United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

DISASTER RELIEF

Governmentwide 

Framework Needed to 

Collect and 

Consolidate 

Information to Report 

on Billions in Federal 

Funding for the 2005 

Gulf Coast Hurricanes 

September 2006 

 

GAO-06-834 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

September 2006

DISASTER RELIEF

Governmentwide Framework Needed to 

Collect and Consolidate Information to 

Report on Billions in Federal Funding for 

the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes 

Highlights of GAO-06-834, a report to 

congressional committees 

Hurricane Katrina devastated the

Gulf Coast region of the United

States and caused billions of 

dollars in damage. Hurricanes Rita

and Wilma further exacerbated 

damage to the region. The Federal 

Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), within the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS), was 

tasked with the primary role of 

managing the federal relief and 

recovery efforts. This review was 

performed under the Comptroller

General’s authority because of

widespread congressional interest

in the response to this disaster. 

GAO examined whether the federal 

government was adequately

tracking and reporting on the use 

of the funding provided in the four 

emergency supplemental

appropriations acts enacted as of

June 2006. GAO analyzed the 

emergency supplemental

appropriations acts and conference 

reports, reviewed FEMA’s required

weekly reports, and interviewed

federal agency officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes four recommendations

to DHS to improve the information 

on the status of hurricane relief 

funds provided in FEMA’s weekly 

reports. GAO also recommends 

that the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) take action to 

improve transparency and

accountability regarding the status 

of hurricane-related funding at the 

governmentwide level. DHS and 

OMB concurred with the 

recommendations. 

FEMA’s required weekly reports to the Appropriations Committees on the 

use of funds it received do not provide timely information from a 

governmentwide perspective because FEMA does not have a mechanism to 

report on the financial activity of the agencies performing work on its behalf.

Specifically, when FEMA tasks another federal agency through a mission 

assignment, FEMA records the entire amount upfront as an obligation, 

whereas the performing agency does not record an obligation until a later 

date, thereby overstating reported governmentwide obligations. The 

opposite is true for expenditures. The performing agency expends the funds, 

but then bills FEMA for reimbursement. FEMA does not record the 

expenditure until it has received the bill and reviewed it, thereby 

understating reported governmentwide expenditures. As a result, while 

FEMA is reporting as required, from a governmentwide perspective, FEMA’s 

reported obligations are overstated and expenditures are understated. 

The federal government also does not have a governmentwide framework or 

mechanisms in place to collect and consolidate information from the 

individual federal agencies that received emergency supplemental 

appropriations for hurricane relief and recovery efforts and report on this 

information. About $88 billion has been appropriated to 23 different federal 

agencies through four emergency supplemental appropriations acts (see 

figure below); however, no one agency or central collection point exists to 

compile and report on how these funds are being spent. Decision makers 

need this consolidated information to determine how much federal funding 

has been spent and by whom, whether more may be needed, or whether too 

much has been provided. The ability to separately track and report on these 

funds is important to help ensure better accountability and clearly identify 

the status of funding provided in direct response to these hurricanes at both 

the individual federal agency level as well as the governmentwide level. Also, 

it is important to provide additional transparency so that hurricane victims,

affected states, as well as American taxpayers, know how these funds are 

being spent. 

Funding Received by Federal Agencies in Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Acts 

(Dollars in billions)

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-834.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact McCoy 

Williams at (202) 512-9095 or 

williamsm1@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 4

Background 6

The Government Does Not Have a Framework in Place to Collect 

and Consolidate Information to Report on Hurricane-Related 

Funding 11

Conclusions 20

Recommendations for Executive Action 21 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 21 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 24 

Appendix II Reporting Requirements Included in the Four 

Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Acts 26 

Appendix III Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 29 

Appendix IV Comments from the Office of Management and 

Budget 31 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 32 

Tables 

Table 1: Emergency Supplemental Funding Received by Federal 

Agencies in the Four Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Acts as of June 2006 Related to Gulf Coast 

Hurricanes 7

Table 2: Mission Assignment Obligations and Expenditures 

Reported by FEMA for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma, as of March 29, 2006 12 

Page i GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Figure 

Figure 1: Funding and Reimbursement Process Related to FEMA 

Issuing Mission Assignments to Performing Agencies 10 

Abbreviations 

COE Army Corps of Engineers 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOD Department of Defense 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development 

IPAC Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection 

NRP National Response Plan 

OMB Office of Management and Budget

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

September 6, 2006 

Congressional Committees 

Hurricane Katrina struck the Gulf Coast of the United States on 

August 29, 2005. It devastated the region and caused billions of dollars in 

damage. The hurricane affected about 1.5 million people located within 

approximately 90,000 square miles spanning Louisiana, Mississippi, and 

Alabama, and was the worst natural disaster in our nation’s history in 

geographic scope, extent and severity of destruction and damage, and the

number of persons displaced from their homes. Shortly after Hurricane 

Katrina made landfall, Hurricanes Rita and Wilma followed, further 

exacerbating damage to the Gulf Coast region. In response to these events, 

the Congress has provided nearly $88 billion for relief and recovery 

through four emergency supplemental appropriations acts through the end 

of June 2006.1

As part of its mission under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act),2

 as reflected in the National 

Response Plan (NRP),3

 the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), was tasked 

with the primary role of managing the federal relief and recovery efforts 

within the affected region. The first emergency supplemental 

appropriation act was enacted 4 days after Hurricane Katrina struck the 

Gulf Coast and provided over $10 billion. The second emergency 

supplemental appropriation act was enacted 6 days after the first 

 1

Pub. L. No. 109-61, 119 Stat. 1988 (Sept. 2, 2005); Pub. L. No. 109-62, 119 Stat. 1990 

(Sept. 8, 2005); Pub. L. No. 109-148, div. B, 119 Stat. 2680, 2745 (Dec. 30, 2005); and Pub. L. 

No. 109-234, title II, 120 Stat. 443, 474 (June 15, 2006). Other funding has been provided, but 

it was not included in the emergency supplemental appropriations. 

2

42 U.S.C. §§ 5121-5206. The Stafford Act authorizes federal agencies to take actions such 

as disaster response, recovery, and mitigation assistance to supplement state and local 

efforts once the President has issued a major disaster declaration. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA), within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), is 

responsible for administering the major provisions of the Stafford Act. 

3

The NRP is intended to be an all-discipline, all-hazards plan that establishes a single,

comprehensive framework for the management of domestic incidents. It provides the 

structure and mechanisms for the coordination of federal support to state, local, and tribal 

incident managers and for exercising direct federal authorities and responsibilities. 

Page 1 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
emergency supplemental appropriation act and provided significantly 

more funding—$50 billion—to FEMA for its Disaster Relief Fund and 

required the Secretary of Homeland Security to provide weekly reports4

 to 

the Committees on Appropriations detailing the allocation and obligation 

of these amounts. The Congress later called for FEMA to also report on 

expenditures over $50 million, among other information. 

In creating these reporting requirements, the Congress sent a clear 

message that it wanted to know how these funds were being spent and 

have updated information on a weekly basis. These reports are publicly 

available and at the time of this report were being posted to the House 

Committee on Appropriations website.5

 In December 2005, when the 

Congress rescinded $23.4 billion from FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund, FEMA 

had obligated about $25 billion, or 42 percent, of the $60 billion it received

in the first two emergency supplemental appropriations. With this 

rescission, the Congress distributed the funds as direct appropriations to 

other federal agencies. As of June 2006, approximately $88 billion has been 

provided to 23 federal agencies6

 for the relief work through four 

emergency supplemental appropriations acts. 

