations, and the availability of trained volunteers to staff these facilities. In the
case of Hurricane Katrina, the size and scope of this disaster was truly unprecedented
in comparison to other large events; as such, the disaster strained the traditional
shelter system.15
As noted above, emergency shelters funded under Section 403 authority are
intended to be temporary housing solutions. The decision by the Administration to
accelerate the closing of the emergency shelters and move disaster victims to more
suitable housing situations by October 15, 2005, meant that many families and
individuals had to quickly find housing alternatives.16 At its peak, the post-Katrina
mass shelter network provided shelter for over 273,000 evacuees.
17 Although
charting such an ambitious goal did speed up the emptying of the shelters, it also
meant that alternative forms of housing were needed prior to the registration of
evacuees with FEMA, and before any individuals and/or families could be presented
with any other options for their long term housing goals.
Cruise Ships. The use of cruise ships as emergency shelters had reportedly
been considered by FEMA officials as early as 1989 (following a disaster in the U.S.
12 U.S. Congress, House Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and
Response to Hurricane Katrina, A Failure Of Initiative, 109th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington:
2005), p. 312.
13 Ibid., p. 346.
14 See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency
Memorandum, Disaster Specific Guidance #2, Nancy Ward, FEMA Area Recovery
Manager, September 9, 2005.
15 For additional information, see CRS Report RL33761, Rebuilding Housing After
Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned and Unresolved Issues, by N. Eric Weiss.
16 Dan Glaister, “US Spending 6 Million Pounds a day on hotels for Hurricane Katrina
e v a c u e e s , ”
T h e G u a r d i a n ( U K ) ,
[http://guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1591796,00 html.], visited May 19, 2007.
While the October 15 deadline was not met in all cases due to a lack of availability of
hotel/motel rooms or ongoing efforts at family reunification and other considerations, it was
generally observed.
17 Eric Lipton, “Number Overstated for Storm Evacuees in Hotels,” New York Times,
October 19, 2005, p. A1.
CRS-5
Virgin Islands). However, this form of shelter had never actually been employed.18
For island disasters, and in coastal areas in particular, cruise ships were considered
to be a strategically valuable form of shelter that could be brought rapidly to remote
locations. Despite arguments for their use, however, no such contracts had
previously been let prior to Katrina.
The Katrina Experience. Given the unprecedented challenges posed by
Katrina, FEMA chose to use the cruise ship alternative and asked the Navy to charter
these ships.19 The ships’ most useful capabilities were to house both victims and
relief workers in private rooms in close proximity to the disaster area, and to have on-
site feeding facilities. The ships offered the possibility that some of the victims of
the disaster could be a part of the rebuilding process by giving them access to the area
where the work was being conducted. For a catastrophic disaster, this is a serious
concern, particularly when a large work force is arriving in an area that has had a
mass evacuation coupled with the destruction of rental units. Although housing
shared by victims and workers arguably has benefits, some disadvantages were
identified. For example, at a House Financial Services hearing on Katrina housing,
one Member of Congress noted that the large FEMA contingent of workers in the
area actually used a significant part of the remaining resources (both hotels and other
housing) and suggested that FEMA staff were, in fact, in competition with local
disaster victims wishing to return to the area.20
During their use the ships housed over 8,000 people and served over two million
meals to Katrina victims and workers helping in the recovery. 21 While meeting
emergency needs, critics questioned the cost of housing victims on the ships. Some
doubted the efficacy of the plan, the location of some ships, the cost and length of the
contract, and the process used to arrive at the agreement. As one story noted: “The
six month contract — staunchly defended by Carnival but castigated by politicians
from both parties — has come to exemplify the cost of haste that followed Katrina’s
strike and FEMA’s lack of preparation.”22
While the cruise ships attracted considerable media attention, one step taken in
this process may warrant further consideration. The care of children in this situation
is of interest, particularly since it served as a harbinger of what would become a very
18 Phone interview with Lawrence Zensinger, former FEMA Recovery Division Director,
January 22, 2007.
19 U.S. Department of Homeland Security Inspector General – Chartered Cruise
S h i p s , A u d i t R e p o r t N 2 0 0 6 - 0 0 1 5 , F e b r u a r y , 2 0 0 6 ,
[http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/kavorsght/editorial - 0756. shtm.], visited January19, 2007.
20 Testimony of Representative Charles Melancon, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Financial Services, Federal Housing Response to Hurricane Katrina, hearing, 110th Cong.
1st sess., February 6, 2007.
21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency –
Cruise Ships Leaving New Orleans March 1-February 24, 2006,
[http://www.fema.gov./news/newsrelease/fema?id=23839], visited January19, 2007.
22 Jonathan Weisman, “$236 Million Cruise Ship Deal Criticized,” Washington Post, Sept,
28, 2005, p. 1.
CRS-6
significant issue with regard to FEMA’s management of its large mobile home and
trailer parks. On one of the Carnival ships, the Holiday, the organization Save The
Children (best known for its work overseas) joined with Carnival and other corporate
givers to set up a child-care center. As summarized by the organization: “Save the
Children worked with a local licensed child-care provider to turn the Holiday ship’s
‘Doc Holiday Lounge’ into a child-care center that served about 70 children each day.
Child care services were difficult to find as families sought to recover.”23 The same
perceived needs would surface as areas of contention at FEMA’s emergency trailer
parks that were established on the Gulf Coast when FEMA child care services or
other amenities were eligible expenses for the management of the trailer parks. 24
Similar concerns have long been a part of temporary housing operations, but the scale
of the post-Katrina disaster environment brought greater scrutiny to the issues of
supportive services for large temporary housing sites.
Traditional Hotels and Motels . The local chapters of the ANRC routinely
provide brief hotel or motel stays as a form of emergency housing around the nation
on a daily basis for disaster victims, including the victims of fires or other local
emergencies. The local ANRC chapters are frequently reimbursed by FEMA for this
work in presidentially declared disasters of a much smaller scale than Katrina. This
form of assistance is generally referred to as “transient accommodation.”25 However,
because the practice of providing transient accommodations involves working with
much smaller numbers of victims, the length of stay is usually brief, and the task of
finding more suitable accommodations not as daunting as the Katrina experience.
The Katrina Experience. Hotels and motels were used around the country
both by self-evacuated families and individuals and by disaster evacuees who were
moved out of shelters and into these establishments by the ANRC and FEMA.
Hotels and motels in the disaster area were also used to house relief workers.
Much of the work of placing victims in these facilities was managed by a
contractor, Corporate Lodging Consultants (CLC), that worked originally for the Red
Cross and then FEMA. CLC engaged the hotels and motels to track occupancy and
managed the payments to the participating facilities.26
Many residents in harm’s way had “self-evacuated” themselves to hotels and
motels in more removed areas as the storm approached. However, the majority in
these establishments were families and individuals who moved from mass shelters
to the hotels and motels to meet the October 15, 2005 deadline. This resulted in an
extraordinarily high combined population in these commercial facilities. The peak
23 Carnival Corporation, Sanofi-Aventis, Scholastic Book Clubs Helped Lead the
W a y i n H u r r i c a n e K a t r i n a R e c o v e r y E f f o r t s , a t
[ h t t p : / / w w w . s a v e t h e c h i l d r e n . o r g / c o r p o r a t e / p a r t n e r s / c a r n i v a l -
corporation.html?print=t] visited December 20, 2006.
24 Paul Singer, “Camp FEMA”, National Journal, vol.38, March 11, 2006, pp. 21-26.
25 44 C.F.R., § 206.101, (g), (ii).
26 Dana Hedgpeth and Ben White, “Hurricane Evacuees Boost Hotels’ Profits,”
Washington Post, October 7, 2005, p. D1.
CRS-7
was reached in late October when 85,000 households were housed across the country
in hotels and motels in 48 states.27
Due to the unique circumstances created by Hurricane Katrina, a traditionally
short-term solution for small emergencies became a national program of
unprecedented size. This greatly expanded program provided some privacy for
families that had been so deprived for an extended period of time because they were
in mass shelters. The hotel/motel option gave displaced victims a chance to be in
a room with their own private space and a discrete address. However, the deadline
for the movement out of shelters left little or no time for establishing protocols for
lodging costs or exploring alternative housing.
Traditional Apartment Rentals by States. No evidence or data exist of
a previous use of state contracting for apartments for disaster victims under Section
403. The states traditionally are engaged in Section 403 work through the debris
removal program, congregate sheltering, and some other distinct missions such as
search and rescue work or the provision of temporary school facilities.28 The FEMA
housing mission is, in part, carried out in cooperation with the states. But that
cooperation generally entails state assistance only in locating temporary housing sites
and in the administration of the Other Needs Assistance (ONA) program. ONA
funds are used for furniture and clothing and other related needs, a use that works in
tandem with the Section 408 housing program (discussed below).