We currently have a large body of ongoing work to address preparation, 

response, recovery, and rebuilding efforts related to the hurricanes that 

devastated the Gulf Coast region. Due to widespread congressional 

interest in these subjects, our work is being completed under the 

Comptroller General’s authority to conduct evaluations on his own 

initiative. Topics of reports already issued include (1) contract

management; (2) accounting for international assistance; (3) the adequacy

of internal controls to prevent fraud and abuse; and (4) the military’s 

 4

FEMA prepares these weekly reports and forwards them to DHS for transmittal. For 

purposes of this report, we consider this to be a reporting requirement for FEMA. 

5

FEMA’s weekly reports were posted on the House Appropriations Committee’s website at 

http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/HurricaneKatrinaLink.htm (downloaded 

May 25, 2006). 

6

For purposes of this report, we are considering the Department of Agriculture and the U.S.

Forest Service two separate agencies because the Forest Service received a large portion of 

the mission assignments for the Department of Agriculture. We are also considering the

Department of Defense (DOD) and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) two separate

agencies because of the large portion of the total mission assignments they each received 

as well as the fact that COE does not use the Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection 

(IPAC) system. In addition, for purposes of this report, we are considering FEMA’s Disaster 

Relief Fund separate from other DHS appropriations because of the specific function of the 

Disaster Relief Fund for Stafford Act activities. 

Page 2 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
response to catastrophic natural disasters.7

 We are sending you this report 

on the tracking of hurricane relief funding because of your interest in and

responsibility for oversight of matters related to the hurricane relief and 

recovery efforts. Our work focused on the funds designated for hurricane 

relief and recovery in the four emergency supplemental appropriations 

acts enacted as of June 2006. Our objective was to determine whether the 

federal government was adequately tracking and reporting on the use of 

this funding. To accomplish this objective, we reviewed the four 

emergency supplemental acts to determine which federal agencies were 

receiving appropriations, how much each was receiving, what the funds 

were intended for, and whether any reporting requirements were 

specified. Because the second supplemental, which provided $50 billion to

FEMA, required FEMA to report to the Committees on Appropriations on 

a weekly basis on the use of these funds,8

 we reviewed FEMA’s weekly 

reports to determine whether the information provided was timely and 

useful. We limited our review of these reports to certain aspects of them 

that have governmentwide implications. Specifically, our review of 

FEMA’s weekly reports focused on the obligations and expenditures 

reported for mission assignments9

 that were issued to agencies performing 

disaster relief work related to the Gulf Coast hurricanes on behalf of 

FEMA. The obligation and expenditure information we present in this 

report was obtained from FEMA and certain other federal agencies. To 

assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed officials knowledgeable 

about the data included in the reports and what the data represented, and

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. Additional details on our scope and methodology are presented in

 7

See GAO, Agency Management of Contractors Responding to Hurricanes Katrina and

Rita, GAO-06-461R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2006); GAO, Hurricane Katrina:

Comprehensive Policies and Procedures Are Needed to Ensure Appropriate Use of and

Accountability for International Assistance, GAO-06-460 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 2006); 

GAO, Expedited Assistance for Victims of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: FEMA’s Control 

Weaknesses Exposed the Government to Significant Fraud and Abuse, GAO-06-655 

(Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2006); and GAO, Hurricane Katrina: Better Plans and

Exercises Needed to Guide the Military’s Response to Catastrophic Natural Disasters, 

GAO-06-643 (Washington, D.C.: May 15, 2006). 

8

Pub. L. No. 109-62, 119 Stat. 1990, 1991-1992 (Sept. 8, 2005). The act required the Secretary

of Homeland Security to provide, at a minimum, a weekly report detailing the allocation 

and obligation of appropriations made under the act. 

9

A mission assignment is a tasking issued by FEMA, directing other federal agencies and 

components of DHS, or “performing agencies,” to perform work on its behalf to respond to

a Stafford Act event under the NRP. 

Page 3 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
appendix I. We conducted our work from October 2005 through June 2006 

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

The federal government is not adequately tracking and reporting, on a

governmentwide basis, on the use of the $88 billion in hurricane relief and 

recovery funds provided thus far to 23 federal agencies in the four 

emergency supplemental appropriations acts. FEMA, which initially 

received $60 billion for hurricane relief, is required to report weekly to the 

House and Senate Appropriations Committees on the use of funds it 

received; however, these reports do not provide timely information from a 

governmentwide perspective because FEMA does not have a mechanism 

in place to report on the financial activity of the agencies performing work 

on its behalf through mission assignments. Specifically, when FEMA tasks 

another federal agency through a mission assignment, which is similar to 

an interagency agreement to provide goods and services, FEMA records 

the entire amount upfront as an obligation in its accounting system and 

reports these amounts to the Congress; whereas the agency performing 

the task for FEMA does not record an obligation until a later date, thereby 

overstating reported governmentwide obligations. For example, FEMA 

initially reported mission assignment obligations issued to the Department 

of Defense (DOD) related to Hurricane Katrina in the amount of about 

$2.2 billion. While this amount was eventually reduced to about 

$1.1 billion, DOD had only actually incurred about $481 million in 

obligations over the same period of time. In addition, based on information 

provided by the Coast Guard, FEMA had recorded obligations of nearly 

$192 million as of April 2006; however, at that time the Coast Guard had 

only actually incurred about $85 million in obligations. 

Results in Brief 

The opposite is true for expenditures. The performing agency expends the 

funds, but then has to bill FEMA for reimbursement. This may happen 

months after the actual payment is made by the performing agency. FEMA 

does not include the expenditure in its reports to the Congress until it has 

received the bill from the performing agency, reviewed it, and recorded 

the expenditure in its accounting system, thereby understating reported 

governmentwide expenditures. For example, the U.S. Forest Service had 

not billed FEMA for any of its work done under mission assignments even 

though the agency reported that it had made close to $170 million in 

expenditures related to its Hurricane Katrina mission assignments as of 

January 31, 2006. Accordingly, FEMA reported no expenditures for this 

agency in its weekly report since FEMA had not yet approved any billings. 

A user of FEMA’s report could incorrectly infer that a particular agency 

has received tasks from FEMA but has not spent any of the funds, either 

Page 4 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
because the agency has not billed FEMA or because the bill has not been

reviewed and recorded by FEMA. As a result, while FEMA is reporting as 

required, from a governmentwide perspective, FEMA’s reported 

obligations are overstated and expenditures are understated. Depending 

on the stage of the process, the differences could be significant. 

Further, from a governmentwide perspective, we found that there is no

one agency or central collection point that exists to compile and report on 

how the approximately $88 billion provided through four emergency 

supplemental appropriations acts are being spent. Although each federal

agency is responsible for tracking the funds it received, obligations 

incurred, and funds expended through its own internal tracking systems, 

no mechanisms are in place to consolidate and report on this information. 

Without a framework and mechanisms in place to collect and consolidate 

information from these agencies on a consistent, periodic basis, it will be 

difficult for decision makers to determine how much federal funding has 

been spent and by whom, whether more may be needed, or whether too 

much has been provided. The ability to separately track and report on 

these funds is important to help ensure better accountability and clearly 

identify the status of funding provided in direct response to these 

hurricanes at both the individual federal agency level as well as the 

governmentwide level. Also, it is important to provide additional 

transparency so that hurricane victims, affected states, as well as 

American taxpayers, know how these funds are being spent. At the same 

time, we recognize the substantial challenge in balancing the need to get 

money out quickly to those who are actually in need and sustaining public 

confidence in disaster programs by taking all possible steps to minimize 

fraud and abuse. 

While there are some reporting requirements included in the emergency 

supplemental appropriations acts, overall reporting requirements differ 

greatly. Further, the reporting requirements do not call for consolidating 

information on obligations and expenditures on a governmentwide basis 

and, therefore, do not facilitate governmentwide reporting on hurricanerelated spending. 

We make four recommendations to FEMA to improve the information on 

the status of hurricane relief funds from a governmentwide perspective 

provided in FEMA’s weekly reports to the Appropriations Committees. 

Given the magnitude of the emergency supplemental federal funding 

provided thus far—more than double DHS’s annual discretionary budget

authority—in response to the Gulf Coast hurricanes and the need for 

additional transparency and accountability, we are also recommending 

Page 5 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) establish a framework 

for governmentwide reporting and either collect and consolidate 

information on the status of the hurricane-related funding itself or 

designate another appropriate agency, such as the Department of the 

Treasury, to do so and report to the Appropriations Committees on a 

periodic basis. 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and OMB for comment. DHS and 

OMB concurred with our recommendations, and their comments, along 

with our evaluation, are discussed in the Agency Comments and Our 

Evaluation section of this report. The comments are also reprinted in their 

entirety in appendixes III and IV, respectively. We also provided excerpts 

of the report to those agencies cited in examples for their review. They 

provided technical comments, and we made revisions as appropriate. 

On August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast region, 

causing human casualties and billions of dollars in damage. During major 

disasters such as this, the Stafford Act authorizes the federal government

to assist in saving lives, reducing human suffering, mitigating the effects of 

lost income, and helping repair or rebuild certain damaged facilities. As of 

June 2006, nearly $88 billion was appropriated by the Congress through 

four emergency supplemental appropriations for relief and recovery 

efforts related to the recent Gulf Coast hurricanes. FEMA, the DHS 

component statutorily charged with administering the provisions of the 

Stafford Act,10 uses appropriations made to the Stafford Act’s Disaster 

Relief Fund to assist relief and recovery efforts. 

Initially, in September 2005, the Congress appropriated $62.3 billion for the 

response and recovery effort related to Hurricane Katrina in two 

emergency supplemental appropriations acts.11 Of that amount, (1) FEMA 

received $60 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund, (2) DOD received 

$1.9 billion, and (3) the Army Corps of Engineers (COE), a DOD agency,

received $400 million. As of late December 2005, FEMA reported that it 

Background 

Funding Provided for the 

Hurricane Relief Effort 

 106 U.S.C. § 317(a)(1). 

11Pub. L. No. 109-61, 119 Stat. 1988 (Sept. 2, 2005) and Pub. L. No. 109-62, 119 Stat. 1990

(Sept. 8, 2005). These two emergency supplemental appropriations were to meet immediate 

needs arising from the consequences of Hurricane Katrina for the fiscal year ending

September 30, 2005. 

Page 6 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
had obligated about $25 billion, or 42 percent, of the $60 billion it had 

received. In December 2005, the Congress provided additional funds for 

the recovery effort related to the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes through a 

third emergency supplemental appropriation act.12 This legislation 

provided approximately $29 billion to 20 federal agencies and also 

rescinded approximately $23.4 billion from the $60 billion appropriated to 

FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund in September 2005. The third emergency 

supplemental appropriation resulted in a net increase of about $5.5 billion 

in total direct federal funding for hurricane relief and recovery and the 

fourth resulted in a net increase of approximately $20.1 billion. Table 1 

shows the agencies that received direct funding through the four 

emergency supplemental appropriations acts. 

Table 1: Emergency Supplemental Funding Received by Federal Agencies in the Four Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations Acts as of June 2006 Related to Gulf Coast Hurricanes 

Dollars in millions 

Agency First Second Third Fourth Total

Percentage

of total

FEMA Disaster Relief Fund $10,000.0 $50,000.0 $(23,409.3)a$5,962.0b$42,552.7 48.4%

DOD 500.0 1,400.0 5,753.8 1,487.7c9,141.5 10.4

COE 0 400.0 2,899.6 3,685.9d6,985.5 8.0

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) 0 0 11,890.3 5,200.0 17,090.3 19.4

Department of Transportation 0 0 2,798.1 702.4e3,500.5 4.0

Department of Education 0 0 1,600.0 285.0 1,885.0 2.1

Department of Agriculture (excluding U.S. 

Forest Service) 0 0 1,038.1f, g 132.4 1,170.5 1.3

Department of Health and Human Services 0 0 640.0 12.0 652.0 0.7

Department of Veterans Affairs 0 0 592.7 585.9h1,178.6 1.3

Small Business Administration 0 0 446.0 542.0 988.0 1.1

DHS (excluding FEMA Disaster Relief Fund) 0 0 285.1 662.0 947.1 1.1

Department of Justice 0 0 229.0 8.5 237.5 0.3

Department of Labor 0 0 125.0 16.0 141.0 0.2

Armed Forces Retirement Home 0 0 20.8i221.0i241.8 0.3

U.S. Forest Service 0 0 57.0 20.0 77.0 0.1

 12Pub. L. No. 109-148, div. B, 119 Stat. 2680, 2745 (Dec. 30, 2005). This emergency 

supplemental appropriation was to address hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico for the fiscal 

year ending September 30, 2006. 

Page 7 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Dollars in millions 

Agency First Second Third Fourth Total

Percentage

of total

General Services Administration 0 0 38.0 37.0 75.0 0.1

Environmental Protection Agency 0 0 8.0 13.0 21.0 0.0

Six other agencies 0 0 492.7 527.0b, f, j 1,019.7 1.2

Total $10,500.0 $51,800.0 $5,504.9 $20,099.8 $87,904.7 100.0%

Sources: GAO analysis of Pub. L. No. 109-61, Pub. L. No. 109-62, Pub. L. No. 109-148, and Pub. L. No. 109-234. 

a

The third emergency supplemental appropriation act rescinded approximately $23.4 billion from the 

$60 billion appropriated to FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund in the first two emergency supplemental 

appropriations acts. 

b

The fourth emergency supplemental appropriation act transferred to the Social Security 

Administration $38 million of the $6 billion appropriated to FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund in this act. 

c

The amount of funding provided to DOD in the fourth emergency supplemental appropriation act 

excludes $169.5 million that was rescinded in this legislation. 

d

The amount of funding provided to COE in the fourth emergency supplemental appropriation act 

excludes $15 million that was rescinded in this legislation. 

e

The amount of funding provided to the Department of Transportation was offset by a reduction to the 

Highway Trust Fund.

f

The amount of funding provided to the Department of Commerce in the fourth emergency 

supplemental appropriation act includes $38 million transferred from the amount provided to the 

Department of Agriculture in the third emergency supplemental appropriation act. This amount is 

excluded from the funding provided in the third emergency supplemental appropriation act. 

g

The total amount of funding provided to the Department of Agriculture in the third emergency 

supplemental appropriation act includes $45 million appropriated to the Department of Agriculture to 

subsidize loans in an amount not to exceed the loan authority limit of $1.55 billion. Also, the total 

includes $404 million of the funds for the Department of Agriculture that were designated to be used 

from the funds of the Commodity Credit Corporation, a federal corporation within the Department of 

Agriculture. 

h

The amount of funding provided to the Department of Veterans Affairs in the fourth emergency 

supplemental appropriation act excludes $198.3 million that was rescinded in this legislation. 

i

The amount of funding provided to the Armed Forces Retirement Home in the fourth emergency 

supplemental appropriation act includes $45 million transferred from the amount provided to the 

agency in the third emergency supplemental appropriation act. This amount is excluded from the 

funding provided in the third emergency supplemental appropriation act. 

j

The amount of funding provided to the Department of the Interior excludes $9 million provided for 

drought emergency assistance. 