The Katrina Experience. Following the evacuation of Katrina victims (both
self-evacuated and those transported by FEMA) to many states, some of those states:
rented apartments for the evacuees; provided other necessary support such as
furnishings, food, transportation, and limited medical assistance; and made the rent
payments that were subsequently reimbursed by FEMA under Section 403. There
were, at the peak of this operation, approximately 67,000 apartment leases in 32
states. While the original instructions by FEMA offered to reimburse leases of up to
12 months, states were encouraged to engage in shorter leases if possible.29
States were solicited by FEMA to accept evacuees. They were asked to provide
information to FEMA on the number of evacuees they could accommodate, the date
they could begin receiving them, and the location of the receiving point. The
potential hosting states were promised full reimbursement of their disaster related
costs, with the general instruction to treat the Hurricane Katrina evacuees as they
would disaster victims within their own state borders.30
2 7 F E M A E x t e n d s H o t e l P r o g r a m f o r L A , M IS S . E v a c u e e s ,
[http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185839,00.html], visited January 22, 2007.
28 42 U.S.C. §5170b.
29 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Hurricane Katrina Fact Sheet, Frequently Asked Questions: Section 403 Sheltering,
September 29, 2005, p. 6.
30 Interview with former FEMA Recovery Division Director Daniel Craig, Washington, DC,
January 22, 2007.
CRS-8
The Transition to Section 408
Due to the damage to permanent housing stock (both private homes and rental
properties) by Hurricane Katrina, the transition from shorter-term Section 403
sheltering/housing to traditional, longer-term Section 408 temporary housing
assistance was a difficult one. Normally, FEMA works with a relatively small
population, which traditionally makes this “crosswalk” easier; however, that was not
the case for this catastrophic event. FEMA had to contact all recipients of 403
assistance in order to establish their eligibility for longer- term aid under Section 408.
That contact also had to include an explanation of the process as well as available
housing options, the location of some housing resources, and the time-tables
involved. Disaster victims also had to be assured that the next form of housing
assistance was available for those deemed eligible. Accordingly, checks for rental
assistance, or a unit of manufactured housing, had to be available before the
applicants were moved from their current residences.
Eligibility for Section 408 assistance is based on several conditions, including
a finding by FEMA that:
! the applicant’s primary residence is unlivable;
! the applicant is experiencing financial hardship and;
! there are other related difficulties in the aftermath of a declared
disaster event31
Eligibility determinations are routinely made in most disaster situations by staff
at FEMA’s National Process Service Centers (NPSCs). At the NPSCs, staff take
registrations (both telephonically and on-line) working in concert with FEMA’s on-
site staff based at the Joint Field Offices (JFOs) in or near the affected area, and with
FEMA’s contracted housing inspectors.
A major challenge to this traditional approach rested in the sheer number of
victims involved in the Katrina disaster; thousands of evacuees were placed in
hotel/motel rooms in 48 states as well as in state-rented apartments in 32 states. The
wide dispersal of victims compounded the transition process. Also, this outreach
mission was especially difficult to accomplish within shifting deadlines established
by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)/FEMA. Due to the extent of the
devastation in the affected area, housing inspections could not always be conducted
within the usual time frames; such inspections are generally critical to eligibility
decisions. In addition, FEMA had to cobble together a series of outreach teams to
spread out among the diaspora of disaster victims. These teams consisted of
personnel from the Corporate Lodging Consultant (CLC) contractors, FEMA
Community Relations staff, and available staff from the respective FEMA regional
offices. The resources of these groups were already greatly taxed by their own
disaster assignments.
31 44 CFR §206.101 (f).
CRS-9
DHS/FEMA had been contacted as early as September 6, 2005, by the Refugee
Council USA with a plan to reach out (through the Refugee Council’s local affiliate
network) and provide case management services to the displaced residents from the
Gulf Coast.32 The council had developed the plan working in conjunction with the
White House Homeland Security Council and the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives
and its traditional partners at the Department of State and the Department of Health
and Human Services. Some discussions ensued which questioned the authority of
FEMA to carry out such a program as well as the potential cost. The plan was not
adopted.33
Two competing imperatives faced FEMA: provide safe housing for disaster
victims and remain responsible stewards of federal funds. The goal of transferring
applicants from hotels, motels, and state-leased apartments to apartments paid with
Section 408 rental assistance and manufactured housing was intended to address both
goals, but some contend that efforts to achieve both ends resulted in a disruptive and
complicated process.34 It was within this environment of shifting deadlines and
lingering questions of applicant eligibility that reports of waste, fraud, and abuse
within the program surfaced.35 The situation was also aggravated by recurring
litigation that has embroiled FEMA, applicants, and public interest groups over the
last year.36
As of the end of 2006, approximately 40,000 households had been moved from
403 to 408 funding – either through CLC payments to landlords out of 408 funds or
from 408 payments made to applicants to continue apartment rentals.37 FEMA’s
standard presumption is that those households previously in 403 apartments and
qualified for, but not receiving, 408 payments represents people no longer in need of
FEMA assistance or those whose landlords did not make contact with CLC to
maintain the arrangement.38
32 Karen Walsh, The Hurricane Katrina Disaster: RCUSA Contributions to the Relocation
of Displaced Americans, DRAFT, September 6, 2005, available from the author.
33 However, the Post-Katrina Act, effective October 6, 2006, includes a provision that
provides the President the authority to “provide case management services, including
financial assistance, to state or local government agencies or qualified organizations to
provide such services ...”. See P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1453.
34 Juliet Eilperin, “FEMA Extends Housing Deadline,” Washington Post, November 23,
2005, p. A8.
35 Testimony of Gregory D. Kutz, Managing Director, Forensic Audits and Special
Investigations in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Hurricane Katrina: Waste, Fraud and Abuse Worsen the Disaster,
GAO-06-403T,hearing, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., February 13, 2006.
36 For additional information see, CRS Report RS22560, Disaster Housing Assistance: A
Legal Analysis of ACORN v. FEMA, by Kamilah M. Holder.
37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Fact
Sheet for CRS Inquiry” – November 27, 2006.
38 Ibid.
CRS-10
Stafford Act Section 408
Stafford Act Section 408 housing is administered through the Individual and
Households Program (IHP), which consists of temporary housing and Other Needs
Assistance (ONA). The housing portion is 100% federally funded. The ONA part of
the IHP program (furnishings, uninsured medical costs, funeral expenses, etc.) is
cost-shared with the state, on a mandatory 75%/25% basis.39 The 408 amounts spent
for rental/repair/replacement assistance and ONA are deducted from an overall IHP
cap for each household, currently $28,200 (this amount is adjusted annually based on
the Consumer Price Index). Direct housing assistance – that is, costs associated with
mobile homes and travel trailers, is not deducted from that amount due to difficulties
in precisely calculating the amount of assistance involved. In addition to the Section
408 temporary housing assistance, other federal housing resources were also made
available by other federal agencies.
Traditional Section 408 Rental, Repair, and Replacement
Assistance. Assistance under Section 408 includes rental assistance to disaster
victims who have found suitable rental property. It also includes repair assistance to
make a dwelling habitable, and grants to contribute toward replacement housing for
an applicant whose home has been destroyed by a disaster event.40
The Katrina Experience. One of the greatest challenges in the post-Katrina
environment was the dearth of available rental property in the damaged area. As with
private homes, many of the rental units also sustained major damage or were
destroyed. There were attempts to increase the housing stock, particularly by the
State of Louisiana.41 In recognition of the difficulties inherent in this problem,
Congress enacted a provision in the post-Katrina Reform Act that would “provide for
the repair and improvement of multi-family rental properties in disaster areas to
increase the rental stock available to disaster victims in the immediate area.”42
Another Section 408 issue that emerged was FEMA’s definition of Fair Market
Rent (FMR).43 FEMA uses the FMR set by HUD for a metropolitan area, which
includes the cost of utilities. FEMA, however, pursuant to the Stafford Act, has
determined that the amount of financial assistance available is based on “the fair
market rent for the accommodation provided plus the cost of any transportation,
39 44 C.F.R. § 206.131, (d) (2). Unlike other Stafford Act programs, the ONA cost-share
cannot be waived by the President.
40 42 U.S.C. §5174, Sec. 408 (c)
41 David Hammer, “Rental Road Home Gets Rolling,” Times-Picayune (New Orleans),
January 31, 2007, at [http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/front page/index.ssf?/base/news-
7/1170227927319700.xoml&coll=1], visited March 15, 2007.
42 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1454.
43 42 U.S.C. §5174.
CRS-11
utility hook-ups, or unit installation not provided directly by the President.”44 FEMA
has traditionally interpreted the utility language to mean that hook-ups are the only
utility costs eligible for assistance. As a result of this difference, which was also
noted in ongoing litigation, Congress amended the Stafford Act to qualify utility
costs as eligible expenses.45
Existing federal policy, notably the Stafford Act and its administration by
FEMA, bases federal aid on the assumption that a household in need of temporary
housing assistance will not have permanently lost employment or its principal means
of support, let alone be displaced to another state. FEMA also presumes, based on
typical program performance, that the Section 408 assistance provided will be
relatively short in duration, generally much less than the 18 months of eligible help.46
Certainly, many disasters are far more localized within states and communities. With
a localized event, the difference in employment is the commuting distance from a
temporary housing location rather than the retention of the job itself.
The challenge of continuing employment is one fundamental difference between
most disaster declarations and an event such as Hurricane Katrina. This unique
circumstance of sudden joblessness on a great scale underlines the difficulties in
applying the Section 408 authority to catastrophic major disasters of this breadth,
magnitude, and duration. In essence, Hurricane Katrina exceeded all previous
experience and also the perceived reach of statutory authority.
An additional consideration in the post-Katrina environment was the
demographic profile of affected residents. As one report noted: “Hurricane Katrina
disproportionately impacted communities where the poor and minorities, mostly
African-Americans, resided. The three states where communities were damaged or
flooded by the hurricane rank among the poorest in the nation.”47 This meant more
renters were affected, and many victims had little means of support. These victims
were sent far from home taking few or no resources with them.
Traditional Housing Repair and Replacement. When Hurricane Katrina
struck, the housing repair element of Section 408 assistance authorized up to $5,000
in repairs to primary residences so that victims could make their homes habitable. 48
These same homeowners may or may not have received a Small Business
Administration disaster loan for additional repairs. The $5,000 cap had been in place
for several years since the passage of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA2K-
Public Law 106-390).
44 Ibid.
45 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1452.
46 Interview with Donna Dannels, Individual Assistance Branch Chief, FEMA, April 16,
2007.
47 For additional information see, CRS Report RL33141, Hurricane Katrina: Social-
Demographic Characteristics of Impacted Areas, by Thomas Gabe, Gene Falk, Maggie
McCarty, and Virginia W. Mason.
48 The Post Katrina Reform Act amended this provision to remove the $5,000 cap. The
overall ceiling of $28,200, however, still applies. See, P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1448.
CRS-12
In addition to repair assistance, applicants whose homes have been destroyed
can qualify for up to $10,000 to be applied toward a replacement home. This benefit
is particularly available for mobile home owners without adequate insurance who can
use these funds toward the purchase of another unit.
Traditional Manufactured Housing. FEMA traditionally uses mobile
homes and travel trailers to meet the needs of disaster victims. Mobile homes are
larger and are generally used to house applicants who are unable to obtain rental
housing in the area. Travel trailers are smaller units that are usually parked adjacent
to the home so that the individual or family can continue repairs while the home itself
cannot be occupied and not have to pay for the space to park the trailer. The units
are also placed on commercial lots and in parks created by FEMA for that purpose.
While this is a form of temporary housing, it sometimes gains permanency for the
households occupying these units. This is based on a part of the Stafford Act which
provides that a unit “may be sold directly to the individual or household who is
occupying the unit if the individual or household lacks permanent housing.”49 This
is usually the case for applicants without other housing options.50
The Katrina Experience. Congressional testimony by a FEMA official noted
that approximately 80% of manufactured dwellings were situated on private lots on
the Gulf Coast.51 This points to the large number of homes with major damage
following the hurricanes of 2005. During the post-Katrina recovery phase, these
trailers and mobile homes were the center of controversy for several reasons.
While manufactured housing is occasionally used, FEMA considers it the last
housing option to be employed, and then only if home repairs are impractical or if
there are no available units for rental assistance. But a catastrophic disaster such as
Katrina removes many options. It not only spreads disaster victims across the nation
but also makes home repair work difficult and slow at best. Additionally, a disaster
of this magnitude wipes out most available rental housing in the affected area. With
all of those factors considered, manufactured housing became the primary means of
providing temporary housing in Gulf Coast communities for an extended period of
time. This form of housing also drew the media’s attention due to a large number of
units awaiting occupancy that have been stored in Hope, Arkansas.52 Some of the
reasons for the purchase of the excess units and the slow pace of their issuance are
discussed in the Issues section below.
Housing Inspections: Strengths and Limitations. Traditionally, almost
all key decisions in the FEMA housing mission are tied to an on-site inspection of
the damaged housing by FEMA contract inspectors. The inspections provide FEMA
49 42 U.S.C. §5174, (d) (2) (A).
50 Paul Singer, “Camp FEMA”, National Journal, vol. 38, March 11, 2006, p. 26.
51 Testimony of David Garratt, FEMA Acting Recovery Division Director, in U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Financial Services, Federal Housing Response to Hurricane Katrina
hearing, 110th Cong., 1st sess., February 6, 2007.
52 Congress, FEMA Try to Free Up Stockpile of Trailers, National Public Radio, at
[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/storyphp?storyId=5313004] visited January 24, 2007.
CRS-13
with information on the degree of damage to the structure and contents of the house.
The inspectors are assigned an address, locate the home, and assess its status on a
hand-held computer that enables information to be downloaded rapidly to FEMA
computers. The information is subsequently merged with an applicant’s file.53
The Katrina Experience. With standing water throughout the southern
parishes and counties, on-site inspections could not be conducted for thousands of
homes for a considerable amount of time. As a result, FEMA used geo-spatial
mapping of the area to help determine eligibility for FEMA housing assistance.54
Geo-spatial mapping consists of overflights of an area that can produce maps that
identify the average depth of water in a specific geographic area. From these maps
FEMA can then project likely damage in that area. This form of verification was fast
and practical but could not offer the same detail as on-site inspection, particularly for
personal losses. Another key issue realized from Katrina is that the viability of
neighborhoods cannot be determined. Even though on-site inspection reports are
issued for each individual dwelling, the reports do not ordinarily provide, nor is it
their assigned mission to provide, a picture or an assessment of neighborhood-wide
conditions. For example, are schools or stores open? Is there general accessibility to
community resources? Are essential infrastructure components operational?55
Issues for Congress
FEMA Group Site Location. The reluctance of parishes near to but outside
of the disaster area to host manufactured housing sites became a major impediment
to development of a coherent housing plan following Katrina’s impact. In late
October, 2005, the Louisiana state government requested that FEMA pay a version
of “impact fees,” similar to those assessed on developers by local communities when
new construction is planned.56 The state believed such help would encourage the
outer parishes to accept a significant number of mobile homes or travel trailers in
their jurisdiction’s by helping them defer increased costs to the community caused
by the new temporary sites. There is no record of FEMA responding officially to
that overall proposal, but some examples of previous actions arguably indicate
FEMA had given some support to the concept. Early in the disaster FEMA had set
up temporary laundry facilities for one trailer park. During the hurricanes of 2004
in Florida, FEMA had assisted a sewer district to expand its capacity following the
53 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
“Talking Points - Housing Inspections,” at [http: [http://www.fema.gov/news/news
release.fema?id=5325]], visited February 26, 2007.
54 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
“Mapping Expedites Assistance for Louisiana,” press release no. 3215-029, February 9,
2006.
55 As a Houston housing inspector who reviewed some New Orleans homes listed as
“habitable” by FEMA noted, “General neighborhoods are not yet up and running.” See,
[http://www.chinatown connection.com/houston-hurricane-katrina-evacuees.htm], visited
February 5, 2007.
56 “Louisiana’s Transitional Housing Impact Fee Plan, Draft,” October 3, 2005. Available
from author.
CRS-14
establishment of a trailer park within that jurisdiction. In each case, these actions had
been ad hoc decisions made by the leadership in the field that did not reflect official
policy.57
Later, in early November 2005, FEMA housing staff in Louisiana created their
own version of a “supporting services” listing to encourage more local support for
the trailer parks. The proposal from the FEMA field staff was a six page
memorandum that described types of assistance that could potentially be available
to the hosting community from FEMA or other federal agencies. The recognized
areas for additional help to the local community included road repair and traffic
management, public works, and other community services.58 This proposal was not
adopted, but FEMA continued to review the suggestions.
FEMA eventually decided it was authorized to provide limited community
service help and sent out a two- page memo in mid-December of 2005 offering
potential help for fire and safety forces that provide service to the trailer parks in their
jurisdictions.59 Some FEMA staff believed the delay in arriving at a decision and the
limited reach of the final decision resulted in increased reluctance on the part of local
officials to host such trailer parks. FEMA’s leadership took its position from the
Stafford Act quote that “the President may provide temporary housing units ....”60
Since Congress did not specifically authorize other support, FEMA concluded that
no other support is implied or was legally possible when creating a temporary
housing community.
FEMA Group Site Management of Services. FEMA’s interpretation of
its limited authority to support the group sites that it had established extended not
only to the surrounding community, but to services within the sites as well. FEMA
considers the need for recreational facilities or services to augment educational
opportunities, or other services that contribute to a sense of community to be beyond
any and all Stafford Act authorities, noting that these are intended to be temporary
sites. Some contend that each additional service provided is an enticement to
transform a temporary site, as authorized by law, into something far more permanent.
It is argued that such a site with amenities and services sponsored by the government
cannot contribute to the process of helping residents transition to more permanent
housing.
FEMA’s position, according to one journalist, is that all such help, if needed,
should be provided by private charitable groups. However, in its interactions with
charitable groups interested in providing additional services, FEMA has reportedly
57 Interviews with former FEMA staff members Mike Hirsch and Brad Gair, January 18,
2007.
58 Strategy for the Provision of Services for Group Housing Sites - Hurricane
Katrina: Louisiana, revised DRAFT, November 10, 2005, available from author.
59 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, David
Garratt, Disaster Specific Guidance - Hurricane Katrina and Rita Provision of Essential
Services in Support of Direct Housing, December15, 2005.
60 42 U.S.C.§ 5174.