FEMA Uses Federal 

Agencies to Provide 

Assistance on Its Behalf 

FEMA has authority under the Stafford Act to issue an order, called a 

mission assignment, to other federal agencies. A mission assignment is a 

tasking issued by FEMA that directs other federal agencies and 

components of DHS, or “performing agencies,” to support overall federal 

operations pursuant to, or in anticipation of, a Stafford Act declaration. 

Once the mission assignment is issued and approved, the mission 

assignment document is FEMA’s basis for obligating the portion of 

Page 8 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
FEMA’s funds allocated to the assigned relief and recovery effort. From a 

federal agency standpoint, the mission assignment provides the recipient

agency reimbursable budgetary authority, not the actual transfer of funds, 

to perform the agreed upon work. Among other things, mission 

assignments include a description of work, an estimate of the dollar 

amount of work to be performed, completion date for the work, and 

authorizing signatures. Mission assignments may be issued for a variety of 

tasks, such as search and rescue missions or debris removal, depending on

the performing agencies’ areas of expertise. 

After the agencies perform work under a mission assignment (e.g., 

perform directly or pay a contractor), the agencies bill FEMA, and FEMA 

reimburses them for the work performed using the Intra-Governmental 

Payment and Collection (IPAC) system.13 In the case of an IPAC payment 

to a performing agency, the IPAC funds transfer occurs immediately upon

request by the agency seeking reimbursement. After the IPAC is made, 

FEMA requires that performing agencies provide it documentation 

supporting the costs incurred while performing the work under the 

mission assignment. FEMA can also reverse or “charge-back” the payment 

if it believes the agency did not provide sufficient supporting 

documentation. The funding and reimbursement process related to 

mission assignments is shown in figure 1. 

 13The IPAC system, a collection system operated by the Department of the Treasury, is one 

of the major components of the Government On-Line Accounting Link System II. The IPAC 

application’s primary purpose is to provide a standardized interagency fund transfer 

mechanism. IPAC facilitates the intragovernmental transfer of funds. Performing agencies, 

except for COE, use the IPAC system. 

Page 9 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Figure 1: Funding and Reimbursement Process Related to FEMA Issuing Mission Assignments to Performing Agencies 

Congress Appropriates

Disaster Relief Funds 

1. Task mission assignments

 to agencies

2. Obligate Disaster Relief Fund

3. Receive bills and pay agency

 through IPACa

4. Receive, review, and approve supporting

 documentation

5. Record expenditure in its accounting system

 and include in reports to the Congress

FEMA Management of 

Disaster Relief Fund

1. Receive mission assignments

2. Perform work

3. Bill FEMA (Disaster Relief Fund) and

 receive reimbursement through IPACa

4. Submit supporting documentation

Performing Agencies

Billing Payments

Goods and

services

provided

on behalf

of FEMA

Mission

assignments

Sources: GAO analysis; GAO photograph; Art Explosion illustration.

a

Performing agencies other than COE use the IPAC system. COE must submit supporting 

documentation prior to reimbursement. 

Page 10 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
The Government 

Does Not Have a 

Framework in Place 

to Collect and 

Consolidate 

Information to Report 

on Hurricane-Related 

Funding 

The federal government is not adequately tracking and reporting on the 

use of the $88 billion in hurricane relief and recovery funds provided thus 

far to 23 federal agencies in the four emergency supplemental

appropriations acts. First, FEMA does not have mechanisms in place to 

collect and report on information from the other agencies that are 

performing work on its behalf through mission assignments. As a result, 

FEMA’s required weekly reports to the Congress have limited usefulness 

from a governmentwide perspective. Second, also from a governmentwide 

perspective, the federal government does not currently have a framework 

or mechanisms in place to collect and consolidate information from the 

22 federal agencies in addition to FEMA that have directly received

funding thus far for hurricane relief efforts and report on this information. 

Although each federal agency is responsible for tracking the funds it 

received, obligations incurred, and funds expended through it own internal 

tracking systems, no mechanisms are in place to consolidate this 

information. Therefore, it will be difficult for decision makers to 

determine how much federal funding has been spent and by whom, 

whether more may be needed, or whether too much was provided. 

FEMA’s Required Reports 

Do Not Provide Adequate 

Information from a 

Governmentwide 

Perspective 

FEMA is required to report weekly to the Appropriations Committees on

the use of funds it received; however, these reports do not provide timely

information from a governmentwide perspective because FEMA does not 

have a mechanism in place to collect and report on information from other 

agencies which perform work on its behalf. Specifically, when FEMA tasks 

another agency through a mission assignment, which is similar to an 

interagency agreement for goods and services, FEMA records the entire 

amount upfront as an obligation on its reports to the Congress. The agency 

performing the task for FEMA does not record an obligation until a later 

date when it has actually obligated funds to carry out its mission, thereby 

overstating reported governmentwide obligations. The opposite is true for 

expenditures. The agency expends the funds, but then has to bill FEMA for 

reimbursement. This may happen months after the actual payment is 

made. FEMA does not record the expenditure on its reports to the 

Congress until it has received the bill from the performing agency, 

reviewed it, and recorded the expenditure in its accounting system, 

thereby understating reported governmentwide expenditures. 

FEMA’s weekly report as of March 29, 2006, shows that of the $36.6 billion 

received as of that date, it had incurred obligations totaling $29.7 billion 

Page 11 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
and had made expenditures of $15.9 billion related to Hurricanes Katrina, 

Rita, and Wilma.14 Of the $29.7 billion in obligations, FEMA issued mission 

assignments to federal agencies totaling $8.5 billion, or 28.6 percent. The 

other $21.2 billion includes, for example, obligations that FEMA made for 

areas such as the individual and household program ($7.0 billion) and 

manufactured housing ($4.7 billion), which are being reviewed in some 

respects by other auditors. As of March 29, 2006, FEMA reported 

approximately $8.5 billion of obligations for mission assignments and 

approximately $661 million of expenditures for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, 

and Wilma as shown in table 2. 

Table 2: Mission Assignment Obligations and Expenditures Reported by FEMA for 

Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, as of March 29, 2006 

Dollars in millions 

Agency 

Obligations

reported by

FEMA 

Expenditures 

reported by FEMA

COE $4,927.8 $351.6

DOD 1,176.7 210.0

Department of Transportation 506.8 45.4

DHS (excluding FEMA) 552.6 8.0

Environmental Protection Agency 366.9 6.9

Department of Health and Human Services 274.2 0.0

U.S. Forest Service 365.0 0.0

General Services Administration 78.7 0.3

HUD 83.0 32.4

Department of Justice 55.2 3.1

Department of Labor 21.6 0.0

Other agencies 89.0 3.1

Total $8,497.5 $660.8

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA Weekly Disaster Relief Finance Report to the Appropriations Committees, dated March 29, 2006. 

 14Although FEMA’s weekly report presents information on Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and 

Wilma, because the majority of FEMA’s mission assignment obligations related to 

Hurricane Katrina, we focused our review at the performing agencies on the Hurricane 

Katrina mission assignments. 

Page 12 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
While FEMA reports obligations based on the dollar amount of the mission

assignments it has placed with other federal agencies when they are 

assigned, these obligation amounts do not represent the amount of funds 

that the agencies have, in turn, actually obligated to perform disaster relief 

work on behalf of FEMA. In some cases, the agencies have obligated tens 

or hundreds of millions of dollars less than the amount reported by FEMA. 

FEMA Needs to Clarify 

Reported Obligations for Work 

Performed by Other Federal 

Agencies 

Our analysis of FEMA’s reported mission assignments to other federal 

agencies to perform work on behalf of FEMA in the amount of $8.5 billion 

identified two types of reporting problems, both of which resulted in 

FEMA’s obligations being overstated from a governmentwide perspective. 

First, some federal agencies recorded obligations in their internal tracking

systems that were much less than the amount of obligations reported by 

FEMA. This occurred because FEMA’s recorded obligations are based on

the dollar amount of the entire mission assignment. In contrast, the 

amount of obligations recorded by federal agencies is the amount of funds 

they actually obligated to perform disaster relief work. The performing 

agency does not incur obligations until it actually performs or contracts 

for the work. Four examples of this reporting problem follow: 

• On September 28, 2005, FEMA’s report showed that obligations on 

mission assignments issued to DOD related to Hurricane Katrina 

totaled about $2.2 billion. As of March 2006, this amount had been 

substantially reduced twice. On November 3, 2005, FEMA amended the 

mission assignment and reduced the amount to about $1.7 billion, and 

it reduced the amount again on March 15, 2006, to about $1.1 billion. 

While FEMA was reporting obligations as high as $2.2 billion during 

this 6-month period, DOD’s reports15 show that it incurred only 

$481 million of actual obligations as of April 5, 2006—hundreds of 

millions of dollars less than what FEMA reported over the same 

6-month period. According to a DOD official, it is currently reviewing 

the mission assignments and will be returning obligational authority 

that was not used to FEMA. 

• On September 28, 2005, FEMA’s report showed that obligations on 

mission assignments issued to COE related to Hurricane Katrina were 

about $3.3 billion. Since then, this amount has increased. On 

October 20, 2005, FEMA amended and increased the mission 

 15DOD’s report showed that it had obligated a total of $638 million as of April 5, 2006. 

However, $157 million of the $638 million was for FEMA-requested work not formally 

ordered through a mission assignment. 

Page 13 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
assignment amounts to about $3.7 billion and on April 5, 2006, to about

$4 billion. However, according to COE’s internal records as of 

April 7, 2006, it had actually obligated about $3 billion for Hurricane 

Katrina work, a difference of over $1 billion. 

• Based on information provided by the Coast Guard, FEMA had 

recorded mission assignment obligations related to Hurricanes Katrina 

and Rita in the amount of nearly $192 million as of April 2006.

However, at that time, the Coast Guard had only actually incurred 

about $85 million in obligations. Thus, the difference between what 

FEMA reported to the Congress and what Coast Guard information 

showed it had actually obligated is approximately $107 million. 

• Based on information provided by the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development (HUD), at the end of March 2006, FEMA had 

obligated and reported approximately $83 million for HUD mission 

assignments related to Hurricane Katrina. However, HUD had only 

incurred about $47 million in obligations for work to be done under 

mission assignments. While HUD may eventually utilize the full amount 

obligated by FEMA, at that time, there was an approximately 

$36 million difference between the amounts FEMA reported as 

obligated for HUD and what HUD had actually obligated. HUD expects 

final reconciliation to be completed by December 2006. 

Second, at least three federal agencies we interviewed did not have 

mission assignments recorded in their internal tracking systems that were

recorded in FEMA’s system. According to the officials from certain federal 

agencies, this occurred because the agency’s financial management office

was not informed of the mission assignments. FEMA officials informed us 

that this problem likely occurred because, while the agencies’ program 

offices appropriately received mission assignment information from 

FEMA, those agencies’ program offices did not properly provide the 

information to their agencies’ financial management offices. Two 

examples of this reporting problem follow: 

• At the Department of Health and Human Services, we noted $90 million 

in mission assignment obligations related to Hurricane Katrina or 

amendments to those obligations that were reported by FEMA as of 

January 18, 2006, but not recorded by the department’s financial 

management office as of February 24, 2006. The department told us 

that these mission assignments or amendments had been issued by 

FEMA, but had not been received by the department’s program or 

financial management offices. After we pointed out the discrepancies, 

the two agencies reconciled the differences. 

Page 14 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
• In another case, the Environmental Protection Agency had a similar 

situation involving $11.5 million in mission assignments and 

amendments related to Hurricane Katrina for which it did not record 

obligations as of March 2006 because the financial management office 

was unaware the mission assignments had been made by FEMA. 

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, for $10 million of 

the $11.5 million in mission assignments, not only was the financial 

management office unaware but the agency had never been informed 

that the mission assignment had been issued by FEMA. 

A different set of issues arises with regard to expenditure data. Because of

the nature and timing of payments FEMA makes to performing agencies, 

FEMA’s reported expenditures from the Disaster Relief Fund do not 

present an accurate status of federal spending for hurricane relief and

recovery from a governmentwide perspective. This is explained in part by 

problems with the timeliness and adequacy of billings to FEMA by other 

agencies. As previously explained, FEMA reimburses performing agencies 

for work they perform on behalf of FEMA in accordance with the mission 

assignment agreements. FEMA requires that performing agencies (1) bill it

within 90 days after completion or upon termination of a mission 

assignment, and (2) provide a certain level of documentation for its review 

in order for the billings to be approved. FEMA does not recognize 

reimbursements to other agencies as expenditures in its accounting 

system (and therefore in its reports to the Congress) until this approval 

has occurred. From a governmentwide perspective, this process results in 

FEMA’s expenditures being understated. 