CRS-15
been a reluctant partner. In describing the philosophical approach to the management
of a trailer park site, such as Renaissance Village in Baker, Louisiana, one reporter
explained the FEMA position as follows:
FEMA is the federal agency charged with providing temporary housing to
displaced people. Its officials read that mandate very narrowly – they will supply
housing, and little else, for as long as 18 months while people get back on their
feet. ... The government provides evacuees a trailer, water and sewer lines, and
electricity. Residents must now get pretty much everything else on their own or
from a charity. FEMA does not want anyone to get too comfortable here.61
In the case of Renaissance Village, some charitable and social service groups
expressed particular concern because, “anyone” included nearly 370 children under
the age of 12.62 Some contend that community services are a necessary component
of a temporary trailer park because children need recreational opportunities and
facilities and child care and related services. Others, however, believe that the
establishment of services, and the long-term residency they imply, runs counter to the
interest of Congress to provide minimal or temporary housing.
In a hearing of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee’s
Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management, the subcommittee chair, Representative Norton, acknowledged the
complexity of the issue. Representative Norton signaled that FEMA should not be
required to provide comprehensive services on site or establish “a village” that could
further isolate the residents. Instead, she observed that FEMA should be providing
transportation to temporary housing residents to connect them with the surrounding
communities where services may already exist.63
Delivering Housing: When and Where. Certain issues had to be resolved
prior to the installation of temporary housing for Katrina victims.
One limiting factor for housing (both temporary and permanent) was the utility
problem in New Orleans. FEMA’s contractors were hard pressed to keep up with the
numbers of requests for temporary housing units; the lack of utilities meant that site
preparation lagged. Entergy is a private utility company that had been New Orleans’
last Fortune 500 company but found itself in precarious financial straits following
the devastating event.64 The lag time on utility restoration became yet another
“chicken and egg” situation. Which would come first: the arrival of housing units
or the utilities to support them? A similar question arose regarding neighborhood
61 Paul Singer, “Camp FEMA”, The National Journal, Vol. 38, March 11, 2006. p. 25.
62 Ibid, p. 26.
63 Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Chair, House Transportation and Infrastructure
Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency
Management, Post-Katrina Temporary Housing: Dilemmas and Solutions, hearing, 110th
Cong., 1st sess., March 20, 2007.
64 Entergy Corporation’s New Orleans Subsidiary Files Chapter 11 Petition, Transmission
& Distribution World, at [http://tdworld.com/news/Entergy-Chapter 11/], visited January
24, 2007.
CRS-16
schools: should the schools be repaired, or should the students be present first? The
inertia that resulted from these sticking points has been a common factor for post-
Katrina communities. Local leadership and community-based decision making
organizations arguably are equipped to set the priorities that could move these steps
forward. FEMA’s partnership, particularly the interaction of a Federal Coordinating
Officer and staff with experience in similar situations, can be useful. Their
cooperation with local leadership can contribute to a more effective transition for the
community.
Issues also arise as to where temporary manufactured housing is or should be
sited. FEMA’s regulations prohibit the placement of mobile homes in flood plains.65
This has discouraged the placement of housing needed by Katrina victims. FEMA
has, however, permitted the use of travel trailers (rather than mobile homes) in such
vulnerable areas under the assumption that they can be moved out of harm’s way
more rapidly. This assumption is questionable when such large numbers of travel
trailers are being used in a concentrated area and FEMA required that contractors
strap down all of the manufactured housing installed on the Gulf Coast. The
increased safety created by tying down the mobile homes restricts mobility. This is
a dilemma without a simple answer since it involves the pursuit of two goals
potentially in conflict — the need to provide housing in proximity to the disaster-
stricken area and the assurance that safe temporary housing will be placed in secure,
disaster resistant areas.
An additional topic of interest is the influence of FEMA’s temporary housing
program and policies on eventual resettlement and rebuilding decisions at the state
and local levels. Some of the FEMA recovery program elements fall outside the
defined temporary housing arena but have a direct impact on rebuilding and other
related developments within the disaster area. This includes elements such as
transportation costs for victims to return to their homes, the establishment and
locations of group temporary housing sites, and the progress of infrastructure repair
and mitigation projects and the support they could provide for neighborhood
redevelopment.
FEMA involvement in community rebuilding is considerable, but local decision
making is also important to accelerate the work. FEMA actions are dependent on
choices and priorities established by the state and local governments, in terms of both
infrastructure repair and the priority given to debris removal and mitigation projects.
Conversely, when fundamental decisions, like those concerning cost-share waivers
are delayed, very little can proceed at the local level. The experience of FEMA (and
its federal, state, and local partners) over the last two years should provide a guide
to what worked well, what did not, and what options remain under current
authorities.
Equity in Assistance. A key concern in the implementation of disaster
temporary housing programs was how to achieve equity with a huge and diverse
population that was receiving various degrees of assistance. The variation depended
not only on a family’s or individual’s circumstances (for example, whether relatives
65 44 C.F.R. §206,117 (C)
CRS-17
were able to provide help), but also on the resources of the receiving state. One
concern was that those receiving 403 assistance would have all of their 408 accounts
remaining (referencing the $28,200 maximum available under the Individual and
Households Program), while those who had successfully registered and received help
through more traditional FEMA processes were already drawing down from the total
Section 408 amount available to them and their families. Given the unprecedented
size of this disaster, the 403 solution bought necessary time while the 408 processing
went on. However, as a result, some were arguably penalized for their prompt
application for Section 408 aid.
Efforts to address the equity problems in the delivery of FEMA disaster housing
may consider the exclusion of initial housing costs under Section 408 from the
legislative caps (see Options section of this report). Under this arrangement, all
applicants would begin with the same amount of available resources within their IHP
accounts. This change, however, would increase costs since it would be equivalent
to increasing the amount of help made available. Further, all of the aforementioned
considerations do not include the assistance some families and individuals received
from charitable groups as well.
Choice for Disaster Assistance Applicants. Disaster victims have
limited discretion to choose among the types of housing assistance authorized. The
Stafford Act authorizes the President to provide “financial assistance, and, if
necessary, direct services.”66 Those applying for help must generally accept the form
of housing offered. This is underlined in FEMA’s regulations, which stress that an
applicant is “expected to accept the first offer of housing assistance” and threatens
forfeiture of benefits if aid is refused.67 How much choice should be involved when
the government is providing a direct benefit to the disaster victim? In the case of
Katrina disaster victims in Louisiana, FEMA estimates it will eventually expend
more than $10 billion to provide human services (housing, crisis counseling, disaster
unemployment assistance) to that population.68 Given such expenditures,
government officials may be expected to make choices that combine sound
stewardship of funds with efficient management.
Conversely, the misfortune of a natural or man-made disaster can determine a
family’s housing choices and actual housing location for an extended period of time.
But the housing aid offered has a couple of imperatives that may not be
complimentary. A key question is whether the goal of the housing mission in the
Stafford Act is to place families as close to their original residences as possible or
to house as many people as economically as possible? In a catastrophic situation
involving thousands of evacuees, the idea of choice may be temporarily exchanged
for an immediate response, with difficult results. As the Director of the Natural
Hazards Research and Application Center observed:
66 42 U.S.C. § 5174.
67 44 C.F.R. § 206.110(c).
68 DHS-FEMA Disaster Relief Fund Monthly Report to Congress, April 6, 2007, p. 12.
CRS-18
Worse yet, instead of having their needs addressed in a timely manner, those
stranded in New Orleans after Katrina were not so much assisted as they were
policed. Literally treated like criminals, they were confined to shelters under
strict control. Later, they were transported, again under the control of law
enforcement agencies and the military, to over forty states around the country,
without even having the opportunity to choose where they would be sent.69
The use of housing vouchers does not necessarily enable a victim to return to
an area with very few remaining rental units available, nor can vouchers
accommodate the desire of a displaced person for a rapid return. But the vouchers
can provide a greater degree of choice, as a Heritage Foundation housing expert
explained:
Obviously, giving evacuees access to housing vouchers that can be used in
any metropolitan area in the nation will increase the likelihood that many
will choose not to return. With vouchers, they will have access to better
housing than they had in the slums of New Orleans and will have the choice
to remain in communities where they can improve their standard of living
and quality of life.70
After the Katrina disaster, FEMA generally provided the initial form of
assistance it would normally provide in most disasters: rental assistance in the form
of a check (or an Electronic Fund Transfer) equal to a couple of months rent for the
area where the applicant was located. This provision of cash assistance provides
flexibility to victims to use the funds to meet their housing needs and, if funds
remain, to meet other disaster-related needs.
Housing vouchers issued by HUD can provide both choice and mobility.
Also, given the nature of the vouchers being issued by housing authorities that
establish relationships with landlords, the vouchers offer more controls and
accountability. But in the case of Katrina, HUD vouchers were never used apart from
the assistance given to some households that previously received HUD aid. Under
the rubric of choice, the distinction between cash and vouchers becomes more
challenging. A cash grant provides the ultimate discretion to a disaster victim on its
use with reporting of those uses trailing months behind. A voucher also gives the
victim wide latitude, but is more directed toward housing resources. Additionally,
the relationship with the issuing authority (e.g. a local public housing authority)
offers the potential of additional help for consultation on housing issues.
Most localized disasters do not involve the problems of applicants being
displaced vast distances from their homes, jobs, and schools. The evacuation after
Katrina had to be carried out rapidly, since there were no housing resources in the
69 Kathleen Tierney, “Social Inequality, Hazards and Disasters” in Ronald J. Daniels,
Donald F. Kettl, and Howard Kunreuther, eds., “On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from
Hurricane Katrina,” (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), pp. 122 and
123.
70 Ronald Utt, “After Weeks of Confusion, the Right Course for Evacuee Housing
A s s i s t a n c e , ” H e r i t a g e F o u n d a t i o n , S e p t e m b e r 2 8 , 2 0 0 5 , a t
[http://www.heritage.org/Research/SmartGrowth/wm866.cfm], visited May 10, 2007.
CRS-19
flooded city. The speed of the evacuation appeared to make choice a moot point.
Could the evacuation have been organized to a point where evacuees could have
chosen a destination? The requirement for prompt action argued against that, but
transportation funds were provided to reunite families at the location of their choice.
Although difficulties are readily apparent, the matter of choice remains an issue for
consideration in general for disaster housing law and policy.
Incentives for Communities. Some contend that, in light of the Katrina
experience, the Stafford Act should include incentives for communities to host
temporary housing sites. It may be argued that Congress provided some of this
flexibility by replacing “temporary housing” with “semi-permanent housing”
authority within the Post-Katrina Act (P.L.109-295).71 On the other hand, some may
argue that hosting communities have existing incentives since they already benefit
from spending by the residents of the sites at local business establishments where
they purchase products and services, and pay local taxes.
In the same vein, it may be argued that FEMA should have explicitly defined
authority regarding the agency’s ability to make large temporary housing sites more
supportive of community spirit and recovery. As the earlier discussion in this section
on “Management of Services” demonstrates, there has been confusion during the
post-Katrina recovery as to who should or would even be permitted to provide such
additional help for these temporary communities. Conversely, this form of support
for the group trailer sites could become the fundamental contribution made by the
state and its local governments to the temporary housing mission.
Unintended Consequences. For two decades (1975-1995) FEMA
maintained its own manufactured housing storage sites (principally at Palo Pinto,
Texas and Bluegrass, Kentucky) where the units were stored and refurbished for
future use. This was a challenging proposition (as the current Hope, Arkansas
experience attests) since the quality of the units’ upkeep was, at least in part,
determined by the force of nature and age. The condition of the units was diminished
further by repeated travel to disaster sites and back to the storage sites.
In 1995, FEMA’s Reinventing Government, Phase II Committee,
recommended the closing of the two sites and the sale of the units, arguing that local
purchasing, as needed, would be more efficient. The committee also noted that most
temporary housing in the early 1990s had been provided through home repairs and
rental assistance. This was partly due to the Northridge earthquake experience (at the
time FEMA’s costliest disaster), where repair and rental assistance, due to the area
affected, were more useful options for temporary housing than was manufactured
housing. This recommendation was adopted; the sites were closed, and the GSA
auctioned off and/or dispersed the remaining units. As a consequence, since stand-by
contracts were not in place, FEMA officials had to make fast and expensive decisions
to purchase thousands of housing units.
Another unanticipated consequence occurred with the reduction of repair
funds from $10,000 or more to $5,000, the elimination of the Mortgage and Rental
71 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1447.
CRS-20
Assistance Program (MRA) discussed later in this report, and the elimination of the
option for households who failed to qualify for SBA loans to return to FEMA for
additional help with home repairs. Those changes, enacted in the Disaster Mitigation
Act of 2000 (DMA2K), arguably pushed FEMA back in the direction of providing
direct housing assistance in the form of manufactured housing.
Previously, greater assistance had been available for home repair, since it had
long been the preferred form of disaster temporary housing assistance.72 As GAO
pointed out in its report following the Northridge earthquake in 1994: “Individuals
and families whose homes are damaged can apply to FEMA for a grant, to make
repairs to restore habitability. For the Northridge earthquake, applicants could obtain
a maximum of $10,000.”73 But at times, the amount was more than that. As the
FEMA Office of Inspector General pointed out, according to a study prepared by
FEMA, “four percent received awards of $10,000 or more, which accounted for 18
percent of expenditures.”74
The cap on housing repair was a significant part of DMA2K, P.L.106-390,
and was the main source of savings in temporary housing that the Congressional
Budget Office estimated at “$10 million for 2002 and $19 million in each following
year.”75 The $5,000 cap had been a point of contention since its legislative
imposition in 2000; changing the provision had been a goal of groups active in
disaster recovery work.76
Some tried, apparently without success, to read additional help for home
repair into the law.77 But FEMA contended the cap provided no recourse for
72 42 U.S.C. § 5174.
73 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Rebuilding After the Los Angeles Earthquake,
GAO/RCED-94-193, p. 2, at [http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat3/151823.pdf] visited on January
19, 2007.
74 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
Inspector General, Audits of Home Repair Grants Provided Through FEMA’s Disaster
Housing Program, September 20, 1996, p. 7.
75 U.S. Congressional Budget Office - Cost Estimate H.R. 707 Disaster Mitigation and Cost
R e d u c t i o n A c t o f 1 9 9 9 , M a y 5 , 2 0 0 0 , a t
[http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=2025&sequence=O&from=6], visited February
5, 2007.
76 National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disasters (NVOAD), 2006-2007 Priorities
for the National VOAD Public Policy Committee, August 1, 2006, at
[http://www.nvoad.org/report.php?reportid=159] visited January 19, 2007.
77 Daily edition: Senator Robert Smith, et.al., “Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act.” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, (October 5,
2000), p. S10019. Since the DMA2K had been enacted without a House-Senate conference,
several questions regarding legislative intent were in question. Former Senators Bob Graham
and Bob Smith held a colloquy on their intent to allow applicants turned down by SBA to
return to FEMA for additional help. It concluded with Senator Graham’s summary that “if
an individual or a household was unable to obtain a loan from SBA, or assistance from
another source, then they could be eligible to receive additional emergency home repair
(continued...)
CRS-21
families and individuals unable to obtain SBA loans. The cap has now been
removed by the Post-Katrina Act.78 However, the cap on home repairs was in place
during Katrina and for a year after that event. Given the smaller amount available for
home repairs, as well as the devastation of the Katrina event that made repairs more
costly and time-consuming, manufactured housing became the only alternative
available under the time constraints created by Katrina.
The priority use of manufactured housing may not have been a preferred
option, but it was one that, if coupled with a drastically diminished rental inventory
in a disaster area (e.g., Katrina, unlike Northridge), provided housing opportunities
as other possible housing avenues were decreasing. Vouchers offer some freedom
of choice for displaced applicants, but the existence of vouchers alone cannot
reconstitute rental housing options in an area as demolished as southern Louisiana.
Closer to Home”: FEMA’s Original Plan. FEMA’s original plan for
housing strategy solutions immediately following the impact of Hurricane Katrina,
titled “Closer To Home,” anticipated some of the problems that have confronted the
housing mission since September 2005. The plan included the concept of
“transitional communities” to meet the needs of large events.79 These sites proposed
that communities provide a temporary housing solution for disaster victims that
would offer the amenities and support services that could lead to a transition back to
their home communities. The plan also included the framework for that same
transitional community to become a permanent housing addition to its host area.
Though FEMA/DHS leadership did not act on the strategy, the Director of the Office
of Recovery and Renewal for the State of Mississippi also noted the “transitional
communities” concept as a promising avenue to explore as a means to
“supplementing housing needs.”80 Opponents of the concept may contend that
communities unwilling to accept temporary manufactured housing would be much
less likely to consider a semi-permanent housing development.
Although the notion of transitional communities was not accepted in the early
days of post-Katrina recovery, subsequent congressional action on “Katrina
Cottages” and the concept of alternative housing indicates a policy shift in viewing
temporary housing as a prelude to semi-permanent or permanent housing.81 When
considering such an approach, maintaining a distinction between catastrophic
disasters and most disasters may be useful. The larger events arguably invite bold
77 (...continued)
assistance ...” Senator Smith concurred with that assessment of the legislation.
78 P.L. 109-295, 120 Stat. 1448.
79 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, -
Closer to Home – Housing Strategy Solutions in Response to Hurricane Katrina, September
12, 2005, Appendix B, p. 28, available from the author.
80 Statement of Gavin Smith, Director, Office of Recovery and Renewal, State of
Mississippi, before the House Financial Services Committee, Subcommittee on Housing and
Community Opportunity, January 14, 2006.
81 P.L. 109-234, § 2403, 120 Stat. 460.
CRS-22
thinking and creative approaches. Many smaller disasters do not require transitional
communities, only the repair and restoration of the disaster-damaged community.
Victims Without Homes. Even with the enormous commitment of federal
resources following Katrina and the varied forms of available help, there were still
applicants deemed ineligible for traditional federal assistance programs (from both
FEMA and HUD). These were people with no previous permanent address who were
not receiving official government help before they were evacuated. In many
instances they became wards of the community that had accepted them as evacuees.
However, HUD did provide voucher assistance for this special group through the
Katrina Disaster Housing Assistance Program - Special Needs (KDHAP-SN)
program and subsequently the Disaster Voucher Program. Congress may wish to
explore the needs of these applicants and their status (previously homeless, part of
a separated household, etc.) in future disasters to determine if the help provided
should be by exception or through standard programs.