FEMA’s Reports Do Not 

Provide Adequate Information 

on Actual Expenditures Made 

by Other Federal Agencies 

As of March 29, 2006, FEMA reported about $661 million of expenditures 

to agencies performing mission assignments for Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, 

and Wilma (see table 2). However, performing agencies’ internal tracking

systems showed a significantly higher level of expenditures on their 

mission assignments. The process FEMA uses for reimbursing performing 

agencies creates timing differences between FEMA’s and the performing 

agencies’ records. As a result, FEMA’s reported expenditures are less than

actual expenditures performing agencies have made in support of FEMA’s 

hurricane relief and recovery efforts. In the case of a mission assignment, 

a performing agency would recognize an expenditure when that agency 

pays costs (liquidates obligations) to employees, contractors, or other 

outside entities for work performed. However, FEMA does not recognize

the reimbursement of these costs as an expenditure until it has reviewed 

and approved a bill from the performing agency. With the exception of 

COE, reimbursements to the performing agencies are made using the IPAC 

Page 15 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
system. While the IPAC funds transfer occurs immediately upon request by 

the agency seeking reimbursement, in FEMA’s accounting records the 

IPAC transaction would be reflected as a suspense account transaction 

until FEMA has received and approved the supporting documentation for 

the IPAC billing. Therefore, by virtue of the timing delays, FEMA’s 

reported expenditures would be less than expenditures made and reported 

by performing agencies and a user of FEMA’s report could incorrectly 

infer that a particular agency has received tasks from FEMA but has not 

spent any of the funds. Thus, the cost of actual work performed is better 

reflected by the performing agencies. Two examples follow: 

• FEMA’s report as of March 29, 2006, showed that approved mission 

assignment expenditures (cash reimbursements) related to Hurricane 

Katrina were about $210 million for DOD. However, DOD’s report as of 

April 5, 2006, showed that it had already received $324 million in 

reimbursement from FEMA for mission assignments related to 

Hurricane Katrina.16

• The U.S. Forest Service had not billed FEMA for any of its work done 

under mission assignments even though the agency reported that it had 

made close to $170 million in expenditures related to its Hurricane 

Katrina mission assignments as of January 31, 2006. Accordingly, 

FEMA reported no expenditures for this agency in its weekly report 

since FEMA had not yet approved any billings. FEMA’s billing 

instructions state that reimbursement requests can be forwarded to 

FEMA monthly, regardless of the amount. Also, agencies should submit 

the final bill no later than 90 days after completion or upon termination 

of the mission assignment. The Forest Service, however, was not doing 

this, and as a result, FEMA did not report any expenditures for mission 

assignment work performed by the Forest Service as of March 29, 2006, 

even though the Forest Service had spent about $170 million. The 

Forest Service explained that it billed FEMA in March and June 2006 

and planned to issue additional bills in August and September 2006. We 

noted that there had been some billing activity reported by FEMA 

subsequent to March 29, 2006. 

Aside from the timing issues discussed above, some performing agencies 

have not provided billing documentation that meets FEMA’s requirements 

 16DOD’s report showed that it received a total of about $481 million from FEMA as of 

April 5, 2006. However, $157 million of the $481 million was for FEMA requested work not 

formally ordered through a mission assignment. 

Page 16 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
to support their reimbursements for work performed on mission 

assignments. Although performing agencies using the IPAC system receive 

funds immediately upon requesting reimbursement, if upon review of 

supporting reimbursement documents, FEMA officials determine that 

some amounts are incorrect or unsupported, FEMA may retrieve or 

“charge back” the monies from these agencies through the IPAC system. 

For example, travel charges should be supported by a breakdown by 

object class with names, period of performance dates, and amounts. 

Failure to submit this documentation may result in FEMA charging back

the agency for the related mission assignment billing. FEMA’s records as 

of May 15, 2006, showed that FEMA had “charged back” about $267 million 

from performing agencies for costs billed to FEMA for mission 

assignments related to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma. About 

$260 million, or over 97 percent, of these charge-backs involved five 

agencies: the Department of Transportation ($102 million), DOD 

($57 million), the Environmental Protection Agency ($45 million), the 

Federal Protective Service within DHS ($32 million), and the Department 

of Health and Human Services ($24 million). Consistent with its practice of 

only reporting approved expenditures, these amounts were not recognized 

as expenditures by FEMA, even though the performing agencies claim they

have expended those amounts. In addition, until FEMA requested the 

charge-backs, the billings would have been in a FEMA suspense account,

and would have temporarily depleted monies from the Disaster Relief 

Fund since the agencies had already received reimbursement through the 

IPAC system. At least one agency, DOD, has indicated that it is trying to 

gather additional supporting documentation for the $57 million that FEMA 

charged back. Therefore, at least part of these charged back funds may be 

reported as expenditures by FEMA at some point in the future. If the 

agency cannot provide FEMA the needed supporting documentation, the 

agency may not be reimbursed and thus will be required to use its own 

appropriations. 

FEMA is also experiencing billing problems with COE, which does not use 

the IPAC system. According to FEMA personnel, COE had billing and 

documentation problems in the past and was not permitted to use the 

IPAC system for transactions with DHS. While COE was working on 

gaining access to using the IPAC system prior to Hurricane Katrina, this 

process was put on hold, and instead COE must manually submit 

supporting documentation before FEMA reimburses its mission 

assignment costs. This allows for a thorough review by FEMA, but has also 

led to payment delays. As of February 6, 2006, COE’s internal accounts 

receivable report showed that it had not received reimbursement for about 

$1.2 billion of bills submitted to FEMA for Hurricane Katrina mission 

Page 17 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
assignments even though COE officials stated that they had sent 

documentation supporting the majority of the bills. Of that amount, about 

$610 million, or over half of the total, was over 60 days old. According to 

FEMA officials, as of April 7, 2006, it had not received documentation 

supporting about $800 million of the $1.2 billion of outstanding accounts 

receivable on COE’s records. None of the $1.2 billion has been reported as 

expenditures by FEMA, although COE reports these amounts as 

expenditures. 

Lack of Framework to 

Collect and Consolidate 

Agency Data and Report 

on This Information Limits 

Ability to Assess Status of 

Hurricane Funding 

From a governmentwide perspective, since Hurricane Katrina made 

landfall, about $88 billion through four emergency supplemental 

appropriations has been appropriated to 23 federal agencies. We found 

that no one agency or central collection point exists to compile and report 

on how these funds are being spent. Without a framework and 

mechanisms in place to collect and consolidate information from these 

agencies and report on a periodic basis, decision makers will not have

complete and consistent information on the uses of the funding that has 

been provided thus far. Information on the amount of obligations and 

expenditures17 made on the actual relief and recovery effort would provide 

decision makers information they can use to determine, for example, if 

(1) additional funds should be provided for the relief and recovery work, 

(2) the funds already provided could be deemed excess and used for other 

disaster relief and recovery work, (3) funds should be rescinded, or 

(4) duplicate programs are providing similar assistance. As a result, in 

order to have governmentwide information on actual obligations incurred 

and expenditures made on the relief and recovery effort, the agencies 

would have to use their own internal tracking systems to extract this 

information and provide the information to a central point, where the data

could be consolidated and reported. The ability to separately track and 

report on these funds is important to help ensure better accountability and 

clearly identify the status of funding provided in direct response to these 

hurricanes at both the individual federal agency level as well as the 

governmentwide level and to provide additional transparency so that 

hurricane victims, affected states, as well as American taxpayers, know 

how the government is spending these funds. At the same time, we 

recognize the substantial challenge in balancing the need to get money out 

quickly to those who are actually in need and sustaining public confidence 

 17An expenditure is an outlay. Generally, an outlay is the issuance of checks, disbursement 

of cash, or electronic transfer of funds made to liquidate a federal obligation. 

Page 18 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
in disaster programs by taking all possible steps to minimize fraud and 

abuse. 