To date the answer has been simple and direct under FEMA authorities:
previously homeless individuals and families will return, as with other disaster
victims, to their pre-disaster status. When they are moved from the mass shelters
they will again be homeless. Reliance upon only this approach, following Hurricane
Katrina, would have meant that these individuals and households were solely
dependent upon the local government and the existing social service structure in the
area that had hosted their evacuation.82 But given the help from the KDHAP-SN
program, the local hosts had some resources to call upon to meet the special needs
of this population.83
Should the fact of being in a disaster area improve someone’s circumstances?
Perhaps not, but the government also can consider the results it wishes to see from
its investment in such an event. If FEMA temporary housing assistance is not
available under current regulations for previously homeless families and individuals,
then the KDHAP-SN program can be a model in the post-disaster environment for
limited service for a known population with identified needs.
FEMA had faced similar problems in the past with distinctly different
responses and results (see Appendix B of this report). The issue before Congress is
whether federal disaster policy should essentially return victims to their pre-disaster
conditions or whether the disaster recover process should facilitate an improvement
in conditions, or at least a continuation of previous aid, such as the HUD program in
the wake of Katrina.
The Road Home. The “Road Home” program in Louisiana is seeking to
merge Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding and FEMA Section
82 “Post-Katrina Issue,” Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., at
[http://www.cliniclegal.org/Katrina/Newsletters/Jun012006newsletter10.pdf] viewed March
21, 2007.
83 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Notice PIH 2006-12, at
[http://www.hud.gov/offices/pih/publications/notices/06/pih 2006-12.pdf], viewed June 2,
2007.
CRS-23
404 hazard mitigation grant funds and other funding sources to re-establish
communities. This is the large program to rebuild and replace and help compensate
homeowners and encourage their return. Follow-up studies and the data from this
program may provide important information on how, or if, Stafford Act assistance
contributed to the eventual reconstruction of communities on the “road home.”
FEMA has raised objections that the “Road Home” program may not be
following the “statutory direction” of the Stafford Act. The prime “statutory
direction” FEMA is referencing is the use of Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(Section 404) funds within the “Road Home” to assure safer and more disaster
resistant housing. Section 404 is the section within the Stafford Act that authorizes
mitigation assistance. Mitigation projects are the projects that provide protection
from natural hazards and help to reduce damage from future disaster events. Given
the rebuilding going on in the disaster area, FEMA’s emphasis on stressing the
hazard preventive nature of these funds appears to reflect the intent of Section 404.
What is unclear in the dispute is the degree of collaboration between FEMA and the
State of Louisiana to ensure that the repair or replacement of homes under the “Road
Home” are incorporating mitigation measures to build back safer and reducing future
risk.
Another source of the dispute is that the state has been seeking federal
funding commensurate with the number of homes destroyed or with major damage.
The federal government has responded that the help was intended only for flooding
victims and not for homeowners who lost their homes due to hurricane force winds.84
Some may contend that rather than using Section 404 funding for eligible mitigation
purposes, state officials hope to use the money to reach an anticipated level of
funding in order to help applicants return home.
Mortgage and Rental Assistance. Congress might elect to give
attention, in the reviews of the recovery phase of Katrina, to how mortgages were
handled. Various lenders suspended payment schedules or made other allowances
that permitted homeowners to hold on to their homes while still being able to fund
their own interim housing needs. For example, a report by the Government
Accountability Office (GAO) noted that:
HUD’s Federal Housing Administration (FHA) also issued a 90-day
moratorium on foreclosures for all FHA-insured loans on properties located
in areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. HUD subsequently
extended the moratorium on foreclosures twice for areas eligible for
FEMA’s Individual Assistance, because it found that due to the magnitude
of storm damage, lenders and borrowers may still need additional time to
develop and finalize plans for home repairs and resumption of mortgage
payments.85
84 Bruce Alpert, “Road Home rescue unlikely, Powell says,” Times-Picayune, May 25, 2007,
a t [ h t t p : / / w w w . n o l a . c o m / n e w s / t - p / f r o n t p a g e / i n d e x . s s f ? / b a s e / n e w s -
8/1180078623155350.xml&cloo=1& thispage=3], visited June 2, 2007.
85 Government Accountability Office, Catastrophic Disasters - Enhanced Leadership,
Capabilities, and Accountability Controls Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation’s
(continued...)
CRS-24
The initiatives of Fannie Mae were another example of special steps taken in
the aftermath of Katrina were. As a Fannie Mae official explained:
To address the potential for “sticker shock” down the road when
homeowners began to make up missed payments we authorized loan
servicers to modify loan terms and develop repayment plans. We placed
a one-year moratorium on all foreclosures in the most damaged areas.
Once that moratorium expired we continued to work through our lender
partners to give individual homeowners time to pursue insurance and
government assistance and make critical decisions about rebuilding and
relocating. Also we asked credit agencies not to report mortgage payment
delinquencies.86
Congress could opt to evaluate the FHA and Fannie Mae actions. The
Section 408(b) Mortgage and Rental Assistance (MRA) program of the Stafford Act,
as amended in 1974, was not included in the Section 408 amendments in DMA2K
that took effect following the World Trade Center disaster. The MRA program
helped victims maintain their mortgages and rents until they could return to the area
and their dwellings. FEMA, however, concluded that it was too cumbersome
administratively to “1) define the victim ...2) determine the extent of the applicant’s
inability to pay ... 3) ... verify losses of income and late payments and ... 4) determine
the appropriate period for the provision of MRA assistance.”87 Congress apparently
agreed, and struck the MRA authority from the Stafford Act. Thus, MRA was not
available from FEMA for Hurricane Katrina victims.
Katrina Cottages. The “Katrina Cottages” program grew out of the
architectural suggestions that were a part of the creative response to this catastrophic
event. “Katrina Cottages” now serves as a generic term for alternative housing that
provides more living area, a more attractive physical appearance and the capacity to
withstand hurricane force winds. The “Katrina Cottages” generated so much interest
that Congress authorized a trial program to evaluate different versions of these
dwellings in different settings across the Gulf Coast.
The “cottages” may eventually be considered an alternative to FEMA’s
current use of manufactured housing. The changes in P.L.109-295, specifically the
references in the post-Katrina Act to “semi-permanent” housing, arguably authorize
the use of such cottages. The awards for this $400 million pilot program have been
made amidst some controversy regarding the selection process.88 A report by the
DHS Inspector General observed that “As a consequence of FEMA decisions, the
communities hardest hit by the 2005 hurricanes did not receive proportional shares
85 (...continued)
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System, GAO-06-618, September 6, 2006.
86 Interview with Fannie Mae staff, May 3, 2007.
87 U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Mortgage and Rental Assistance,” by
Mike Hirsch, formerly with the Office of General Counsel, May, 2003.
88 Bill Barrow, “State Officials Furious Over FEMA Grants,” Times Picayune, at [http://
www.nolarises.com/modules.php?name=article&sid=2427], visited February 26, 2007.
CRS-25
of the $400 million appropriated for the program.”89 As this pilot program progresses
it may warrant additional study to assess its impact and whether it lends itself to
replication in varied disaster settings.
Legislative Options
Catastrophic Tier. A catastrophic tier for disaster relief, in housing and other
elements of the recovery process, is a policy area that Congress might wish to address. The
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina illustrated the challenge of implementing Stafford Act
programs on a large, national scale. Programs that work effectively in a multi-county area of
one state or two can be overwhelmed by a multi-state catastrophic event that poses problems
not previously addressed.
The catastrophic disaster tier could be triggered by the number of potential applicants
or evacuees, estimated damage (including a large per capita amount), or disruptions to
continuity of government. Other factors could include widespread, nationwide dispersal of
population, questions regarding the viability of the affected areas to allow residents to return,
the span of the geographical area affected, destruction to centers of employment, the time
residents might be forced to be away from their homes, and similar elements.
Any catastrophic tier could arguably be tied to a high threshold not easily reached in
lesser events. The rhetorical argument often broached is that every disaster, regardless of size,
is a catastrophic event for the individuals and families involved. While this argument would
be difficult to sustain, some might attempt to do so. Some states may point to their own
limitations (legal and budgetary) as an argument for waivers of cost-shares and regulations
in non-catastrophic events. The Stafford Act already provides the President with the
discretionary authority to make judgments on when an event is beyond the capabilities of the
state and local governments.90 But while that discretion is provided for an initial disaster
declaration, additional guidance might be desirable to establish criteria for a separate tier for
catastrophic events. The following are some of the policy areas that could receive attention
with regard to disaster housing after “worst case” events occur..
Catastrophic Housing. A catastrophic event could have an automatic three-to-six
month FEMA Section 403 sheltering/housing program for all disaster victims, with FEMA
Section 408 assistance commencing for all eligible applicants at the same date and time when
the system is ready to absorb the large numbers. The time-span of such a sheltering/housing
program could be shifted to nine or 12 months, depending on the federal and state
governments’ ability to make contact with victims and provide them resources for alternative
forms of housing. This would help to address equity concerns.