Although each federal agency is responsible for tracking the funds it 

received, obligations incurred, and funds expended through its own 

internal tracking systems, no mechanisms are in place to consolidate and 

report on this information. Of the approximately $88 billion provided as of

June 2006, FEMA received about $42.6 billion ($66 billion appropriated 

less the $23.4 billion rescinded) for the Disaster Relief Fund and 22 other

agencies received the remaining $45.4 billion. Once these funds are 

appropriated, they are merged into, and commingled with existing 

appropriation accounts.18 OMB Circular No. A-1119 requires agencies to 

report obligations and outlays on a quarterly basis at the appropriation 

level; however, those reports on budget execution and budgetary 

resources do not call for separately identifying amounts on a 

programmatic basis, such as hurricane relief and recovery efforts. Thus, 

reporting under this Circular will not provide the information needed to 

monitor the status of hurricane-related funding. Although FEMA was 

required to provide weekly reports to the Congress on obligation and 

expenditure information on the $42.6 billion it received (although with 

limited usefulness as discussed previously), most of the other 22 agencies 

that received over $45 billion would only be responsible for tracking this 

information internally. 

While there are some reporting requirements included in the emergency 

supplemental appropriation acts, overall reporting requirements differ 

greatly. Also, the reporting requirements do not call for consolidating 

information on obligations and expenditures on a governmentwide basis 

and, therefore, do not facilitate governmentwide reporting on hurricanerelated spending. The reporting requirements that were included for the 

various agencies ranged from very detailed reporting to no reporting at all.

For example, while FEMA was required to report obligations and 

expenditures, 16 other federal agencies did not have any reporting 

requirements. See appendix II for more information on the reporting 

 18Unless otherwise specified by law, emergency supplemental appropriations are merged

into, and commingled with existing appropriation accounts. This was the case for the four

emergency supplemental appropriations acts enacted thus far. 

19OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget (revised 

June 2006). 

Page 19 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
requirements included in the first four emergency supplemental 

appropriations acts. 

Given that consolidated governmentwide reporting will require that 

financial information be compiled from 23 different agencies, an entity

that regularly collects and compiles information from different agencies, 

such as OMB or the Department of the Treasury, would likely be in the 

best position for requesting this information and preparing consolidated 

governmentwide reporting on hurricane-related funding. Other options 

would be for either FEMA or the Office of the Federal Coordinator for 

Gulf Coast Rebuilding20 to compile this information. 

Success in the rebuilding efforts of the Gulf Coast area is critical. The

federal government has already invested billions of dollars for this effort 

with more likely to come. Although FEMA is required to report on 

obligations and expenditures, these reports do not provide timely 

information from a governmentwide perspective. In addition, there is no 

framework or mechanisms in place to collect and consolidate information, 

and to report on the $88 billion in hurricane relief and recovery funds 

provided thus far to 23 federal agencies in the four emergency

supplemental appropriations acts on a governmentwide basis. The 

government’s progress in the rebuilding efforts will be difficult to measure 

if decision makers do not know how much has been spent, what for, how 

much has been obligated but not yet spent, and how much more is still 

available. Without consistent, reliable, and timely governmentwide 

information on the use of this funding, the agencies and the Congress 

could lose visibility over these funds and not know the extent to which 

they are being used to support hurricane relief and recovery efforts. With 

rebuilding efforts likely to take many years, it is important that the federal 

government fulfill its role as steward of taxpayer funds and provide 

transparency to the affected states and victims, and account for and report 

on all funds received for the hurricane-related efforts. 

Conclusions 

 20The Office of the Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding is responsible for 

developing a long-term rebuilding plan for the region in the aftermath of Hurricanes 

Katrina, Rita, and Wilma; coordinating the federal efforts; and helping state and local 

officials reach consensus on their vision for the region. 

Page 20 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
To improve the information on the status of hurricane relief and recovery

funds provided in FEMA’s weekly reports to the Appropriations 

Committees from a governmentwide perspective, we recommend that the

Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Director of FEMA to take the

following four actions: 

• Explain in the weekly reports how FEMA’s reported obligations and 

expenditures for mission assignments do not reflect the status from a 

governmentwide perspective. 

• On an established basis (e.g., monthly or quarterly), request and 

include actual obligation and expenditure data from agencies

performing mission assignments. 

• Include in the weekly report amounts reimbursed to other agencies 

that are in suspense because FEMA has not yet reviewed and approved 

the documentation supporting the expenditures. 

• Reiterate to agencies performing mission assignments its policies on 

(1) the detailed information required in supporting documentation for 

reimbursements, and (2) the timeliness of agency billings. 

To help ensure better accountability, provide additional transparency, and 

clearly identify the status of the hurricane-related funding provided by

emergency supplemental appropriations at both the individual federal 

agency level as well as the governmentwide level, we recommend that the 

Director, Office of Management and Budget, establish a framework for 

governmentwide reporting on the status of the hurricane-related funding. 

OMB could either collect and consolidate this information itself or 

designate another appropriate agency, such as the Department of the 

Treasury, to do so and report to the Appropriations Committees on a 

periodic basis. 

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretary of 

Homeland Security and the Director of OMB. These comments are 

reprinted in appendixes III and IV, respectively. While DHS concurred with 

our recommendations, it also stated that it believes our recommendation 

to periodically request and include actual obligation and expenditure data 

from agencies performing mission assignments is subsumed by our 

recommendation to OMB to establish a framework for governmentwide 

reporting on the status of hurricane-related funding. We believe our 

recommendation is still valid for FEMA since, as stated in the agency’s 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 21 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
response, its mission assignments are a significant component in the 

establishment of a framework for governmentwide reporting on the status

of hurricane-related funding. However, as the intent of our 

recommendation is to help ensure the Congress is receiving complete, 

timely, useful, and reliable reports, we agree that other alternatives could 

be considered to achieve the same objectives. OMB agreed that there 

should be clear accountability and transparency on the spending of 

emergency funds for hurricane relief and indicated it will fully consider 

our recommendation to establish a new framework for governmentwide 

reporting on the status of disaster-related funding. 

We also provided excerpts of the report to those agencies cited in 

examples for their review. They provided technical comments, and we 

made revisions as appropriate. 

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional 

committees and to affected federal agencies. Copies will be made available 

to others upon request. In addition, this report will also be available at no

charge on GAO’s home page at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-9095 or at williamsm1@gao.gov. Contact points for 

our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix V. 

McCoy Williams 

Director, Financial Management and Assurance 

Page 22 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
List of Committees 

The Honorable Susan M. Collins 

Chairman 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom Coburn 

Chairman 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 

Information, and International Security 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Peter T. King 

Chairman 

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Homeland Security 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Martin Olav Sabo 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Homeland Security 

Committee on Appropriations 

House of Representatives 

Page 23 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To determine whether the federal government was tracking and reporting

on the use of funding provided in the four emergency supplemental 

appropriations acts, we obtained and analyzed the four emergency 

supplemental appropriation documents and conference reports. We also 

obtained the reports prepared by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) in response to 

the second emergency supplemental appropriation act. We did not obtain 

the reports required by the third or fourth emergency supplemental 

appropriations acts since this was a new requirement for the federal 

agencies. In addition, we obtained and analyzed guidance on reporting of 

estimates of hurricane-related funding budget authority, outlays, and 

receipts, issued by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in 2005 

and discussed this guidance with officials from OMB. 