Congress could opt to amend the Stafford Act or the pertinent HUD authorities to have
the catastrophic tier trigger a special six-to-18 month voucher program administered by HUD
(preferably for this discrete purpose and not impinging on HUD Section 8) for disaster
victims. This would not be an inexpensive alternative, since it would likely be in addition to
89 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, 016-07-39,
“Evaluation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Alternative Housing Pilot
Program,” p. 4.
90 42 U.S.C. §5170.
CRS-26
current Section 8 vouchers and not supplanting those vouchers. Past experience, however,
also indicates that it is difficult to impose such a time cap on housing vouchers.91
But the same concerns with costs exist regarding current FEMA temporary housing
practices. The FEMA temporary housing program has been extended for long periods, and
the cost of setting up manufactured housing sites is expensive and complicated for local
governments.
The HUD approach has the benefit of tapping existing resources (local public housing
authorities) that can provide case management or other services and also linking some victims
with longer-term housing aid that they may require. This latter linkage is also something that,
arguably FEMA and HUD should consider for all major disaster declarations that result in
long-term housing challenges. Some may contend, however, that disaster housing is best
administered by FEMA officials, not individuals concerned with “long term” or permanent
housing.
Another factor that might be considered as Congress weighs this issue is whether
people unfortunate enough to be within an area declared a major disaster by the President are
then entitled to more housing assistance than ordinary citizens who have been waiting for
similar help for an extended period of time. This is another side of the equity question raised
earlier. The voucher approach raises this question of fairness, given the long waiting list for
HUD vouchers in most communities.
Incentives for Communities. The Katrina experience arguably illustrates that
FEMA (or HUD) needs specific language, with an explicit definition of community housing,
to provide or augment the basic support services that communities require when hosting a
temporary housing group site. On the other hand, Congress could consider a definition that
specifically prohibits such inducements. As the earlier discussion on “Location” shows, very
little assistance is offered to a community willing to absorb a significant number of disaster
victims. While debate may ensue on which option is the better policy, there is arguably little
debate that clarification of the issue would eliminate future confusion and would speed
actions during the post-disaster period.
FEMA Group Site Management Services. The required contributions by either
FEMA or the state to the quality of the temporary housing group sites could be more explicitly
stated in the law to make a clear delineation of responsibility for the provision of such
supportive services. One difficulty in such an approach is that often the affected governments
are victims themselves in the early stages of disaster recovery when these large sites are being
established. For that reason, the provision could be flexible and provide FEMA the discretion
to approach this problem on a case-by-case basis. Also, if the assumption is that non-profits
and charitable groups can provide such support, then disaster housing polices and processes
could encourage this help.
MRA Restoration. An examination of the Katrina experience may arguably suggest
whether the Mortgage and Rental Assistance (MRA) program was a missing component in
the menu of available help for disaster victims in this event. The FHA and Fannie Mae
91 For more information, see CRS Report RL33173, Hurricane Katrina: Questions
Regarding the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program, by Maggie McCarty.
CRS-27
examples point to the possible alternatives that would make the MRA provisions unnecessary.
However, these ad hoc responses were triggered by a major catastrophic event. It is unclear
if similar actions can be presumed for other presidentially declared disasters on a smaller
scale. If the program is restored, it could be run cooperatively with FEMA by another
department or agency with expertise in this area, similar to the Department of Health and
Human Services involvement with the Crisis Counseling program or the Department of
Labor’s management of the Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) program.
Regulatory Waivers. Congress could opt to provide for automatic waivers
following a catastrophic event. Such waivers of current regulations could accelerate early
response work and the eventual recovery operations. This could involve automatic waivers
or streamlining of regulations regarding debris removal (on both public and private property),
environmental and historic preservation, and the waiver of cost-share commitments by
affected state governments.
Some of these waivers are currently employed during disasters by FEMA on an ad hoc
basis using its authority from the Stafford Act to waive certain administrative conditions. 92
The authority is used sparingly by FEMA. While this process can be accelerated, it could be
expedited if automatically triggered by a catastrophic event. Also, the sooner regulatory
waivers are decided, the faster recovery activity can advance.
Cost-Share Waivers. Currently, Stafford Act Sections 406 and 407 of Public
Assistance (infrastructure repair and debris removal), can be adjusted from a 75% federal and
25% state and local cost share to a 90/10 cost-share for large-impact disasters. These large
disasters are defined as a per capita cost of over $117 per state resident as of FY2007. 93
Often, debris removal costs are waived for the opening days of a disaster, generally for a 72
hour period chosen by the state. For Katrina, the debris removal costs were waived
indefinitely.
Congress might explore the implications of allowing Other Needs Assistance (ONA)
within Section 408 (and cost-shared by statute at 75/25) to be provided at the same 90/10
percentage. Congress might also consider making ONA 100% federal assistance when the
actual spending for essential assistance involves many states outside those affected by the
event. Congress recently passed legislation, signed into law by President Bush, which
accomplishes this waiver for the Katrina disaster.94 While such considerations are acute for
a catastrophic disaster, they arguably should also be considered for non-catastrophic disaster
events.
Another possibility would be that since ONA spending is done in conjunction with the
state, the affected states and FEMA regions would continue to compile a list of eligible items
and costs that might be reimbursed through a block-grant program administered by the state.
The responsibility of administering the program could then become the state contribution,
assuming the state has retained the capacity to manage it after a significant disaster event.
This alternative would be applicable in non-catastrophic events, too.
92 42 U.S.C. § 5141.
93 44 C.F.R. § 206.47.
94 P.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 156.
CRS-28
A cost-share serves not only as a necessary legal contribution from the state; the
investment it represents may also result in more discerning judgment and may contribute to
the quality and quantity of projects submitted for supplemental help. The difficult challenge,
under a generous cost-share, is to retain that leverage or incentive for the responsible selection
and prioritization of projects by the state to ensure that federal objectives are achieved.
Administrative Responsibility. Another policy question is which federal agency
should be primarily responsible for catastrophic disaster housing. Should HUD run the longer
housing/sheltering program through state and local housing authorities and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) since it has experience with voucher programs and ongoing
relationships with those same metropolitan housing authorities and related NGOs? While
such an approach makes sense for large events spread out over many states and localities,
some may contend that using the same approach on smaller disasters may be problematic. In
those instances, the management of housing resources would be falling on the locality with
the fewest resources and to the entity (a unit of local government) that may, itself, be a
disaster victim. Alternatively, HUD does have the capacity to call on its relationships with
PHAs around the country to assist with unmet needs so a transition to HUD for the housing
mission may be the most sensible approach.
On April 26, 2007, the Administration announced a plan in which FEMA and HUD
would collaborate to provide housing to Katrina victims for an additional 18 months beyond
the current August 2007 deadline.95 This, coupled with previous Katrina experience, may
provide a test case for the efficacy of this approach.
Concluding Observations
The housing strategy employed following Hurricane Katrina was driven by size, time
and circumstance. While some decisions were forced by immediate needs, others were
choices made by FEMA, DHS, and the Administration. Still other decisions were driven by
choices not made, avenues not explored, perhaps due to caution, or decisions postponed,
which became tantamount to decisions themselves. Since the Administration did not request
expanded authorities, the traditional FEMA housing programs for much smaller disasters
became the default action plan of the federal government for the largest natural disaster event
in U.S. history. It can be argued that parts of this plan worked very well, such as the rental
housing provided by hosting states. However, other parts, such as the dependence on mobile
homes and travel trailers, appear not as suitable to either the magnitude or location of this
catastrophic event.
What should disaster temporary housing be? Is it mainly a home-repair option or a
rental-assistance option (either with cash assistance or a voucher), or should manufactured
housing be presented as the only option? FEMA itself has had a shifting emphasis over the
years, much of it driven by the nature and location of individual large disasters, which in turn
has moved its policies and vehicles for providing temporary housing on a large scale. That
shifting emphasis is reflected in the temporary housing response to Katrina. A more definitive
95 Libby George, “Lawmakers Applaud White House Plan on Long-Term Housing Aid,” CQ
H o m e l a n d S e c u r i t y , A p r i l 2 6 , 2 0 0 7 , a t [ h t t p :
homeland.cq.com/hs/display.do?docid=2499045&sourcetype=6&binderName=news-all],
visited April 27, 2007.
CRS-29
approach might be helpful to FEMA, its state partners, and the disaster victims; flexibility,
however, might also be needed.
Despite the very real problems encountered by victims, their communities and their
host communities, thousands of families and individuals have received a significant amount
of supplemental aid from the government for housing. At present, the amount of funding
spent on housing (both rental assistance and manufactured housing) for the Gulf Coast
hurricane season of 2005 stands at over $10 billion.96 FEMA and other staff at federal, state,
local, and voluntary agencies struggled to address an unprecedented event. There have been
many challenges along the way, perhaps most importantly, the difficulty in communicating
complicated housing policy decisions to a vast and dispersed population.
Many of the staff involved, both in the governmental and non-governmental sectors,
at all levels, provided assistance through the temporary housing programs and administrative
channels that existed. Those programs were severely challenged by a disaster of
unprecedented size, compounded by unique problems of devastation and mass evacuations.
New partnerships were established and federal resources were generously invoked, if not
always judiciously employed. Programs that can work well for a “garden variety” disaster
may not be appropriate for a catastrophic event. Assumptions based on the average can be
overwhelmed by the exceptional. For an event such as Katrina, new approaches were
apparently considered but rejected in favor of the familiar. This is understandable given the
propensity to avoid establishing precedent based on an outlier event, and the body of law and
regulations and policies supporting current housing practices. However, effective leadership,
and carefully drawn legislation, can help to distinguish between the extraordinary and the
common events and respond in the national interest.
Even now, more than 23 months after Katrina’s landfall, Congress continues to debate
long-term recovery roles among federal agencies and state governments that are at once as
uncertain as they are consequential. Congress could opt to consider the lessons of this disaster
in terms not only of program adjustments and corrections, but also the appropriate
governmental role throughout the recovery process for any possible future events of this
magnitude.
96 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, Congressional Monthly Report, May 4, 2007, p. 10.
CRS-30
Appendix A - HUD and Other Federal Housing Resources
While FEMA has the principal responsibility for temporary housing following a
Presidentially declared disaster, the Department of Housing and Urban Development and
other federal departments and agencies also played a prominent role in the post-Katrina
housing mission. Information about the involvement of HUD and other federal partners in
providing housing aid; along with the size and extent of their mission in the disaster housing
arena, follows.
KDHAP and HUD Assistance. – This was the Katrina Disaster Housing
Assistance Program paid for by FEMA (from the Disaster Relief Fund) but managed by HUD
through an inter-agency agreement. Under this program, HUD assisted those citizens who had
previously received HUD housing assistance at the time of the disaster. The cooperation
between FEMA and HUD has been inconsistent throughout the process. As a result, Congress
eventually transferred the funding to HUD for this purpose. It was at this point that HUD
renamed the program the Disaster Voucher Program (DVP replacing KDHAP). Regardless
of the acronym employed, the HUD-assisted program appears to have reached its targeted
population.97 Further cooperation and information sharing between FEMA and HUD (and
other federal agencies) might contribute to applicants being aware of all housing options and
also lessen each program’s susceptibility to fraud.
There have been frequent references to HUD Section 8 housing vouchers as a solution
for the Katrina evacuees. The response to the Northridge earthquake in 2004 is usually listed
as a prime example of the efficiency of this approach.98 FEMA provided over $140 million
in immediate housing help in the form of funds for applicants to rent alternative living spaces
(three months to homeowners and two months to renters) to more than 47,000 households.99
Our consideration is whether such vouchers should be limited as disaster housing assistance
is (generally 18 months), or if they should continue to be renewed in the manner of regular
Section 8 vouchers.
For the Katrina disaster, unlike some other disasters, HUD’s help was focused on
assisting its own population of clients that had been displaced by the disaster. As noted
earlier, the Disaster Voucher Program is the successor to KDHAP (though, unlike KDHAP
it also provides help to Hurricane Rita victims, explaining the more generic title) and helps
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita victims maintain housing over a longer term. The DVP vouchers
are administered by local Public Housing Authorities (PHAs), which were granted a degree
of discretion in their use and in defining the coverage of expenses. Congress provided $390
97 For more information, see CRS Report RS22358, The Role of HUD Housing Programs
in Response to Hurricane Katrina, by Maggie McCarty, Libby Perl, Bruce Foote, and
Eugene Boyd.
98 Bruce Katz, The Diane Rehm Show, October 5, 2005, at [http: [http://www.
brookings.edu/views/interview/20051005_katz.htm]], visited May 11, 2207.
99 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Report - Disaster Assistance - Guidance
Needed for FEMA’s Fast Track Housing Assistance Process, October, 1997, at
[http://www.goa.gov/archive/1998/rc98001.pdf], visited January 24, 2007.
CRS-31
million for this program; it is projected to conclude on September 30, 2007.100 Given the
announcement on April 26, 2007, of a proposed extension of FEMA housing help and a
transfer to HUD, these dates may be adjusted depending on the reaction of Congress to that
plan.
In addition to its other programs, HUD, along with other federal entities, provided
housing assistance in the form of their own inventories of housing stock. In addition to HUD,
other federal entities providing available housing included the Department of Agriculture,
the Department of Veterans Affairs, and Fannie Mae. This assistance was also provided
through inter-agency agreements. Some of the houses made available were immediately
helpful, while others were in areas too remote to benefit the disaster victims. That is a central
consideration when assessing housing resources for disaster victims interested in being close
to home or at least close to new employment and educational opportunities. FEMA has been
tasked by P.L. 109-295 to convene a group to devise a National Housing Strategy. This will
include HUD and the other federal players, as well as other parties with experience in the
disaster housing arena.101
While chartered by Congress, the Federal National Mortgage Associations (Fannie
Mae) is a private, shareholder-owned company. Given that special status102 and a mission to
increase the prospect of home ownership for low and moderate income families, Fannie Mae’s
contributions following Katrina have been significant. The company made some of its
properties available for rent-leasing for up to 18 months for Katrina victims. In all, Fannie
Mae provided
1,500 single-family properties from its inventory of Real Estate Owned (REO) for
temporary housing for individuals and families displaced by hurricane Katrina.
Nearly 4,600 evacuees have been provided temporary housing at no cost through the
company’s initiative. ... Today, Katrina evacuees are living rent-free in Fannie Mae-
owned properties in 20 different states. ...[Fannie Mae] is also making $15,000
available for down payment and closing cost assistance for qualified evacuee
families who wish to purchase any Fannie Mae-owned home any time during their
rent-free lease period. To date, 80 families have taken advantage of the assistance
and purchased the Fannie Mae-owned properties.103
100 For more information, see CRS Report RL33173, Hurricane Katrina: Questions
Regarding the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program, by Maggie McCarty.
101 120 Stat. 1446.
102 For a discussion of the “quasi-governmental” organizations, see CRS Report RL30533,
The Quasi-Government: Hybrid Organizations with Both Government and Private Sector
Legal Characteristics, by Kevin R. Kosar.
1 0 3 F a n n i e M a e N e w s R e l e a s e , M a y 3 , 2 0 0 7 , a t
[http://www.fanniemae.com/newsreleases/2007/3996.jhtml?p=Media&s=News+Releases],
visited May 19, 2007.
CRS-32
Appendix B - Victims Without Homes: The Loma Prieta
Earthquake and Hurricane Andrew
Loma Prieta Earthquake. Following the Loma Prieta earthquake in the autumn of
1989, FEMA administered a large temporary housing program. FEMA asked for proof of
residency before providing assistance and required that an applicant live at least 30 days at
one address to be eligible for assistance. Due to the unique nature of the Bay Area’s low
income population, many of the applicants had lived in Single Residency Occupancy (SROs)
apartments that were similar to YMCAs. Due to the force of the earthquake, approximately
2,200 of these rooms had been lost. Often times the applicants had stayed in these rooms for
fewer than 30 consecutive days. For this reason, FEMA judged them to be ineligible for
temporary housing assistance.
The Legal Aid Society of Alameda County sued FEMA over its interpretation of
eligibility and prevailed in court. The plaintiffs realized that temporary housing, as defined
under Section 408, would not help the applicants because they no longer had SRO rooms
available to them. They also realized that the private property owners of the buildings might
not be interested in remaining in the SRO business. Instead the settlement was for financial
resources to help restore that part of the housing stock. The eventual settlement was for
$23 million to fund 2,200 SRO units. The settlement sum was arrived at by
multiplying the number of SRO units lost by a unit cost of about $10,500. The
flexibility of the final settlement was ideal from the point of view of the local
agencies, because the funds were provided in a block grant fashion to the counties
and as such allowed them the freedom to decide how to put the money to best use,
with very few restrictions. Overall, 1,200 to 1,500 units were actually rebuilt using
lawsuit funds.104
Since FEMA funds could not be provided to private developers, the local governments
arranged for the sale of the buildings to non-profit groups, sometimes using Community
Development Block Grant funds to complete the projects.105
104 Mary C. Comerio, Housing Repair and Reconstruction After Loma Prieta, at
[http://nisee.berkeley.edu/loma-prieta/comerio.html], visited March 21, 2007.
105 Ibid.
CRS-33
Hurricane Andrew. In the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in 1992, FEMA had a
very large temporary housing program in south Florida. Here, too, many people in the area
when the hurricane struck were judged not to be eligible for FEMA temporary housing
assistance because they could not prove previous residency through rental agreements.
However, in this instance FEMA found a way to work with the local community and
contribute to the solutions.
The [Dade]County Manager’s Office of Homelessness working “in
conjunction with Catholic Community Services first attacked the
homeless family problem by establishing a tent city. This
comprehensive approach included day care, job counseling, and
mental health assistance. Unfortunately, the tent city proved too
vulnerable to bad weather and had to be closed. Subsequently,
through a coalition of homeless providers and the County, a plan for
expanding shelter bed availability was approved. Local agencies
involved in hurricane response have received FEMA funds to
continue their expanded services and to initiate new projects to
address post-Andrew needs.”106
106 Gigi Laudisio, “Disaster Aftermath: Redefining Response– Hurricane Andrew’s Impact
On I&R Switchboard of Miami, Florida,” at [http://www.airs.org/documents/AIRS-
Hurricane Andrew.doc], visited March 21, 2007.