To determine whether FEMA’s reports to the Appropriations Committees 

required by the second emergency supplemental appropriation act 

provided timely and useful information, we obtained and analyzed the 

weekly reports prepared by FEMA, specifically focusing on the obligations 

and expenditures reported for mission assignments to agencies performing 

disaster relief work related to Hurricane Katrina on behalf of FEMA 

because they have governmentwide implications. We met with FEMA 

officials to discuss (1) the definitions of the terms obligations and 

expenditures used in the report, (2) the process of FEMA issuing mission 

assignments to agencies and the obligation of FEMA’s funds related to the 

mission assignments, and (3) the process of agencies seeking 

reimbursement for goods and services provided in response to the disaster 

relief work including FEMA’s billing procedures. We also obtained and 

analyzed certain federal agencies’ reports that provide information on 

mission assignments, obligations incurred and expenditures made in 

performing disaster relief work on behalf of FEMA, amount of bills 

submitted to FEMA, and amount of bills paid by FEMA. Because the 

majority of FEMA’s mission assignment obligations related to Hurricane 

Katrina, we focused our review at the agencies on the Hurricane Katrina 

mission assignments. We met with officials from certain federal agencies 

to discuss the information contained in these reports. 

In performing our work, we obtained information from the 

• OMB, 

• Department of the Treasury, 

• FEMA, 

• Department of Defense, 

• COE, 

Page 24 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

• Department of Transportation, 

• Environmental Protection Agency, 

• Department of Health and Human Services, 

• U.S. Forest Service, 

• General Services Administration, and 

• Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

To assess the reliability of the data, we interviewed officials 

knowledgeable about the data and determined that the data were 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. We conducted our 

work from October 2005 through June 2006 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and OMB for comment. DHS and OMB provided written comments, 

which are presented in the Agency Comments and Our Evaluation section 

of this report and are reprinted in appendixes III and IV, respectively. We 

also provided excerpts of the report to those agencies cited in examples 

for their review. They provided technical comments, and we made 

revisions as appropriate.

Page 25 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Appendix II: Reporting Requirements

Included in the Four Emergency Supplemental Appendix II: Reporting Requirements Appropriations Acts 

Included in the Four Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Acts 

The four emergency supplemental appropriations acts enacted as of 

June 2006 provided funds to 23 federal agencies1

 for the hurricane relief 

and recovery effort and included different reporting requirements. In 

addition, of the 23 agencies receiving appropriations in the four emergency

supplemental appropriations acts, 16 agencies did not have any reporting

requirements. 

The first two emergency supplemental appropriations acts2

 provided

funding to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 

Department of Defense (DOD), and Army Corps of Engineers (COE), and 

included the following reporting requirements: 

• The first emergency supplemental appropriation act did not contain 

any requirements for FEMA to report on the $10 billion it received. The 

second emergency supplemental appropriation act required the 

Secretary of Homeland Security to provide, at a minimum, a weekly 

report to the Appropriations Committees detailing the allocation and 

obligation of the $50 billion in appropriated funds it received for 

Hurricane Katrina in the second emergency supplemental 

appropriation act. The fiscal year 2006 Department of Homeland 

Security Appropriations Act3

 further explained that this weekly report 

was to include other information such as obligations, allocations, and 

expenditures, categorized by agency and state. 

• COE was not provided any funding in the first emergency supplemental 

appropriation. The second emergency supplemental appropriation act 

required COE to provide a weekly report to the Appropriations 

Committees detailing the allocation and obligation of $400 million in 

appropriated funds it received under that act. 

 1

For purposes of this report, we are considering the Department of Agriculture and the U.S.

Forest Service two separate agencies because the Forest Service received a large portion of 

the mission assignments for the Department of Agriculture. We are also considering the

Department of Defense (DOD) and the Army Corps of Engineers (COE) two separate

agencies because of the large portion of the total mission assignments they each received 

as well as the fact that COE does not use the Intra-Governmental Payment and Collection 

(IPAC) system. In addition, for purposes of this report, we are considering FEMA’s Disaster 

Relief Fund separate from other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appropriations 

because of the specific function of the Disaster Relief Fund for Stafford Act activities. 

2

Pub. L. No. 109-61 and Pub. L. No. 109-62. 

3

Pub. L. No. 109-90, 119 Stat. 2090 (Oct. 18, 2005). 

Page 26 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Appendix II: Reporting Requirements

Included in the Four Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Acts 

• There was no requirement for DOD to report on the $1.9 billion it 

received in the first and second emergency supplemental 

appropriations acts. 

The third emergency supplemental appropriation act provided $29 billion 

directly to 20 individual federal agencies and rescinded approximately 

$23.4 billion from the amount initially appropriated to FEMA’s Disaster 

Relief Fund in September 2005. The third emergency supplemental 

appropriation act included differing reporting requirements for each of the 

20 federal agencies ranging from none to very detailed. Illustrative 

examples from the third emergency supplemental appropriation act and 

the conference report4

 accompanying this legislation include the following

specific reporting requirements: 

• The third emergency supplemental appropriation act required each 

state receiving monies through the Community Development Fund 

from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to 

report quarterly to the Appropriations Committees for all awards and 

uses of funds. The supplemental appropriation language also required 

some additional reporting from HUD, such as reporting quarterly to the 

Appropriations Committees with regard to all steps taken to prevent 

fraud and abuse of funds made available. 

• The conference report accompanying the third emergency 

supplemental appropriation act directed the Secretary of Defense to 

submit quarterly reports to the congressional defense committees 

including, among other things, the expenditures of funds it received for 

hurricane relief and recovery operations. This did not include 

retroactive requirements for the first and second emergency 

supplemental appropriations. The conference report also directed the 

Secretary of Agriculture to provide quarterly reports including, among 

other things, the expenditures of funds received for hurricane relief. It 

also requested the Department of Education to submit a report by 

March 1, 2006, on the obligation and allocation of funds it received for 

hurricane relief and provided to assist college students under the 

Higher Education Act. The reporting requirements for some agencies 

were more detailed than others. Also, these reporting requirements do 

not cover funding authority of approximately $8.5 billion that agencies 

received through FEMA’s mission assignment process for Hurricanes 

Katrina, Rita, and Wilma as of March 29, 2006. 

 4

See H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 109-359, Div. B, at 488 (Dec. 18, 2005). 

Page 27 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Appendix II: Reporting Requirements

Included in the Four Emergency Supplemental

Appropriations Acts 

The fourth emergency supplemental appropriation act provided 

approximately $20.1 billion directly to 22 individual federal agencies. This

legislation did not include any new reporting requirements for the 

agencies receiving funding; however, the act contained reporting 

requirements for HUD that were consistent with the requirements outlined 

in the third emergency supplemental appropriation act. 

Page 28 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Appendix III: Comments from the Appendix III: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 29 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Appendix III: Comments from the 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 30 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Appendix IV: Comments from the Office of Appendix IV Management and Budget : Comments from the Office of 

Management and Budget 

Page 31 GAO-06-834 Tracking Hurricane Funding
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 32 GAO-06-834 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

McCoy Williams, (202) 512-9095 or williamsm1@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above, the following individuals also 

made significant contributions to this report: Christine Bonham, Richard 

Cambosos, Thomas Dawson, Francine DelVecchio, Heather Dunahoo, Abe 

Dymond, Gabrielle Fagan, Casey Keplinger, Stephen Lawrence, Greg 

Pugnetti, Lori Ryza, and Natalie Schneider. Other contributions were made 

by Felicia Brooks, Eric Essig, Lauren Fassler, Barry Grinnell, John Hong, 

James Maziasz, Patrick McCray, Shalin Pathak, and Chanetta Reed. 

Tracking Hurricane Funding

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(195073) 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER