United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to Congressional Committees

TRANSPORTATIONDISADVANTAGED 

POPULATIONS 

Actions Needed 

to Clarify 

Responsibilities and 

Increase Preparedness 

for Evacuations 

December 2006 

 

GAO-07-44 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

December 2006

TRANSPORTATION-DISADVANTAGED 

POPULATIONS 

Actions Needed to Clarify 

Responsibilities and Increase 

Preparedness for Evacuations 

Highlights of GAO-07-44, a report to 

congressional committees 

During the evacuation of New 

Orleans in response to Hurricane

Katrina in 2005, many of those who

did not own a vehicle and could not 

evacuate were among the over 

1,300 people who died. This raised 

questions about how well state and 

local governments, primarily

responsible for disaster planning,

integrate transportationdisadvantaged populations into

such planning. GAO assessed the 

challenges and barriers state and

local officials face; how prepared

these governments are and steps

they are taking to address

challenges and barriers; and federal

efforts to provide evacuation 

assistance. GAO reviewed 

evacuation plans; Department of

Homeland Security (DHS),

Department of Transportation 

(DOT), and other studies; and 

interviewed officials in five major 

city and four state governments. 

What GAO Recommends

DHS should clarify federal 

agencies’ roles and responsibilities 

for providing evacuation assistance

when state and local governments 

are overwhelmed. DHS should 

require state and local evacuation

preparedness for transportationdisadvantaged populations and 

improve information to assist these 

governments. DOT should 

encourage its grant recipients to

share information to assist in 

evacuation preparedness for these 

populations. DOT and DHS agreed 

to consider our recommendations,

and DHS stated it has partly

implemented some of them. 

State and local governments face evacuation challenges in identifying and 

locating transportation-disadvantaged populations, determining their needs,

and providing for their transportation. These populations are diverse and 

constantly changing, and information on their location is often not readily 

available. In addition, these populations’ evacuation needs vary widely; 

some require basic transportation while others need accessible equipment, 

such as buses with chair lifts. Legal and social barriers impede addressing 

these evacuation challenges. For example, transportation providers may be 

unwilling to provide evacuation assistance because of liability concerns. 

State and local governments are generally not well prepared—in terms of 

planning, training, and conducting exercises—to evacuate transportationdisadvantaged populations, but some have begun to address challenges and 

barriers. For example, DHS reported in June 2006 that only about 10 percent

of state and about 12 percent of urban area emergency plans it reviewed 

adequately addressed evacuating these populations. Furthermore, in one of 

five major cities GAO visited, officials believed that few residents would 

require evacuation assistance despite the U.S. Census reporting 16.5 percent 

of car-less households in that major city. DHS also found that most states 

and urban areas significantly underestimated the advance planning and 

coordination required to effectively address the needs of persons with 

disabilities. Steps being taken by some such governments include 

collaboration with social service and transportation providers and 

transportation planning organizations—some of which are DOT grantees and 

stakeholders—to determine transportation needs and develop agreements 

for emergency use of drivers and vehicles. 

The federal government provides evacuation assistance to state and local 

governments, but gaps in this assistance have hindered many of these 

governments’ ability to sufficiently prepare for evacuations. This includes 

the lack of any specific requirement to plan, train, and conduct exercises for 

the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations as well as gaps 

in the usefulness of DHS’s guidance. Although federal law requires that state 

and local governments with mass evacuation plans incorporate special needs 

populations into their plans, this requirement does not necessarily ensure 

the incorporation of all transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

Additionally, while DHS has made improvements to an online portal for 

sharing related information, this information remains difficult to access 

because of poor search and organizational functions. Moreover, although 

the federal government can provide evacuation assistance when state and 

local governments are overwhelmed, the federal government is not prepared 

to do so. Amendments to the Stafford Act in October 2006 affirmed that 

FEMA (an agency within DHS) is responsible for leading and coordinating 

evacuation assistance. DHS has not yet clarified, in the National Response 

Plan, the lead, coordinating, or supporting agencies in such cases. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-44. 

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Kate Siggerud 

at (202) 512-2834 or SiggerudK@gao.gov. 
Contents 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 5

Background 12

Challenges and Barriers Exist in Evacuation Preparedness for 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 14 

State and Local Governments Are Generally Not Well Prepared to 

Evacuate Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations, but Some 

Have Taken Steps to Improve Preparedness 24 

While the Federal Government Provides Some Evacuation 

Assistance, Gaps Remain 32 

Conclusions 42

Recommendations for Executive Action 43 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 44 

Appendix I Scope and Methodology 48 

Appendix II Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 52 

GAO Comments 56 

Appendix III GAO’s Observations on Federal Proposed 

Recommendations and Initial Conclusions 58 

Appendix IV Other Federal Initiatives Related to Evacuating 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 62 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 64 

Related GAO Products 65 

Page i GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Table 

Table 1: GAO’s Observations on Federal Recommendations and 

Initial Conclusions Addressing Evacuation Planning for 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 58 

Figures 

Figure 1: Challenges in Evacuating Transportation-Disadvantaged 

Populations 7

Figure 2: Major Barriers to Addressing Challenges in Evacuating 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 19 

Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

DOT Department of Transportation 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

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

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

December 22, 2006 

Congressional Committees: 

The evacuation of New Orleans in response to Hurricane Katrina was 

considered relatively successful for people with their own vehicles; 

approximately 1 million people evacuated Louisiana prior to landfall.1

 In 

contrast, about 100,000 people were not evacuated prior to the storm—

many of whom lacked access to a vehicle. Hurricane Katrina ultimately 

resulted in over 1,300 deaths. Among those who could not evacuate were 

some of society’s most vulnerable populations: the elderly, low-income 

individuals, and persons with disabilities.2

 These populations often lack 

the ability to provide for their own transportation and may also have 

difficulty accessing conventional public transportation. As a result, 

evacuating these “transportation-disadvantaged” populations during 

emergencies has become an important topic of public policy discussion.3

Evacuations of varying scales are common in the United States and can be

triggered by a variety of events, including natural disasters such as 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, wildfires, and terrorist attacks like those 

committed on September 11, 2001. In fact, emergency evacuations of more 

than 1,000 people occur more than three times a month. While evacuation

is only one option in response to an emergency, it is complex and contains

 1

For the purposes of this report, we define evacuations as “organized, phased, and

supervised withdrawal, dispersal, or removal of civilians from dangerous or potentially 

dangerous areas, and their reception and care in safe areas.” 

2

As we discuss in this report, transportation-disadvantaged populations can include 

numerous categories of people without personal vehicles, such as: the elderly and persons

with disabilities who have mobility impairments that preclude them from driving or who 

need medical equipment in order to travel; low-income, homeless, or transient persons who 

do not have a permanent residence or who do not own or have access to a personal 

vehicle; children without an adult present during a disaster; tourists and commuters who

are frequent users of public transportation; those with limited English proficiency who tend 

to rely on public transit more than English speakers (see GAO, Transportation Services: 

Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT’s Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access 

for Limited English-Proficient Populations, GAO-06-52 [Washington, D.C.: Nov. 2, 2006]); 

or those who, for any other reason, do not own or have access to a personal vehicle. 

3

Our previous studies have examined the ability of transportation-disadvantaged 

populations to access public transportation for employment opportunities, health and 

medical services, educational services, and the community at large. 

Page 1 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
several critical components, including transportation, shelter, supplies, 

and security, among others. Each of these components is itself complex 

and often interrelated to transportation. Those who, by choice or 

circumstance, do not have access to a personal vehicle or are precluded 

from driving may require evacuation assistance during emergencies. The

2000 U.S. Census indicates that the population categories we have 

previously defined as transportation-disadvantaged—the elderly, lowincome individuals, and persons with disabilities—comprise a large 

segment of the country’s total population (now over 300 million). For 

example, Census data indicated that, in 2000, 12 percent of Americans 

were age 65 and over, 12 percent were living below the poverty line, and 

23 percent had a disability.4

 However, the transportation-disadvantaged 

not only include vulnerable populations, but all those who are car-less 

during an emergency. In 2000, the top 10 car-less cities had between 29 

and 56 percent of households without a vehicle. However, people who 

require transportation assistance in an evacuation may be an even larger 

group because, in an emergency, anyone without immediate access to 

transportation may require assistance. 

State and local governments are primarily responsible for managing

responses to disasters. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and 

Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act) establishes a disaster 

management framework for state and local governments5

 and indicates 

that disasters should be managed at the lowest possible governmental 

level. As the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reaffirmed in July 

2006,

6

 this approach also applies to evacuations whereby state and local 

officials may suggest or require the evacuation of residents from homes 

and communities before certain catastrophes occur using the authority set 

out in state laws and local ordinances. The federal government provides 

assistance to state and local governments in their evacuation 

preparedness, including requirements, funding, and guidance and 

technical guidance. If state and local governments are overwhelmed by a 

 4

Only those individuals age 21 and over are included in this disability determination. Also, 

while there is some overlap among transportation-disadvantaged populations—an elderly

person with a disability, for example—the numbers of these populations are still large. In 

addition, it is unlikely that all of those who compromise the aforementioned data would

require transportation during an evacuation. 

5

For the purposes of this report, language regarding state and local governments is 

inclusive of tribal governments. 

6

Letters sent by Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff to the Governors of 

Alabama, Louisiana, and Mississippi in July 2006.

Page 2 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
catastrophic disaster, the federal government can also provide evacuation

assistance. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT) and the 

Department of Defense (DOD) worked with state and local officials to 

conduct evacuations during Hurricane Katrina. Other entities that may be 

available to assist state and local governments in preparing for 

evacuations include social service agencies, nonprofit organizations, 

public transportation providers (such as transit agencies) and private 

transportation providers (such as ambulance and bus companies), and 

regional planning organizations—also known as metropolitan planning 

organizations—which collect transportation and transit data as part of 

their involvement in planning highway and transit investments. Some of 

these entities receive DOT grants for programs that provide transportation 

for the elderly, low-income individuals, persons with disabilities, and other 

transportation-disadvantaged populations, among other activities.7

 The 

federal government’s plan for disaster response is the DHS National 

Response Plan. 

Reports by the White House,8

 Senate,9 and other federal entities studied 

federal, state, and local evacuation preparedness and response to 

Hurricane Katrina and issued related recommendations. The Congress 

mandated that reviews and assessments be conducted in response to 

concerns raised by Hurricane Katrina. As a result, DHS issued the 

Nationwide Plan Review Phase I and II Reports, a comprehensive 

assessment of catastrophic planning, in all 50 states and in 75 of the largest 

urban areas (February and June 2006).10 In addition, DOT issued the 

Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation: A Report to 

Congress, a review of hurricane evacuation plans of five states and 58 

counties and parishes on the Gulf Coast, in June 2006.11 Because of this 

broad-based congressional interest in concerns raised by Hurricane 

Katrina, we assessed issues surrounding the evacuation of transportation-

 7

Such programs include the Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, Job 

Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom programs. 

8

White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina:

Lessons Learned (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2006) 

9

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Hurricane Katrina: A 

Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 2006). 

10DHS, Nationwide Plan Review: Phase I Report (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 10, 2006). DHS, 

Nationwide Plan Review: Phase II Report (Washington, D.C.: June 16, 2006). 

11DOT in cooperation with DHS, Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation: A 

Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2006). 

Page 3 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
disadvantaged populations under the Comptroller General’s authority, 

which allows him to conduct evaluations on his own initiative.12 In May 

2006, we reported on preliminary observations from our work.13 To 

complete our assessment, we examined (1) the challenges state and local

governments face in preparing for the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations and the barriers these governments confront in 

addressing such challenges; (2) how prepared state and local governments 

are to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations, and what steps 

the governments are taking to address challenges associated with 

preparing for the evacuation of these populations; and (3) the extent to 

which the federal government (a) has provided assistance to state and 

local governments’ efforts to prepare for the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations and (b) is responsible for providing evacuation

assistance when state and local governments are overwhelmed by a 

catastrophic disaster. 

To address these questions, we conducted literature and document 

reviews of federal, state, and local emergency plans; activity reports issued 

after Hurricane Katrina and other recent disasters; studies conducted by 

the federal government, experts, national associations, and organizations 

that represent transportation-disadvantaged populations and

transportation providers; and related laws and proposed legislation. We 

interviewed federal officials from DOT, DHS, Health and Human Services, 

and DOD, in addition to experts in the field of emergency preparedness. 

We conducted site visits to five major cities: Los Angeles, California; 

Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; Buffalo, New York; and 

Washington, D.C.14 We selected these cities based on several factors, 

including large concentrations of car-less, elderly, disabled, and lowincome populations (according to the 2000 U.S. Census); a medium or high 

overall vulnerability to hazards; and transportation ridership. At these 

locations, we interviewed local emergency management, public safety, and 

transit and transportation agency officials; transportation planners and 

 1231 U.S.C. § 717(b)(1)(2000). 

13GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation of 

Vulnerable Populations Due to Hurricanes and Other Disasters, GAO-06-790T 

(Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006). Also see a list of related GAO products at the end of this 

report. 

14While the District of Columbia is neither a city nor a state, for the purposes of this report, 

we refer to the District of Columbia as one of the major cities we visited. We, therefore, did 

not visit a respective state for the District of Columbia. 

Page 4 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
representatives of advocacy groups for the elderly and persons with 

disabilities. We also interviewed state emergency management and 

transportation agency officials at the four state capitals for the cities we 

visited: Sacramento, California; Tallahassee, Florida; Baton Rouge, 

Louisiana; and Albany, New York. We issued a report in July 2006 on the 

evacuation of health facilities, including hospitals and nursing homes.15 As 

such, this report does not address the evacuation of those who are under 

the care of these health facilities. In addition, aside from transportation, 

this report does not address other key considerations in evacuating these 

populations, such as shelter, security, food and water, and other 

associated issues. 

We conducted our review from December 2005 through December 2006 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. (See

app. I for additional information on our scope and methodology.) 

When preparing for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged

populations, state and local emergency management officials face 

challenges in identifying and locating these populations, determining their 

transportation needs, and providing for their transportation. For instance, 

when preparing evacuation plans, it is difficult for officials to identify 

transportation-disadvantaged populations because they are large, diverse, 

and constantly changing. In addition, locating transportationdisadvantaged populations is a challenge for state and local officials 

because information on their locations has not been or cannot be 

collected, is not centrally compiled, or has not been traditionally shared 

with officials responsible for preparing to evacuate these populations. 

Determining the evacuation transportation needs of these populations is a 

challenge because the needs of such populations vary—some require little 

assistance beyond basic transportation, while others may require 

transportation that is accessible to those with mobility impairments (such 

as buses with wheelchair lifts) and medical assistance from the home to 

the shelter. Additionally, officials face challenges in providing for the 

evacuation transportation of these populations, such as acquiring the 

appropriate vehicles and other equipment, employing the professionals 

Results in Brief 

 15GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation Assistance for Health

Facilities Should Be Addressed, GAO-06-826 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 20, 2006). This report 

discusses evacuation challenges faced by hospitals and nursing homes, such as in deciding 

whether to evacuate, securing transportation, and maintaining communications outside of

their facilities. 

Page 5 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
(such as drivers) necessary to carry out evacuations, and providing 

relevant training to those professionals, including how to move persons 

with disabilities in and out of vehicles. For example, 48 percent of 

respondents to DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review stated that they needed to

improve their use of all available transportation modes. State and local 

officials also confront legal and social barriers in addressing these 

evacuation challenges for transportation-disadvantaged populations. One 

legal barrier is officials’ concern about obtaining client medical 

information from transportation providers that is used to service clients. 

Although officials would use this information in evacuation preparedness 

efforts, privacy issues remain. Another legal barrier is that public and 

private sector transportation providers—for example, those who transport 

persons with disabilities, “Meals on Wheels” programs for the elderly, and 

job access services for low-income individuals—may be dissuaded, along

with volunteers, from providing evacuation assistance in an emergency 

because of liability concerns. An example of this concern is the possibility 

of being sued for damages if an evacuee becomes injured while boarding a 

bus. Further, social barriers, which can affect the willingness of any 

population to evacuate, may make transportation-disadvantaged 

populations even less likely to accept assistance in evacuating. This can 

include concerns about a pet, one’s health, or fear of losing financial 

assets. It can also include the risk of adverse health effects if these 

populations evacuate without their assistance devices, such as life-support 

systems or service animals. (See fig. 1.) 

Page 6 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Figure 1: Challenges in Evacuating Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations

Identify

and locate

Determine needs

and provide transportation

Source: GAO.

Many state and local governments are generally not well prepared—that is, 

they do not have the appropriate plans, training, and exercises—to 

evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations. DHS’s Nationwide

Plan Review of emergency plans from all 50 states and 75 of the largest 

urban areas reported that about 10 percent of states and about 12 percent 

of urban areas adequately addressed evacuating transportationdisadvantaged populations. DOT’s evaluation reported that most state and

local evacuation plans focus on highway evacuations by personal vehicles. 

According to the Nationwide Plan Review and our site visits, one reason 

for this lack of preparedness is the limited awareness or understanding of 

the importance of preparing to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged 

populations by many state and local governments. Emergency 

management officials in one major city we visited after Hurricane Katrina 

stated that few residents would require transportation assistance and,

therefore, these officials did not believe that they needed to plan, train, 

and conduct exercises for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged

populations. However, 2000 U.S. Census data reported 16.5 percent of 

households in that major city are car-less, and many of these households 

may not be able to self-evacuate. While it is uncertain whether state and 

local governments’ ability to evacuate these populations would be 

Page 7 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
successful—in part because of limited training and conducting of 

exercises—we found that some state and local governments we visited 

have taken steps to address some of the evacuation preparedness 

challenges and related legal and social barriers. These include the 

following: 

• Identifying and locating transportation-disadvantaged populations: One 

of the five major cities we visited conducted a disaster preparedness 

survey of some of its transportation-disadvantaged populations, and 

another has begun to develop computerized maps that locate 

transportation-disadvantaged populations. However, while some state and 

local entities (some of which are DOT grant recipients and stakeholders) 

can provide information on how to identify and locate transportationdisadvantaged populations, the five major cities and four states we visited 

have generally not taken advantage of these entities’ information. (These 

entities include social service agencies; nonprofit organizations; public 

and private sector transportation providers for the elderly, low-income 

individuals, and persons with disabilities; and metropolitan planning 

organizations, among others.) 

• Determining needs and providing transportation: Two of the five major 

cities we visited have involved state and local entities—such as advocacy 

groups and social service transportation providers—in planning efforts to 

make use of these entities’ understanding of, and experience with, the 

needs of transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

• Legal and social barriers: To help address legal barriers, four of the five 

major cities we visited have developed memoranda of understanding and 

mutual aid agreements for the use of vehicles and drivers in an emergency; 

these contracts help address liability concerns. To help overcome social 

barriers, two of the five major cities we visited have established plans to

evacuate and shelter pets and ensured that evacuees can bring assistance 

devices, such as wheelchairs and life-support systems. 

The federal government has provided some evacuation preparedness 

assistance to state and local governments for transportationdisadvantaged populations, but gaps have hindered many of these 

governments’ ability to sufficiently prepare to address the complex 

challenges and barriers they face. These gaps include the following: 

Page 8 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
• Requirements: Until October 2006, while federal law required that 

emergency plans include an evacuation plan, there was no specific 

requirement that the evacuation plan address how to transport those who 

cannot self-evacuate.16 Federal law now requires that state and local 

governments with mass evacuation plans incorporate special needs 

populations into their plan. However, this requirement does not 

necessarily ensure the incorporation of all transportation-disadvantaged

populations. This is because state and local governments do not share a 

consistent definition of special needs populations, as we found in the 

course of our review, and this term did not encompass all transportationdisadvantaged populations which are important to evacuation 

preparedness. In addition, a July 2005 report from the National Council on 

Disability17 found little evidence that DHS has encouraged state or local 

grant recipients to include disability and access issues in their emergency 

preparedness efforts. Changes in federal law from October 2006 will also

further protect some transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

• Funding: Although DHS grants may be used by state and local 

governments to plan, train, and conduct exercises for the evacuation of 

transportation-disadvantaged populations, officials from only two of the 

five major cities and one state we visited had requested a DHS grant for 

such purposes. These officials told us that such grants were seldom used 

to prepare these populations for evacuation because these officials believe 

DHS placed a greater emphasis on the procurement of equipment (rather 

than planning) and on terrorism preparedness (as opposed to 

preparedness for natural or other disasters). In addition, DHS officials told 

us that they currently do not know how much of the department’s grant 

funds have been used, or are being used, by state and local governments to 

prepare for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

• Guidance and technical assistance: The primary federal guidance for 

evacuation preparedness recommends planning for transportationdisadvantaged populations, but does not provide any further details for 

how to do so. As a result, state and local officials told us that additional 

guidance on how to approach planning for these populations would be 

helpful. About one-third of DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review respondents 

stated that they would like additional guidance in this area. Further, while 

DHS has an online portal for sharing existing emergency preparedness 

 16Title 42 U.S.C. § 11003(c)(7). 

17National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People with Disabilities in

Emergency Planning (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 15, 2005). 

Page 9 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
guidance, best practices, and other information—its Lessons Learned 

Information Sharing online portal—information on preparing to evacuate 

transportation-disadvantaged populations is difficult to access because of

poor search and organizational functions. While several federal agencies, 

such as the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), coordinate 

technical assistance for evacuations, such assistance is generally focused

on self-evacuation. 

While DHS and DOT have taken several actions in the aftermath of 

Hurricane Katrina to improve the federal government’s ability to provide 

evacuation assistance when state and local governments are overwhelmed 

by a catastrophic disaster, gaps remain. Although the Stafford Act gives 

the federal government the authority to assist state and local governments 

with evacuations and to respond in a catastrophic disaster, the National 

Response Plan does not clarify the lead, coordinating, and supporting 

agencies to provide evacuation assistance for transportationdisadvantaged and other populations when state and local governments 

are overwhelmed. The absence of lead, coordinating, and supporting 

agencies for providing evacuation assistance was evident in the federal 

response for New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. As both the White 

House Homeland Security Council report and the Senate Government 

Affairs and Homeland Security Committee report noted, the federal 

government was not prepared to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged 

populations, and this severely complicated and hampered the federal 

response.18 Both reports recommended that DOT develop plans to assist 

states and local governments overwhelmed by catastrophic disasters, and 

that DHS and DOT work with other agencies to develop the federal 

government’s capability to conduct mass evacuations. To remedy this, the 

White House report also recommended that DOT be designated as the 

federal agency responsible for leading and coordinating evacuations when 

state and local governments are overwhelmed. Amendments to the 

Stafford Act from October 2006 clarified the responsibility of FEMA (an 

agency within DHS) in leading and coordinating evacuation assistance 

when state and local governments are overwhelmed by a catastrophic 

disaster. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the federal government has 

taken several steps to improve its ability to respond to a catastrophic 

disaster. For instance, during the 2006 hurricane season, the government 

 18See White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to Hurricane 

Katrina: Lessons Learned (Washington D.C.: Feb. 2006) and Senate Homeland Security

and Governmental Affairs Committee, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared

(Washington, D.C.: May 2006). 

Page 10 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
provided additional evacuation assistance to state and local governments. 

However, despite these improvements, DHS has not yet clarified in the 

National Response Plan which federal agencies are responsible for 

leading, coordinating, and supporting evacuation assistance. 

To improve the federal government’s ability to assist state and local 

governments in evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations, we 

are making several recommendations to DHS. We recommend, for 

instance, that DHS clarify in the National Response Plan (as already stated

in federal law) that FEMA is the single federal agency responsible for 

leading and coordinating evacuation assistance when state and local 

governments are overwhelmed. We also recommend that DHS clarify the 

supporting federal agencies’ roles and responsibilities in providing 

evacuation assistance. In addition, we are also recommending that DHS 

use its authority under its various grant programs to require that all state 

and local governments plan, train, and exercise for the evacuation of these 

populations; develop additional preparedness guidance and technical 

assistance; and improve its information sharing online portal to encourage 

better evacuation preparedness for these populations. We are making a 

recommendation to DOT that it encourage its grant recipients and 

stakeholders, through guidance and outreach, to share information that 

would assist emergency management and transportation officials in 

identifying and locating as well as determining the evacuation needs of 

and providing transportation for these populations. 

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

received written comments from DHS and oral comments from DOT 

officials, including the National Response Program Manager, Office of 

Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response, Office of the Secretary.

DOT officials generally agreed with the information contained in our 

report, and both DOT officials and DHS’s letter stated that they would 

consider our recommendations. DHS’s letter also stated that it has partly 

implemented some recommendations in our draft report, including 

improvements to its Lessons Learned Information Sharing portal. We 

recognize that DHS has made improvements to this portal, but some of the 

issues we previously identified, particularly regarding its limited search 

functions, remain. We therefore revised our recommendation to recognize 

DHS’s efforts, but retained the recommendation to reflect the need for 

continued improvement. DHS’s letter also noted, in contrast to an earlier 

discussion we had with DHS officials, that DHS is the single agency

responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation support to the states,

and that this responsibility was emphasized by amendments to the 

Stafford Act in October 2006. We therefore modified our draft as 

Page 11 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
appropriate and retained our recommendation that DHS clarify the lead, 

coordinating, and supporting federal agencies to provide evacuation 

assistance and these agencies’ responsibilities in the National Response 

Plan. DHS’s letter raised a number of other concerns, including how we 

characterized its role and responsibilities, and how we characterized the 

events surrounding Hurricane Katrina, which we have addressed in the 

report as appropriate. In addition, both DHS and DOT officials offered 

technical and clarifying comments which we incorporated. 

State and local governments are primarily responsible for carrying out 

evacuations. However, if these governments become overwhelmed by a 

catastrophic disaster, the federal government can provide essential 

support, such as evacuation assistance for transportation-disadvantaged 

and other populations. Such support would require adequate preparation 

on the part of the federal government. 

The Stafford Act outlines the framework for state and local governments 

to obtain federal support in response to a disaster. First, a governor must 

submit a request to the President in order for the President to declare a 

federal disaster. Once the declaration is granted, the state can request 

specific assistance from FEMA (part of DHS), such as physical assets, 

personnel, funding, and technical assistance, among others. While the 

President can declare a disaster without a request from a governor, this 

does not frequently occur. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management 

Reform Act of 2006 amended sections of the Stafford Act whereby the 

President can provide accelerated federal assistance and support where 

necessary to save lives absent a specific request from a governor and can

direct any federal agency to provide assistance to state and local 

governments in support of “precautionary evacuations.” DHS’s role is to 

coordinate federal resources used in disaster response, including 

evacuations. DHS created the National Response Plan in 2004 to create a 

comprehensive “all-hazards” approach to enhance the ability of the United 

States to manage domestic incidents. Under the National Response Plan, 

DOT is the lead and coordinating federal agency for transportation in a 

disaster. DOT is primarily responsible for coordinating the provision of 

federal and civil transportation services, and the recovery, restoration, 

safety, and security of the transportation infrastructure. However, with 

respect to evacuations, DOT is only responsible for providing technical 

assistance in evacuation planning to other federal agencies as well as state 

and local governments. 

Background 

Page 12 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 also 

included numerous provisions to help strengthen federal, state, and local 

evacuation preparedness for some transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. Among these provisions are: the establishment of the 

National Advisory Council to advise FEMA on all aspects of emergency 

management that will include disability and other special needs 

representatives; the institution of a DHS disability coordinator to assist in 

emergency preparedness for persons with disabilities; the creation of the 

National Training Program and the National Exercise Program which are 

designed to address the unique requirements of special needs populations; 

and a requirement that federal agencies develop operational plans to 

respond effectively to disasters, which must address support of state and 

local governments in conducting mass evacuations, including 

transportation and provisions for populations with special needs. 

To facilitate evacuation preparedness, state and local entities not 

traditionally involved in emergency management can provide assistance—

such as information or vehicles—that would be helpful in state and local 

evacuation-preparedness efforts for transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. Some such entities receive DOT grants to provide 

transportation for the elderly, low-income individuals, persons with 

disabilities, and other transportation-disadvantaged populations. These 

include social service agencies, nonprofit organizations, and public and 

private sector transportation providers that coordinate the daily 

transportation of the elderly, low-income individuals, and persons with 

disabilities, to provide meals or transportation to and from jobs, medical 

appointments, and other activities. Finally, as a condition for spending 

federal highway or transit funds in urbanized areas, federal highway and 

transit statutes require metropolitan planning organizations to plan, 

program, and coordinate federal highway and transit investments. To carry

out these activities, metropolitan planning organizations collect 

transportation and transit data. In March 2006, DOT issued guidance that

recommends increased interaction between some of its grant recipients 

and emergency management agencies, among other entities.19

 19For fiscal year 2007, DOT’s Elderly Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities, Job 

Access and Reverse Commute, and New Freedom programs require some grant recipients

to develop a coordinated public transit-human services transportation plan. FTA proposes 

that this plan is to be a unified, comprehensive strategy for public transportation service 

delivery that identifies the transportation needs of individuals with disabilities, older 

adults, and individuals with limited incomes; lays out strategies for meeting these needs; 

and prioritizes services. All future projects for these programs are to be derived from the

local coordinated public transit-human services transportation plans. 

Page 13 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
To assess state and local evacuation preparedness, DHS’s Nationwide 

Plan Review examined the emergency plans of all 50 states and 75 of the 

largest urban areas, including evacuation plans and annexes. DOT’s report 

to the Congress, entitled Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan 

Evaluation: A Report to Congress also reviewed the evacuation plans of 

many of the Gulf Coast region’s counties and parishes. Both of these 

federal reports also recommend that additional actions be taken to 

address this issue. 

There are many relevant federal entities and other entities that have 

served as advocates for all or subsets of transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. In the federal government, these include the National Council

on Disability; and interagency councils such as the Coordinating Council 

on Access and Mobility, the Interagency Coordinating Council on 

Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities, and the 

Interagency Council on Homelessness. Outside of the federal government,

relevant entities that have advocated for these populations include the

National Organization on Disability and the American Association of 

Retired Persons, as well as transportation groups such as the American 

Public Transportation Association, the Community Transportation 

Association of America, and the Association of Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations. 

State and local emergency management officials face several challenges in

preparing for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged

populations.20 For example, state and local officials face difficulties in 

obtaining information about where transportation-disadvantaged 

populations are located. These state and local officials also face challenges 

in determining transportation-disadvantaged populations’ needs and 

providing for their transportation, such as arranging for the use of 

appropriate equipment—buses and vans, for example—to evacuate these 

populations. Additionally, officials confront legal and social barriers in 

addressing these challenges, such as concerns about being unable to 

obtain client medical information from public or private sector 

transportation providers for use in evacuation preparedness efforts 

because of privacy issues. 

Challenges and 

Barriers Exist in 

Evacuation 

Preparedness for 

TransportationDisadvantaged 

Populations 

 20We issued a report in July 2006 on the evacuation of health facilities, including hospitals 

and nursing homes. As such, this report does not address the evacuation of those who are

under the care of these health facilities. See GAO-06-826. 

Page 14 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
According to experts and officials, the challenges state and local 

governments face in preparing for the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations include identifying and locating these 

populations, determining their evacuation needs, and providing for their 

transportation. It is difficult for state and local officials to acquire the 

necessary information to both identify and locate transportationdisadvantaged populations. The difficulty in identifying these populations

is due to the fact that these populations represent large, diverse, and 

constantly changing groups, and that information about them is not always 

readily available. Transportation-disadvantaged populations can include 

numerous categories of people without personal vehicles, such as the 

following: 

State and Local 

Governments Face 

Challenges in Identifying 

and Locating 

TransportationDisadvantaged 

Populations, Determining 

Their Evacuation Needs, 

and Providing for Their 

Transportation 

• the elderly and persons with disabilities who have mobility impairments 

that preclude them from driving, or who need medical equipment in order 

to travel; 

• low-income, homeless, or transient persons who do not have a permanent

residence or who do not own or have access to a personal vehicle; 

• children without an adult present during a disaster; 

• tourists and commuters who are frequent users of public transportation; 

• those with limited English proficiency who tend to rely on public transit 

more than English speakers;21 or 

• those who, for any other reason, do not own or have access to a personal 

vehicle. 

These populations can also include those who could be placed in, or 

qualify for, more than one category among transportation-disadvantaged

populations, such as a person who has disabilities, is homeless, and 

speaks limited English. Both the large number of these populations and 

the potential for double counting can make identification difficult for state 

and local officials. For example, although 52 percent of the Gulf Coast 

jurisdictions evaluated in DOT’s Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation 

Plan Evaluation had identified and located certain transportationdisadvantaged populations, DOT reported that only three jurisdictions had 

satisfactorily included provisions for schools and day care centers, trailer 

 21See GAO-06-52. 

Page 15 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
parks and campgrounds, incarcerated and transient individuals, and 

people with limited English proficiency in their evacuation plans. Twentysix percent of respondents to a question in DHS’s Nationwide Plan 

Review stated that they needed to improve their identification of these 

populations. Fifteen percent of respondents to this question indicated that 

a standard federal definition of “transportation-disadvantaged” would 

facilitate their planning. 

Additionally, data on the location of transportation-disadvantaged 

populations is not readily available because such data: 

• have not previously been collected; 

• cannot be collected because of the amount of time, staff, and other 

resources required, or cannot be shared due to the preference of some 

transportation-disadvantaged populations; for example, the established 

registration system in one of the five major cities we visited had only 

1400—or 0.3 percent—of the 462,000 people projected to need evacuation 

assistance registered; 

• are not compiled in a central location, but reside in separate databases 

across numerous agencies, companies, or organizations, including social 

service agencies, departments of motor vehicles, and public and private 

sector transportation providers; 

• are not traditionally shared with emergency management officials; for 

example, a local metropolitan planning organization may collect data on 

those who are transit-dependent, but may not have shared that 

information with emergency management officials; or 

• cannot be shared with emergency officials due to privacy restrictions; for 

example, social service agencies or nonprofit organizations that regularly 

transport people during non-emergency times and have information on 

clients’ needs, but may not be able or willing to share that data because of

privacy concerns. 

In addition to identifying and locating transportation-disadvantaged 

populations, state and local governments also face the challenge of 

determining the transportation needs of these populations and providing 

for their transportation in an evacuation. To adequately prepare for 

evacuating these populations, state and local officials need information on 

Page 16 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
the medical and transportation needs of each person in addition to his or 

her location.22 These needs can vary widely from those who can travel by

themselves to a government-assisted evacuation pick-up point to those 

who: 

• need to be transported to a government-assisted evacuation pick-up point, 

but do not require medical assistance or additional transportation; 

• live in group homes for persons with mental disabilities and may require 

medical assistance, but not accessible transportation in an evacuation; or

• are medically frail but not hospitalized, and require acute medical 

assistance as well as accessible transportation in an evacuation. 

However, similar to the location data discussed earlier, it is difficult for 

state and local officials to obtain information on the transportation needs 

of these populations. 

Another challenge that state and local officials face in preparing for the 

evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations is providing for 

the transportation of these populations. This challenge includes identifying 

the appropriate equipment and available modes of transport as well as 

drivers and other needed professionals, providing training to those drivers 

and other professionals, and communicating evacuation information to the 

public. When preparing for an emergency, it can be difficult for state and 

local officials to identify, arrange for the use of, and determine the proper

positioning of equipment needed to transport these populations. The 

transportation needs of such populations can range from persons who can 

be evacuated in school buses and charter buses to the mobility-impaired 

who may require low floor buses, wheelchair lift-equipped vans, and other 

accessible vehicles. Because of the limited number of vehicles (accessible,

multi-passenger, or other) available among both public transportation 

providers (such as transit agencies) and private transportation providers 

(such as ambulance and bus companies), we found that emergency 

officials have to spend additional time and resources arranging for 

transportation and ensuring that those arrangements are coordinated 

before an evacuation order is issued. Further, state and local governments 

also need to have drivers and other professionals trained to operate the 

 22Medical needs may include care providers or equipment such as wheelchairs and beds. 

Transportation needs may include accessible vehicles such as those with chair lifts or low 

floors. 

Page 17 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
additional vehicles they have acquired or to move persons with disabilities 

in and out of vehicles; constraints already exist on the pool of potential 

drivers. One example of a constrained resource is school bus drivers. If an 

evacuation is ordered during the school day, the availability of these 

drivers is severely limited because such drivers must first transport the 

children home. In addition, drivers who provide transportation to these 

populations during non-emergency times are often not trained or 

contracted to provide emergency transportation for these populations. 

Further, DOT’s Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation

reported that, even in urban areas where additional modes of 

transportation are available, few evacuation plans recognize the potential

role for intercity buses, trains, airplanes, and ferries. These modes may be

particularly important for persons who cannot evacuate in personal 

vehicles. In response to a question in DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review on 

how well all available modes of transportation are incorporated into 

evacuation plans, 48 percent of respondents stated that plans needed to 

improve the use of available modes of transport in evacuation planning.

For example, one jurisdiction is investigating using ferries and barges in 

evacuations.

According to experts and officials, several legal and social barriers 

confront state and local governments in addressing the aforementioned 

challenges to evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations. (See 

fig. 2.) 

Legal and Social Barriers 

to Addressing 

TransportationDisadvantaged Evacuation 

Challenges Confront State 

and Local Governments 

Page 18 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Figure 2: Major Barriers to Addressing Challenges in Evacuating Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 

Source: GAO.

Legal

barriers

Social

barriers

To begin, state and local emergency management officials often face legal

barriers in obtaining data on the identification, location, or the 

transportation needs of these populations. For example, 11 percent of 

respondents to a DHS Nationwide Plan Review question on addressing 

the needs of transportation-disadvantaged individuals before, during, and

after emergencies, stated that they were concerned about privacy issues 

vis-à-vis obtaining medical information from public or private sector 

transportation providers about their clients that would help officials in 

their evacuation preparedness. These providers could include those that 

provide paratransit services for persons with disabilities, “Meals on 

Wheels” programs for the elderly, and job access services for low-income 

individuals. DOT’s Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation

also cited privacy as a legal barrier. Officials in three of the five major 

cities we visited in addition to several federal officials with whom we 

spoke expressed concern about what impact the Health Information 

Portability and Accountability Act’s Privacy Rule (the Privacy Rule) might 

have on their ability to acquire such data. The act’s Privacy Rule limits the 

disclosure of individually identifiable health information by certain entities 

or persons,23 but does not apply to transportation providers unless they are 

 23See Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-191 

(August 24, 1996) and HHS Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health 

Information, 45 C.F.R. parts 160 & 164 (2005). 

Page 19 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
also covered entities. Covered entities include health care providers that 

conduct certain transactions in electronic form, health-care 

clearinghouses, or health plans.24 Therefore, transportation providers that 

are not covered entities would not be prohibited by the Privacy Rule from

sharing such information. However, misunderstanding about the act’s 

Privacy Rule may still be discouraging some from sharing this information. 

Additionally, the general concerns that federal, state, and local officials 

have expressed may extend to other privacy issues beyond the Privacy 

Rule, such as potential contractual restrictions on Medicare and Medicaid 

transportation providers. 

Another example of a legal barrier is that some public or private sector 

transportation providers are hesitant to evacuate these populations 

because of concerns about reimbursement and liability. State and local 

officials must often broker arrangements with transportation providers in 

order to secure their services. However, although these providers may be 

willing to help state and local officials evacuate these populations, they 

will sometimes not do so without legal agreements (such as memoranda of 

understanding or contracts) that ensure reimbursement and that absolve 

the providers from, or reduce liability in case of, an accident or injury. 

Creating such an agreement usually requires legal representation as well 

as additional liability insurance to protect against potential damage or loss 

of property or life—all entailing monetary costs that state or local 

governments and transportation providers may not be willing or able to 

cover. Officials in one of the five major cities we visited told us that 

additional liability insurance would be cost prohibitive to obtain. We 

learned of a school district’s reluctance to provide vehicles for an 

evacuation without a legal agreement in one of the five major cities we 

visited. This was largely due to the fact that the school district had 

provided vehicles for an evacuation 12 years ago, but FEMA has not yet 

fully reimbursed it. In one of the five major cities and one of the four states 

we visited, we also learned of agreements that have been pending for 

months (or had fallen through) because of one party’s liability concerns; 

these concerns could not be adequately addressed by the state or local 

government.

An additional legal barrier for state and local officials we identified relates 

to volunteers (such as nonprofit organizations or Good Samaritans) who

may also be dissuaded from providing evacuation assistance in an 

 2445 C.F.R. § 165.104 (2005). 

Page 20 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
emergency because of liability concerns.25 Liability concerns may be even 

more of a barrier after Hurricane Katrina, where volunteers saw that 

efforts to assist had unintentional consequences, some of which resulted 

in lawsuits. For example, Operation Brother’s Keeper is a Red Cross 

program that connects transportation-disadvantaged populations in local 

faith-based congregations with voluntary providers of transportation in 

those congregations. However, because of liability concerns in the 

provision of such transportation, voluntary participants of the program are 

now less willing to provide such transportation. Given that most state 

Good Samaritan laws only apply to voluntary assistance provided in 

circumstances that involve urgent medical care, transportation providers 

may be held liable unless they are responding to an accident scene or 

transporting a patient to a medical facility. Moreover, we found that in one 

state, an addendum introduced to modify an existing Good Samaritan law 

that would indemnify volunteers assisting in evacuations did not pass. The 

absence of protection from potential liability may also jeopardize efforts to 

enlist the assistance of volunteers in evacuating the transportationdisadvantaged. 

Furthermore, private transportation providers raise an additional legal 

barrier for emergency officials, as these providers are hesitant to offer 

evacuation assistance without formal sheltering arrangements already in 

place. Sheltering arrangements ensure that such transportation providers 

will not face unexpected complications once they arrive at an evacuation 

destination. The providers’ requirement for sheltering arrangements 

highlights the fact that there are other significant evacuation barriers for 

state and local governments which extend beyond transportation. Experts 

who participated in an August 2006 panel we hosted on disaster housing 

assistance also described similar sheltering challenges that were discussed 

earlier in this report, such as challenges related to evacuation 

preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged populations.26 For example, 

some of the panelists discussed difficulty in obtaining information on 

those who require sheltering, where they are located, and what their 

sheltering needs are.27 Further, providing shelter for transient populations,

 25Good Samaritan laws are enacted by states to protect health care providers and other 

volunteer rescuers from being sued when they are giving emergency medical help to a

victim. 

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

27The GAO Expert Panel on Disaster Housing Assistance was conducted in cooperation 

with and held at the National Academies in Washington, D.C. on August 17, 2006. 

Page 21 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
persons with disabilities, undocumented workers, and those with limited 

English proficiency—many of whom are also transportationdisadvantaged—is a complex task. Finally, as we will discuss in the next

section, sharing information to increase preparedness needs improvement. 

Social barriers that may affect evacuation efforts for all populations may 

pose another major obstacle for state and local officials in addressing 

challenges to evacuating these populations. While social barriers extend 

beyond transportation-disadvantaged populations to include many of 

those with access to a car, there are two reasons why such barriers are 

particularly pronounced when state and local officials prepare for the 

evacuation of such populations. First, as opposed to those who have 

access to a personal vehicle, state and local officials must be able to 

identify, locate, and determine the needs of transportation-disadvantaged

populations in order to evacuate them. Second, the unwillingness to 

evacuate may be more widespread for the car-less than other populations 

due to health, financial, or other personal reasons that are related to their

transportation-disadvantaged status.

Even if the identification, location, or transportation needs data are 

available for use by state and local officials, we learned that some people 

may not want to disclose their information to these officials because of 

concerns that sharing such data will adversely affect their 

• medical situation, whereby the privacy of their personal medical 

information may be compromised; 

• financial situation, such that their financial assets will be taken or 

reduced; and 

• legal situation, such that they face consequences if, for example, the 

government learns that they are undocumented workers. 

This barrier may therefore prevent state and local governments from 

determining which populations require evacuation transportation, where 

they are located, and what their specific transportation needs are. 

In addition, if state and local officials are able to prepare for the 

evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations, these officials 

still may confront the unwillingness of these populations to evacuate. 

State and local officials have the difficult task of making evacuation in 

advance of emergencies a better alternative for such populations than 

sheltering in place. Even when the local or state government issues a 

“mandatory” evacuation order, most state governments do not have the 

Page 22 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
authority to forcibly remove people from their homes or other areas. 

Instead, state governments must decide whether they can, or are willing 

to, voluntarily comply with the order. Further, even if emergency 

management officials provide transportation to these populations, they 

may not want to evacuate. One example of this unwillingness to evacuate 

is that transportation-disadvantaged populations may be concerned about

being separated from family members or caregivers upon whom they may 

depend for mobility or the provision of medical services, or pets upon 

which they may rely for companionship. In addition, shelters that receive 

evacuees may not be set up to receive pets. Health concerns may also 

cause these populations to be reluctant to evacuate. For example, some 

may be reluctant or unable to leave without the medication or medical 

equipment (e.g., oxygen tanks or dialysis machines) that are critical to 

their well-being, or may be concerned that riding on an evacuation vehicle

would be extremely painful given their medical condition. In addition, 

some may feel anxiety concerning the lack of information about their 

destination, including whether they know someone there or whether the 

destination will meet their needs. 

These populations’ unwillingness to evacuate can also stem from fear of 

losing physical or financial assets. For example, some transportationdisadvantaged populations have limited assets and do not feel safe leaving 

whatever assets they do have—such as their home or belongings—behind. 

This sentiment is exacerbated among those whose families have lived in 

their homes for generations. Further, as was observed during Hurricane 

Katrina, people may be unwilling to evacuate even if they do have a car; 

they may not have money to pay for gas or are unwilling to move to a 

place where their financial situation is less certain. 

In attempting to address some of these social barriers by informing 

transportation-disadvantaged populations about the benefits of evacuating 

as opposed to sheltering in place, we found that communicating with these 

populations can be difficult because these populations often 

• are dispersed; 

• may lack access to a radio or television; 

• may not trust emergency announcements; or 

• may not be able to read or understand emergency materials or 

announcements because of a disability, such as a cognitive or vision 

Page 23 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
impairment, or a lack of proficiency in English.28

Many state and local governments have gaps in their evacuation 

preparedness—including planning, training, and conducting exercises—

for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Many of these governments 

generally have limited awareness or understanding of the need to plan for 

the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations. These 

governments believe that the risk of an evacuation is too low to warrant 

planning for these populations. The governments also may have focused 

only on planning for self-evacuations. In addition, while some state and 

local governments may be aware of the need to prepare for evacuating 

these populations, some have made little progress because of insufficient 

planning details and little training for, and exercising of, plans to evacuate 

the transportation-disadvantaged. Although some state and local 

governments have taken steps to address challenges and related barriers, 

the outcomes of these actions remain uncertain. 

Many states and localities are generally not well prepared—including 

planning, training, and conducting exercises—to evacuate transportationdisadvantaged populations. DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review of emergency

operation plans from all 50 states and 75 of the largest urban areas 

reported that 10 percent of state and 12 percent of urban area evacuation 

planning documents sufficiently addressed assisting those who would not 

be able to evacuate on their own. The review also identified that such 

planning often consisted of little more than public information campaigns

designed to encourage residents to evacuate by their own means. Even in 

hurricane-affected areas, most evacuation plans do not fully address the 

needs of transportation-disadvantaged populations. Most notably, DOT’s 

Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation of 63 Gulf Coast 

jurisdictions (five states and 58 counties and parishes) reported that, 

although plans generally address the issue of evacuating those considered 

transportation-disadvantaged, most do not have detailed information on 

how to identify and locate populations, or determine their needs and 

secure transportation and other resources required to carry out an 

evacuation. The DHS review also reported that most state and urban area 

State and Local 

Governments Are 

Generally Not Well 

Prepared to Evacuate 

TransportationDisadvantaged 

Populations, but 

Some Have Taken 

Steps to Improve 

Preparedness 

Many State and Local 

Governments Are 

Generally Not Well 

Prepared to Evacuate 

TransportationDisadvantaged Populations 

for Several Reasons 

 28We are planning to issue a report on the Emergency Alert System, one of several federally 

managed public warning systems, in March 2007. The system does not currently require 

multilingual alerts and accessibility for disabled persons.

Page 24 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
emergency plans do not address evacuation for persons with disabilities 

and overlook the availability of timely accessible transportation, such as 

life-equipped vehicles, emergency communication methods, and the need 

to keep people together with their family member, caregivers, or medical 

equipment. 

Limited awareness or understanding of the need to prepare for evacuating 

transportation-disadvantaged populations has contributed to inadequate

preparedness on the part of state and local governments. The Nationwide 

Plan Review stated that some state and local officials believe they will 

never experience a catastrophic event. These officials also believe that the 

evacuation of an entire city or state is improbable and expressed concern 

that strengthening evacuation preparedness standards, such as those 

related to planning, training, and conducting exercises for the evacuation 

of transportation-disadvantaged populations, could place unrealistic 

expectations on communities with limited planning resources and few 

identified risks. Officials at two of the five major cities we visited also told 

us that the likelihood of disaster scenarios requiring mass evacuation is 

too low to warrant spending limited funds on evacuation preparedness for 

these populations. However, officials at one of the five major cities we 

visited indicated that they are beginning to address evacuation 

preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged populations in smaller 

scale evacuations, which they thought would be more likely to occur. 

Three of the five major cities and one of the four states we visited have

recognized, after Hurricane Katrina, the need to include provisions in their 

evacuation plans for those without access to their own transportation. 

Officials at one of these three major cities said that they had not planned,

trained, or conducted exercises for these populations until late 2005, when 

DHS officials started to pose questions for the Nationwide Plan Review. A 

senior emergency management official in another one of those three major 

cities said that very few residents are without personal vehicles. 

Therefore, officials in that city focused plans, training, and exercises on 

evacuation by personal vehicle. However, 2000 U.S. Census data reported 

that 16.5 percent of households in that major city are car-less. DOT’s 

evaluation reported that most state and local evacuation plans focus on 

highway evacuations by personal vehicles. We found another example of

this focus on personal vehicles in one of the four states we visited. This 

state spent approximately $100,000 to develop and distribute an 

evacuation pamphlet with self-preparedness information and a large 

evacuation map on how those with access to a personal vehicle can use 

the highway system to evacuate. Yet, the state did not conduct similar 

outreach for those who require transportation assistance in evacuations. 

Page 25 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
DOT’s review of evacuation plans in the Gulf Coast reported that, although

some jurisdictions have well-coordinated and tested plans, the plans of 

many other jurisdictions do not include sufficient detail—nor have staff 

been trained in or practiced with the plans to ensure effective

implementation. We observed a similar phenomenon during our site visits. 

State and local governments vary in their level of preparedness, with many 

not well prepared to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

For example, at the time of our review, evacuation plans from two of the 

five major cities and three of the four states we visited did not address the 

need to prepare for transportation-disadvantaged populations. Further, 

DOT reported that many Gulf Coast jurisdictions conduct disaster training 

and exercises without involving key players such as transit agencies, state 

departments of transportation, and school bus operators, even though 

some evacuation plans rely on the use of vehicles from these entities. In 

the past year, officials at three of the five major cities and three of the four

states we visited had conducted training or exercises that addressed 

evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations, or included such 

populations in training or exercises. Government reports on Hurricane 

Katrina highlighted the vulnerability of transportation-disadvantaged

populations, leading some emergency officials to reevaluate their level of 

preparedness to evacuate these populations. As a result, although state 

and local governments have generally overlooked transportationdisadvantaged populations in the past, some are now taking steps to 

overcome the challenges and barriers to evacuating transportationdisadvantaged populations. 

The lack of evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged 

populations may reflect a larger problem in emergency planning, as the 

DHS Nationwide Plan Review has highlighted. For example, DHS 

reported that responses to its question on emergency planning actions 

being taken to address transportation-disadvantaged populations received 

the lowest percentage of sufficient responses from both state and urban 

areas.29 Some respondents to this question indicated that they were not 

sure how to proceed in planning for transportation-disadvantaged 

populations or what was expected of them. For example, one jurisdiction 

requested guidance to “understand what is expected of them and ideas on 

how they can achieve it.” Another respondent stated they “are wondering 

 29For the DHS Nationwide Plan Review, “sufficient” is the highest rating that can be 

received. The other ratings DHS used to evaluate plans were “partially sufficient” and “not

sufficient.” 

Page 26 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
what areas should be covered to ensure that a response plan is adequate.” 

In addition, DHS found no state or urban area emergency plan annexes to

be fully sufficient in addressing transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

Such annexes pertain to specific emergency functions, including 

evacuation, but also mass care and communications, among others. DHS 

reported that emergency plans lack a consistency of approach, depth of 

planning, or evidence of safeguards and effective implementation. In 

addition, DHS reported that few plans demonstrate the in-depth planning 

and proactive thinking needed to meet the needs of these populations. 

Although, in general, preparedness efforts to evacuate transportationdisadvantaged populations are lacking, state and local governments have 

taken steps to address challenges in identifying and locating these 

populations, determining their evacuation needs, and providing for their 

transportation. With regard to addressing the challenges of identifying and 

locating transportation-disadvantaged populations, some of the five major 

cities and four states we visited, as well as those reviewed as part of the 

DHS and DOT reports, have taken the following steps: 

Some State and Local 

Governments Have Taken 

Steps to Address 

Evacuation Preparedness 

Challenges and Related 

Barriers 

• Conducting surveys and studies: Officials in all five major cities and one 

of the four states we visited told us that they have conducted surveys or 

collaborated with academic institutions to locate transportationdisadvantaged populations. For example, one major city conducted a 

disaster preparedness survey of transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

Another major city obtained survey data on transportation-disadvantaged

populations through collaboration with a local university’s school of 

public health. In a third major city, emergency management officials have

plans to collaborate with academics to create simulations of evacuation 

scenarios. These scenarios would be used for evacuation preparedness 

activities, such as calculating how many buses would be needed and 

which routes to take for an evacuation. 

• Collaborating with state and local entities: Two of the five major cities 

we visited have identified, or plan to identify, transportationdisadvantaged populations through faith-based or community outreach

programs such as Operation Brother’s Keeper (a Red Cross program that 

matches those with access to a personal vehicle to those in their 

community without such access) and Neighborhood Watch (a crimeprevention program). In another city, officials stated their intent to use 

Citizen Corps (which brings community and government leaders together 

to coordinate the involvement of community members and 

nongovernmental resources in emergency preparedness and response and

whose volunteers are trained, exercised, and managed at the local level) to

Page 27 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
help identify, locate, and evacuate transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. One respondent to DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review stated 

that their jurisdiction is looking at developing partnerships with nonprofit 

and local social service organizations and community groups that deal

with transportation-disadvantaged populations in order to assist in 

identifying and locating these populations. In addition, two of the five 

major cities we visited had collaborated with their respective metropolitan 

planning organizations to collect evacuation-related data, and officials in 

one state we visited told us that cities and counties in their state need to

better coordinate with metropolitan planning organizations to identify 

transportation-disadvantaged populations. Officials from all of the five 

metropolitan planning organizations we visited (which are also DOT grant 

recipients) told us that they had information that could be useful in 

evacuation preparedness. Because these organizations are required to 

conduct transportation planning as part of their federal funding 

agreements, they acquire data on transit-dependent populations that 

would be useful for emergency officials. Three of these organizations 

showed us data and maps illustrating the location of transportationdisadvantaged populations, but stated that emergency management 

officials in their communities had not yet reached out to them for 

information or assistance. The Association of Metropolitan Planning 

Organizations told us that although their 385 member organizations differ 

in capacity, many would be able to provide assistance to emergency 

management officials in identifying and locating transportationdisadvantaged populations. 

• Mapping transportation-disadvantaged populations: DOT’s evaluation of 

evacuation plans in the 63 Gulf Coast jurisdictions found that just over half 

(33) of those jurisdictions had identified certain transportationdisadvantaged populations (hospitals, nursing homes, and assisted care 

facilities) by geographic location. DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review found 

that some participants are employing modeling software to determine the

size and location of transportation-disadvantaged populations. One of the 

five major cities we visited worked with academics to use computerized 

mapping technology—known as geographic information systems—to map 

the location of these populations. Another major city of the five we visited 

is working with the state’s department of motor vehicles to create a 

computerized map of households without personal vehicles.

With regard to determining the needs of these populations and providing 

for transportation, state and local governments in some of the states we 

visited (as well as governments reviewed in the DHS and DOT reports) 

have taken the following steps: 

Page 28 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
• Involving state and local entities that are not traditionally involved in 

emergency management as part of preparedness efforts: DHS’s

Nationwide Plan Review stated that federal, state, and local governments 

should increase the participation of persons with disabilities and disability 

subject-matter experts in the development and execution of plans, 

training, and exercises. Officials in two of the five major cities we visited 

have involved social service agencies, nonprofit or other organizations, 

and transportation providers—such as schools for the blind and deaf, and 

paratransit providers for the disabled—in emergency preparedness 

activities. Some of these state and local entities are DOT grant recipients. 

Several emergency preparedness experts with whom we spoke 

recommended involving, in evacuation preparedness, state and local 

entities that represent or serve transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

Such entities can assist emergency management officials in efficiently

determining the needs of these populations. 

• Coordinating with state and local entities that are not traditionally 

involved in emergency management as part of preparedness efforts: 

DOT’s Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation found that 

approximately two-thirds (or 43) of the 63 Gulf Coast evacuation plans 

included the use of public transit vehicles, school buses, and paratransit 

vehicles. The Nationwide Plan Review states that a critical but often 

overlooked component of the evacuation process is the availability of 

timely, accessible transportation (especially lift-equipped vehicles). In one 

of the five major cities we visited, transportation-disadvantaged 

populations are evacuated using social service transportation providers 

with ambulances, school buses, and other vehicles including those with 

lift-equipment.30

• Training state and local entities that are not traditionally involved in 

emergency management as part of preparedness efforts: Officials at two 

of the five major cities we visited have trained, or are planning to train, 

social service agencies to coordinate and communicate with emergency 

responders. One of the five major cities we visited found that, during 

hurricanes, community-based organizations that serve the elderly were 

operating on a limited basis or not at all. Therefore, this city’s government 

mandated that community-based organizations have continuity of 

operations plans in place to increase their ability to maintain essential 

services during a disaster. This city also provided training and technical 

assistance to help organizations develop such plans. In another major city, 

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

Page 29 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
the paratransit providers that are DOT grant recipients received 

emergency response training, and have identification that informs law 

enforcement officials that these providers are authorized to assist in 

emergency evacuations. 

• Training emergency responders to operate multi-passenger vehicles: 

Two of five major cities we visited are considering training police officers 

and fire fighters to obtain a type of commercial driver’s license that would

allow them to operate multi-passenger vehicles. This would provide a 

greater number of available drivers and more flexibility for evacuation 

assistance. 

• Incorporating transportation-disadvantaged populations in exercises: 

DHS recommended in its Nationwide Plan Review that jurisdictions 

increase the participation of persons with disabilities and disability 

subject-matter experts in training and exercises. Several experts we 

interviewed also emphasized the importance of including transportationdisadvantaged populations in exercises, and one explained that the level of 

understanding of these populations’ needs among emergency management 

and public safety officials is very low. Three of the five major cities we 

visited incorporate transportation-disadvantaged populations into their 

evacuation exercises. 

State and local governments in some of the states we visited, as well as in 

those reviewed in the DHS and DOT reports, have taken steps to address 

legal and social barriers that could prevent them from successfully 

evacuating transportation-disadvantaged populations: 

• Establishing memoranda of understanding and mutual aid agreements: 

Memoranda of understanding are legal arrangements that allow 

jurisdictions to borrow vehicles, drivers, or other resources in the event of 

an emergency. Mutual aid agreements are contracts between jurisdictions 

in which the jurisdictions agree to help each other by providing resources 

to respond to an emergency. These agreements often identify resources, 

coordination steps, and procedures to request and employ potential 

resources, and may also address liability concerns. DHS’s Nationwide 

Plan Review reported that few emergency operations plans considered the 

practical implementation of mutual aid, resource management, and other 

logistical aspects of mutual aid requests. DHS found that 23 percent of 

urban areas needed to augment or initiate memoranda of understanding to

improve their use of available modes of transportation in evacuation 

planning. DOT’s Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation

report stated that Gulf Coast evacuation plans have limited information 

addressing the use of mutual aid agreements or memoranda of 

Page 30 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
understanding with private motor coach companies, paratransit providers, 

ambulance companies, railroad companies, and air carriers. However, 

three of the five major cities we visited have established formal 

arrangements, such as memoranda of understanding and mutual aid 

agreements, with neighboring jurisdictions. 

• Establishing plans to evacuate and shelter pets: DHS’s Nationwide Plan 

Review found that 23 percent of 50 states and 9 percent of 75 of the largest 

urban areas satisfactorily address evacuation, sheltering, and care of pets 

and service animals at the same evacuation destination as their owners. 

This is important not only to encourage the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations, but the evacuation of those with personal 

vehicles as well. DOT’s Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan 

Evaluation found that about one-fifth (19 percent) of 63 Gulf Coast 

jurisdictions were prepared to evacuate and shelter pets and service 

animals. One of the five major cities we visited worked with the Society

for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to arrange a tracking and 

sheltering system for pets. Because officials at this major city have 

encountered difficulties in providing shelter space for pets and their 

owners together, they arranged for a pet shelter and shuttle service for 

owners to care for their pets. 

• Ensuring that evacuees can bring assistance devices or service animals: 

Transportation-disadvantaged individuals may be unwilling or unable to 

evacuate if they are unsure that they will be able to bring assistance 

devices such as wheelchairs, life-support systems, and communications 

equipment as well as service animals. DOT’s Catastrophic Hurricane

Evacuation Plan Evaluation found that only one-third (32 percent) of 63 

Gulf Coast jurisdictions had made satisfactory provisions for transporting 

these items along with evacuees. 

• Providing extensive information about evacuations and sheltering: In an 

effort to encourage citizens to evacuate, one of the five major cities we 

visited provided detailed information about evacuation and sheltering 

procedures. Despite extensive public education campaigns to raise 

awareness about evacuations, in two of five major cities we visited 

officials stated that some people will still choose not to evacuate. In the 

officials’ experience, when an evacuation vehicle arrived at the homes of 

transportation-disadvantaged populations who had registered for 

evacuation assistance, some refused to evacuate. These individuals cited 

multiple reasons, such as disbelief in the danger presented by the storm, 

discomfort in evacuating, and the absence of a caregiver or necessary 

medication.

Page 31 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
• Emphasizing self-preparedness: Officials from three of the five major 

cities and two of the four states we visited emphasized citizen selfpreparedness, such as developing an evacuation preparedness kit that 

includes medications, food, water and clothes. 

Although the federal government has provided some assistance to state 

and local governments in preparing for their evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations, gaps in this assistance remains. For example, 

federal guidance provided to state and local emergency officials does not 

address preparedness challenges and barriers for transportationdisadvantaged populations. Gaps also exist in the federal government’s 

role in and responsibilities for providing evacuation assistance when state 

and local governments are overwhelmed in a catastrophic disaster. For 

example, the National Response Plan does not clearly assign the lead, 

coordinating, and supporting agencies to provide evacuation assistance or 

outline these agencies’ responsibilities. Reports by the White House and 

others suggest that this lack of clarity slowed the federal response in 

evacuating disaster victims, especially transportation-disadvantaged

populations, during Hurricane Katrina. Amendments to the Stafford Act in

October 2006 have further clarified that FEMA, within DHS, is the single 

federal agency responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation 

assistance. 

The federal government provides some assistance to state and local 

governments in preparing for the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations by establishing requirements, funding, and

guidance and technical assistance for evacuation preparedness. Examples 

include: 

While the Federal 

Government Provides 

Some Evacuation 

Assistance, Gaps 

Remain 

The Federal Government 

Provides Some Evacuation 

Preparedness Assistance 

to State and Local 

Governments 

• Requirements: Federal law requires that local emergency planning 

officials develop emergency plans, including an evacuation plan that 

contains provisions for a precautionary evacuation and alternative traffic

routes.31 In any program that receives federal funding, additional federal 

protections clearly exist for persons with disabilities, who, depending on 

the nature of the disability, potentially could be transportationdisadvantaged. An executive order addresses emergency preparedness for 

persons with disabilities, and the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 

Rehabilitation Act requires consideration of persons with disabilities. 

 31Title 42 U.S.C. § 11003(c)(7). 

Page 32 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
According to Executive Order 13347, in the context of emergency 

preparedness, executive departments and federal agencies must consider 

the unique needs of their employees with disabilities and those persons 

with disabilities whom the agency serves; encourage this consideration for 

those served by state and local governments and others; and facilitate 

cooperation among federal, state, local, and other governments in the 

implementation of the portions of emergency plans relating to persons 

with disabilities.32 Since October 2006, federal law now requires federal 

agencies to develop operational plans that address, as appropriate, 

support of state and local government in conducting mass evacuations, 

including provisions for populations with special needs, among others. 

Executive Order 13347 also created the Interagency Coordinating Council 

on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with Disabilities to focus on 

disability issues in emergency preparedness. Additionally, as noted by 

DHS, the Americans with Disabilities Act requires state and urban areas to 

include accessibility for persons with disabilities in their emergency 

preparedness process. Within DHS, the Office of Civil Rights and Civil 

Liberties reviews and assesses civil rights and civil liberties abuse 

allegations. Other civil rights laws might also apply to transportationdisadvantaged populations, depending on how such populations are 

identified. Federal laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color,

religion, sex, and national origin.33 National origin discrimination includes 

discrimination on the basis of limited English proficiency, and states and 

localities are required to take reasonable steps to ensure that people with 

limited English proficiency have meaningful access to their programs. 

Recipients of DHS grants are allowed to use a reasonable portion of their 

funding to ensure that they are providing the meaningful access required 

by law. DHS also has ongoing work to foster a culture of preparedness and 

promote individual and community preparedness, such as through 

information available as part of its Ready.gov Website and Citizen Corps 

 32The President signed this executive order on July 22, 2004. In January 2005, the Secretary

of Homeland Security wrote a letter to all state and territorial governors emphasizing their 

emergency preparedness responsibilities to individuals with disabilities and listed several 

steps that emergency planners should undertake in order to ensure that their plans are as

comprehensive as possible with regard to the needs of their constituents with disabilities. 

33See Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended, 42. U.S.C. 2000 et. seq.; 

Rehabilitation Act of 1973 § 504, as amended, 29 U.S.C. 794; Title IX of the Education 

Amendments of 1972, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 1681 et. seq.; The Age Discrimination Act of

1975, as amended, 20 U.S.C. 6101 et. seq.; and Federal Actions to Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, Exec. Order 12898, 59 Fed.

Reg. 7629 (Feb. 11, 1994).

Page 33 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
program. Changes in federal law were enacted in October 2006 to further 

protect some transportation-disadvantaged populations.34 These include: 

• the establishment of a National Advisory Council to ensure effective 

and ongoing coordination of federal preparedness, protection,

response, recovery, and mitigation for natural disasters, acts of 

terrorism, and other man-made disasters, with a cross-section of 

members, including representatives of individuals with disabilities and 

other populations with special needs;

• the appointment of a Disability Coordinator to ensure that needs of 

individuals with disabilities are being properly addressed in emergency 

preparedness and disaster relief; 

• the establishment of an exercise program to test the National Response 

Plan, whereby the program must be designed to address the unique 

requirements of populations with special needs and provide assistance 

to state and local governments with the design, implementation, and 

evaluation of exercises; and 

• a requirement that federal agencies develop operational plans to 

respond effectively to disasters, which must address support of state 

and local governments in conducting mass evacuations, including 

transportation and provisions for populations with special needs. 

• Funding: DHS grants are the primary federal vehicle for funding state and 

local evacuation preparedness efforts, and these grants can be used to 

plan evacuations for transportation-disadvantaged populations. DHS’s 

2006 Homeland Security Grant Program encourages state and local 

governments to increase their emergency preparedness by focusing on a 

subset of 37 target capabilities that DHS considers integral to nationwide 

preparedness for all types of hazards. The state and local governments 

choose which subset of those capabilities best fits their preparedness 

needs. One of these target capabilities addresses evacuations. If a state 

determines that it needs to plan for the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations, it can use funds from its DHS grant for such 

planning activities. Changes in federal law in October 2006 require states 

with mass evacuation plans funded through Urban Area Security Initiative 

and Homeland Security Grant Program grants to “develop procedures for 

informing the public of evacuation plans before and during an evacuation, 

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

Page 34 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
including individuals with disabilities or other special needs, with limited 

English proficiency, or who might otherwise have difficulty in obtaining 

such information.” Under this section, FEMA can establish guidelines, 

standards, or requirements for ensuring effective mass evacuation 

planning for states and local governments if these governments choose to 

apply for grant funding for a mass evacuation plan.35

• Guidance and Technical Assistance: The federal government provides

evacuation preparedness guidance—including planning considerations, 

studies, and lessons learned—for state and local governments. We found 

that the primary source of such guidance for state and local officials is 

FEMA’s State and Local Guidance 101, which includes a section on 

evacuation preparedness considerations. This guidance recommends 

preparing to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

Additionally, DHS has a Lessons Learned Information Sharing online 

portal for state and local emergency management and public safety 

officials where the aforementioned federal guidance can be found.36 The 

federal government also provides voluntary technical evacuation 

assistance—such as planning consultants and modeling software—to state 

and local officials. For example, FEMA, the United States Army Corps of 

Engineers, and the National Weather Service conduct hurricane 

evacuation studies from which they provide technical assistance on 

several preparedness issues (such as analyses on storm modeling, 

sheltering, and transportation) for state and local officials. Another 

example is the evacuation liaison team—comprised of FEMA, DOT, and 

the National Hurricane Center—that works with state and local 

governments to coordinate interstate transportation during hurricane 

evacuations.

The federal government has also undertaken several smaller efforts to 

address evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. (See app. V.) 

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

36DHS’s Lessons Learned Portal can be accessed at www.llis.gov. The portal states that it 

seeks to improve preparedness nationwide by allowing local, state, and federal homeland 

security and response professionals to access information on the most effective planning, 

training, equipping, and operating practices for preventing, preparing for, responding to, 

and recovering from acts of terrorism. 

Page 35 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Although the federal government provides some assistance to state and 

local governments for preparing to evacuate transportation-disadvantaged

populations, gaps in this assistance remain, including the following: 

• Requirements: Until October 2006, while federal law required that 

emergency plans include an evacuation plan, there was no specific 

requirement that the evacuation plan address how to transport those who 

could not self-evacuate. Federal law now requires that state and local 

governments with mass evacuation plans incorporate special needs 

populations into their plan. However, this requirement does not 

necessarily ensure the incorporation of all transportation-disadvantaged

populations. This is because state and local governments do not share a 

consistent definition of special needs populations. In the course of our 

review, we found that state and local governments interpreted the term in 

a much more narrow fashion that did not encompass all transportationdisadvantaged populations, which are important to evacuation 

preparedness. Third, even though civil rights laws require that no person 

be excluded on the basis of age, sex, race, color, religion, national origin, 

or disability, federal laws may not provide protection for transportationdisadvantaged populations during federally funded emergency 

preparedness efforts (including evacuation planning) because some of 

these populations do not clearly fall into one of these protected classes. 

For example, federal laws do not require state and local governments to 

plan for the evacuation of tourists or the homeless. In addition, although

the Americans with Disabilities Act requires state and urban areas to 

include accessibility for persons with disabilities in their emergency 

preparedness process, an April 2005 report from the National Council on 

Disability found little evidence that DHS has encouraged state or local 

grant recipients to incorporate disability and access issues into their 

emergency preparedness efforts.37 Additionally, in four of five major cities 

we visited, advocacy groups representing persons with disabilities told us 

that persons with disabilities were often not involved in, or could be better 

integrated into, emergency management training and exercises. In 

addition, the National Council on Disability and the Interagency Council 

on Emergency Preparedness for Individuals with Disabilities are 

respectively working to strengthen relevant legislation and ensure that 

federal agencies consider transportation-disadvantaged populations in 

federally funded planning, training, and exercises. For example, the 

National Council on Disability is recommending that the Congress amend 

Despite Some Federal 

Assistance to State and 

Local Governments, Gaps 

Remain in Evacuation 

Preparedness for 

TransportationDisadvantaged Populations 

 37National Council on Disability, Saving Lives: Including People with Disabilities in

Emergency Planning (Washington, DC: Apr. 15, 2005). DHS officials told us that they 

disagree with the conclusion of the National Council on Disability’s report. 

Page 36 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
the Stafford Act to encourage federal agencies to link a recipient’s 

emergency preparedness grants to compliance with civil rights laws. 

Similarly, the Interagency Council on Emergency Preparedness for 

Individuals with Disabilities added disability subject-matter experts to 

DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review and worked with DHS’s Preparedness 

Directorate to add transportation-disadvantaged components to Top 

Officials Four, a federal, state, and local government training exercise held

in June 2006 that involved senior agency officials from across the federal 

government.

• Funding: While DHS’s grant programs provide funding that can be applied 

toward evacuation planning, training, and exercises for transportationdisadvantaged populations (as affirmed by language in the Post-Katrina 

Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006), only two of the five major 

cities and none of the four states we visited requested DHS grants for 

activities related to the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. In addition, we could not determine the amount of funds 

spent on evacuation planning nationwide because, although DHS is in the 

process of developing a grant tracking system, it does not currently know 

how much of its grant funds have been used or are being used by state and 

local governments to prepare for the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations. Officials at two of the five major cities and two 

of the four states we visited told us that DHS’s grant programs have a

continued emphasis on funding the procurement of equipment rather than

planning, and on preparedness for terrorist acts rather than on other 

disasters.38 For example, an official from one of the four states we visited 

told us that an evacuation preparedness activity was denied by DHS 

because it did not closely intersect with terrorism preparedness, one of 

DHS’s grant requirements prior to fiscal year 2006.

39 Therefore, emergency

management officials believe they were discouraged from using DHS 

funding to plan for natural disasters, such as hurricanes. The Office of 

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties at DHS—responsible for reviewing and 

assessing civil rights and civil liberties abuse allegations and, as part of the 

Nationwide Plan Review, participating in the assessment of persons with 

 38In addition, a previous GAO report indicates that officials from four state and local 

governments believe DHS’s grant process had too much of an emphasis on terrorismrelated activities. See GAO, Homeland Security: DHS’ Efforts to Enhance First 

Responders’ All-Hazards Capabilities Continue to Evolve, GAO-05-652 (Washington, D.C.: 

Jul. 11, 2005). 

39As of fiscal year 2006, DHS’s grant guidance allows for dual-use of grants. The term “dualuse” refers to homeland security projects or activities that are primarily for terrorism

response, but could be used in the event of a natural or technical disaster. 

Page 37 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
disabilities—is currently involved in the grant-guidance development 

process for fiscal year 2007. DHS has indicated that the office’s

involvement in the grant process is a priority. 

• Guidance and Technical Assistance: While acknowledging the need to

prepare for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations, 

the most widely used FEMA guidance does not provide details about how 

to plan, train, and conduct exercises for evacuating these populations or

how to overcome the challenges and barriers discussed earlier. Officials 

from three of the five major cities we visited said that additional guidance

from DHS would assist their evacuation planning efforts. Further, onethird of the respondents to a DHS Nationwide Plan Review question on 

emergency planning for transportation-disadvantaged populations 

requested additional guidance, lessons learned, and best practices from 

DHS. DHS officials told us that they intend to release new emergency 

preparedness planning guidance in early calendar year 2007. In addition, 

although DHS has an online portal—its Lessons Learned Information 

Sharing portal—which includes the aforementioned guidance and other 

emergency preparedness information, officials from two of the five major 

cities and two of the four states we visited told us that specific information 

is not easy to find, in part, because the portal is difficult to navigate. Upon 

using the portal, we also found this to be true.40 For example, the search 

results appeared to be in no particular order and were not sorted by date 

or relevant key terms, and searched terms were not highlighted or shown 

anywhere in the abstracts of listed documents. In addition, some studies 

were not available through the portal, including studies from some of the 

experts with whom we have spoken and provided us with useful 

information on evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS officials told us 

that they had improved the overall functionality of DHS’s Lessons Learned

Information Sharing portal. We revisited the portal as of December 7, 2006 

and it appears to have improved some of its search and organizational 

functions. We have found, however, that some of the issues we previously 

identified still remain, including, when using the portal’s search function, 

no direct link to key evacuation preparedness documents, such as DHS’s 

Nationwide Plan Review Phase I and II reports. 

Aside from the portal, federal evacuation studies of, and lessons learned 

from, the chemical stockpile and radiological emergency preparedness 

 40According to DHS, our comments about the search engine and general navigation of the

system echo the results of a user survey that DHS conducted in summer 2006. 

Page 38 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
programs could also help state and local officials prepare for these 

populations.41 Because chemical stockpile and radiological emergency 

preparedness programs work with communities that include 

transportation-disadvantaged populations, some of the studies and lessons 

learned about these programs address evacuation challenges for these 

populations. For example, a Department of Energy National Laboratory 

study on emergency preparedness in Alabama includes information on 

how to address the needs of transportation-disadvantaged populations in 

evacuations. However, officials from the chemical stockpile and 

radiological emergency preparedness programs told us that DHS has not 

widely disseminated these studies and lessons learned or made them 

easily available to state and local officials. The federal government has 

provided technical assistance primarily focused on self-evacuations. 

Therefore, while Louisiana and surrounding states received technical 

assistance from FEMA, DOT, and the National Hurricane Center to help 

manage evacuation traffic prior to Hurricane Katrina, federal officials with 

whom we spoke were unaware of any similar technical assistance 

provided for the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations 

and other populations. In preparation for the 2006 hurricane season, DHS 

officials reported to us that DHS, along with DOT, provided some 

technical assistance to three Gulf Coast states on evacuating persons with 

disabilities and those with function and medical limitations. 

 41The Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program and the Radiological 

Emergency Preparedness Program are federal programs that work closely with 

communities located near the nation’s chemical weapons stockpiles and radiological 

facilities.

Page 39 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Although the Stafford Act gives the federal government the authority to 

assist state and local governments with an evacuation,42 we found that the 

National Response Plan—the federal government’s plan for disaster 

response—does not clearly define the lead, coordinating, and supporting 

agencies to provide evacuation assistance for transportationdisadvantaged and other populations or outline these agencies’ 

responsibilities when state and local governments are overwhelmed by a 

catastrophic disaster.43 In our conversations with DHS officials prior to 

October 2006, officials did not agree that FEMA (an agency within DHS) 

was the single federal agency responsible for leading and coordinating 

evacuation assistance. However, after amendments to the Stafford Act in 

October 2006, DHS officials have agreed that this is DHS’s responsibility. 

The absence of designated lead, coordinating, and supporting agencies to 

provide evacuation assistance in the National Response Plan was evident 

in the federal response for New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. As both 

the White House Homeland Security Council report and the Senate 

Government Affairs and Homeland Security Committee report noted, the 

federal government was not prepared to evacuate transportationdisadvantaged populations, and this severely complicated and hampered 

the federal response. Specifically, the Senate report stated that “the federal 

government played no role in providing transportation for pre-landfall 

evacuation” prior to the disaster despite federal officials’ awareness that 

as many as 100,000 people in New Orleans would lack the means to 

Gaps Also Remain in 

Federal Agencies’ Role and 

Responsibilities for 

Providing Evacuation 

Assistance When State and 

Local Governments are 

Overwhelmed 

 42The Stafford Act gives the federal government the authority to assist state and local

governments in an evacuation with or without a request from those governments. See

Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Hurricane Katrina: A 

Nation Still Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 2006). 

43As we have previously reported, a single federal agency, supporting agencies, and their

roles and responsibilities for evacuating patients needing hospital care is clear under the

National Response Plan. However, we also found limitations in how the federal 

government provides assistance with the evacuations of health care facilities when state 

and local governments are overwhelmed. We recommended that the Secretary of

Homeland Security (1) clearly delineate how the federal government will assist state and 

local governments with the movement of patients and residents out of hospitals and 

nursing homes to a mobilization center where National Disaster Medical System (NDMS) 

transportation begins; and (2) in consultation with the other NDMS partners, including the 

Secretaries of Defense, Health and Human Services, and Veterans Affairs, clearly delineate 

how to address the needs of nursing home residents during evacuations, including 

arrangements necessary to relocate these residents. See GAO, Disaster Preparedness:

Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation of Vulnerable Populations due to 

Hurricanes and Other Disasters, GAO-06-790T (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006). Also see

related GAO products at the end of this report. 

Page 40 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
evacuate. The Senate report also stated that DHS officials did not ask state

and local officials about the steps being taken to evacuate the 100,000 

people without transportation, whether they should deploy buses and 

drivers to the area, or whether the federal government could help secure 

multimodal transportation (e.g., buses, trains, and airlines) for the prelandfall evacuation. 

The White House report stated that, as a result of actions not taken, the

federal government’s evacuation response suffered after Hurricane Katrina

made landfall. For example, communication problems created difficulty in

providing buses and limited situational awareness contributed to 

difficulties in guiding response efforts; the result was poor coordination 

with state and local officials in receiving evacuees. This contributed to 

delayed requests for vehicles and the delayed arrival of vehicles to 

transport disaster victims, confusion over where vehicles should be 

staged, where disaster victims would be picked up, and where disaster 

victims should be taken. We found that there is no entity under the 

National Response Plan that is responsible for dispatch and control of 

such evacuation vehicles. Given the problems experienced during the 

evacuation of New Orleans, the White House and Senate reports 

concluded that the federal government must be prepared to carry out mass 

evacuations when disasters overwhelm state and local governments. To 

achieve that goal, the White House report recommended that DOT be 

designated as the agency responsible for developing the federal 

government’s capability to carry out mass evacuations when state and 

local governments are overwhelmed. 

In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the federal government has taken

several steps to improve its ability to respond to a catastrophic disaster 

and, for the 2006 hurricane season, provide additional evacuation support 

to state and local governments. First, in May 2006, DHS made several 

changes to the National Response Plan, including one related to 

evacuations. Consistent with a previous recommendation we made, DHS 

revised the catastrophic incident annex of the National Response Plan to 

include disasters that may evolve or mature to catastrophic magnitude 

(such as an approaching hurricane). Therefore, in future disasters, if the 

federal government has time to assess the requirements and plans, it will 

tailor its proactive federal response and pre-positioning of assets, such as 

vehicles, to address the specific situation. Second, for the 2006 hurricane

season, DOT was prepared to assist the Gulf Coast states of Alabama, 

Louisiana, and Mississippi in providing evacuation assistance, clarified 

command and control by identifying key federal contacts, and worked 

with the states to finalize plans for pre-positioning of federal assets and 

Page 41 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
commodities in the region. In addition, a DOT official responsible for 

overseeing DOT’s emergency activities told us that, while the agency was 

providing transportation services or technical assistance to some of the 

Gulf Coast states for the 2006 hurricane season, it had not taken the role of

lead or coordinating federal agency responsible for providing evacuation

assistance. This official also stated that if additional federal evacuation 

assistance beyond transportation services and technical assistance are 

needed, DHS would need to delegate such support to other agencies. 

Further, this official told us that DOT does not yet have any specific plans 

to provide similar evacuation support in catastrophic disasters after the 

2006 hurricane season. Further, because of the damage caused by 

Hurricane Katrina and the continuing vulnerabilities of southeastern 

Louisiana, DOT, in cooperation with DHS, has provided additional support 

to Louisiana. This additional support included working with the state to 

identify those who could not evacuate on their own; establishing an 

interagency transportation management unit to coordinate the routing of

buses; entering into contracts to provide transportation by bus, rail, and 

air; and providing transportation from state and local pre-established 

collection points to shelters, rail sites, or air transportation sites. DHS and 

DOT planned to assist Louisiana in evacuating the estimated 96,000 

persons who could not evacuate by their own means if the state orders an

evacuation. Finally, amendments to the Stafford Act in October 2006 have

further clarified that FEMA, within DHS, is the single federal agency 

responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation assistance.44 DHS 

officials have since agreed that this is DHS’s responsibility. 

However, despite these improvements, DHS has not yet clarified, in the

National Response Plan, the leading, coordinating, and supporting federal

agencies to provide evacuation assistance when state and local 

governments are overwhelmed, and what their responsibilities are. In 

commenting on a draft of this report, DHS told us that as part of its 

National Response Plan review and revision process, DHS plans to 

encompass several key revisions regarding evacuations, including 

clarifying roles and responsibilities of federal agencies as well as private 

sector and nongovernmental agencies. 

The experience of Hurricane Katrina illustrated that when state, local, and 

federal governments are not well prepared to evacuate transportation- Conclusions 

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

Page 42 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
disadvantaged populations during a disaster, thousands of people may not 

have the ability to evacuate on their own and may be left in extremely 

hazardous circumstances. While state and local governments have primary 

responsibility for planning, training, and conducting exercises for the 

evacuation of these populations, gaps in federal assistance have hindered

the ability of many state and local governments to sufficiently prepare to 

address the complex challenges and barriers of evacuating transportationdisadvantaged populations. This includes the lack of any requirement to 

plan, train, and conduct exercises for the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations as well as gaps in guidance and technical 

assistance, such as problems with DHS’s Lessons Learned Information 

Sharing online portal. In addition, information that DOT grantees and 

stakeholders have could be useful in evacuation preparedness efforts. It is 

uncertain whether state and local governments will be better positioned to 

evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations in the future. 

Furthermore, the experience of Hurricane Katrina reinforced the fact that 

some disasters are likely to overwhelm the ability of state and local 

governments to respond, and that the federal government needs to be 

prepared in these instances to carry out an evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations. Because DHS has not yet clarified in the 

National Response Plan the lead, coordinating, and supporting federal

agencies to provide evacuation support for other transportationdisadvantaged populations nor outlined these agencies’ responsibilities, 

the federal government cannot ensure that it is taking the necessary steps 

to prepare for evacuating such populations; this could contribute to 

leaving behind of some of society’s most vulnerable populations in a future 

catastrophic disaster. The National Response Plan review and revision 

process provides DHS with the opportunity to clarify the lead, 

coordinating, and supporting agencies to provide evacuation assistance 

and outline these agencies’ responsibilities in order to strengthen the 

federal government’s evacuation preparedness. 

To improve federal, state, and local preparedness for the evacuation of 

transportation-disadvantaged populations, we are making three 

recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• Clarify, in the National Response Plan, that FEMA is the lead and 

coordinating agency to provide evacuation assistance when state and local 

governments are overwhelmed, and also clarify the supporting federal

agencies and their responsibilities. 

Page 43 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
• Require that, as part of its grant programs, all state and local governments 

plan, train, and conduct exercises for the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations. 

• Improve technical assistance by (1) working with DOT to provide more 

detailed guidance and technical assistance on how to plan, train, and 

conduct exercises for evacuating transportation-disadvantaged 

populations; and (2) continuing to improve the organization of and search

functions for its Lessons Learned Information Sharing online portal to 

better facilitate access to information on evacuations of transportationdisadvantaged for federal, state, and local officials. 

In addition, to encourage state and local information sharing as part of 

their evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged 

populations, we are making one recommendation to the Secretary of 

Transportation: 

• Encourage DOT’s grant recipients and stakeholders, through guidance and 

outreach, to share information that would assist emergency management 

and transportation officials in identifying and locating as well as 

determining the evacuation needs of and providing transportation for 

transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

We received written comments on a draft of this report from DHS. (See 

app. II). DHS also offered additional technical and clarifying comments 

which we incorporated as appropriate. DHS’s letter stated that the draft 

adequately identified the pertinent issues that have troubled state and 

local emergency management officials, and that it would consider our 

recommendations. DHS’s letter also stated that some recommendations in 

our draft report have been partly implemented, including improvements to 

the overall functionality of the lessons learned information sharing portal.

We revisited DHS’s Lessons Learned Information Sharing portal as of 

December 7, 2006 and it appears to have improved some of its search and 

organizational functions. We have found, however, that some of the issues 

we previously identified still remain. Therefore, we revised our 

recommendation to reflect the need for continued improvement of this 

portal. 

DHS’s letter raised concerns that our discussion of a single federal agency 

to lead and coordinate evacuations reflected a misunderstanding of the 

federal response process because, for large and complex disasters, no 

single federal agency can provide the entire response support required. We 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 44 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
did not intend to suggest that a single federal agency can provide such 

support for evacuation. Rather, we stated that the lead, coordinating, and 

supporting federal agencies to provide evacuation assistance when state 

and local governments are overwhelmed were not clear in the National 

Response Plan. DHS’s letter notes, in contrast to an earlier discussion we 

had with DHS officials, that DHS is the single agency responsible for 

leading and coordinating evacuation support to the states, and that this 

responsibility was emphasized by the amendments to the Stafford Act in 

October 2006. We modified our draft as appropriate to reflect DHS’s role in 

response to these amendments, but we retained our recommendation 

related to this issue because agency roles and responsibilities to provide 

evacuation assistance still need to be clarified in the National Response 

Plan. DHS’s letter stated that many issues related to evacuations are being 

considered in ongoing revisions to the National Response Plan, including 

the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies as well as and private 

sector and nongovernmental agencies. We are encouraged to learn that 

these issues are part of the National Response Plan review and revision 

process. DHS also commented that our draft report implied that the events

of Hurricane Katrina were a “typical occurrence.” This is not an accurate 

summary of our findings. Rather, our report emphasizes that there has 

been a heightened awareness of evacuation preparedness for 

transportation-disadvantaged populations as a result of Hurricane Katrina, 

and that we and others remain concerned about the level of preparedness 

among federal, state, and local governments. 

We received oral comments on a draft of this report from DOT officials, 

including the National Response Program Manager, Office of Intelligence,

Security, and Emergency Response, Office of the Secretary. DOT officials 

generally agreed with the information contained in the report and stated 

they would consider our recommendation. DOT officials offered additional 

technical and clarifying comments which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to congressional committees and 

subcommittees with responsibilities for DHS and DOT. We will also make 

copies available to others upon request. This report will be available at no

charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Page 45 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-

2834 or siggerudk@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page 

of this report. Staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in

appendix V.

Katherine Siggerud 

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Page 46 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Congressional Committees:

The Honorable Susan Collins 

Chairman 

The Honorable Joseph Lieberman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable James Inhofe 

Chairman 

Committee on Environment and Public Works 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Richard Shelby 

Chairman 

The Honorable Paul Sarbanes 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom Davis 

Chairman 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Government Reform 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Daniel Petri 

Chairman 

Subcommittee on Highways, Transit, and Pipeline 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Bennie Thompson 

Ranking Minority Member 

Committee on Homeland Security 

House of Representatives 

Page 47 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Our review focuses on the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged

populations. Because we issued a report in July 2006 on the evacuation of

hospitals and nursing homes, we did not include them in the scope of this 

review.1

To assess the challenges state and local governments face in evacuating 

transportation-disadvantaged populations, we reviewed the Department of 

Homeland Security’s (DHS) Nationwide Plan Review and the Department 

of Transportation’s (DOT) Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan 

Evaluation. These reports describe many more states, urban areas, 

counties, and parishes than we were able to visit, providing a broader 

context to our findings. To assess the experience of transportationdisadvantaged populations during Hurricane Katrina, we reviewed the 

White House Report: Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina—Lessons

Learned; the House of Representatives’ report, A Failure of Initiative: 

Final Report of the Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the 

Preparation for and Response to Hurricane Katrina; the Senate report, 

Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared; the DHS Inspector 

General’s report, A Performance Review of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency’s Disaster Management Activities in Response to 

Hurricane Katrina; the National Organization on Disability’s Report on 

Special Needs Assessment for Katrina Evacuees Project; and the 

American Highway Users Alliance Emergency Evacuation Report 2006. 

We also held a panel organized in cooperation with, and held at, the 

National Academies. The panelists are experts in the field of disaster 

housing and were selected from a list of 20 provided by the National 

Academies. We asked for a mix of academics and practioners with 

knowledge on sheltering issues related to hurricanes Katrina and Rita as 

well as previous disasters. These panelists were Pamela Dashiell (Holy 

Cross Neighborhood Association), Buddy Grantham (Joint Hurricane 

Housing Task Force), Robert Olshansky (University of Illinois), Jae Park 

(Mississippi Governor’s Office of Recovery and Renewal), Walter Peacock 

(Texas A&M University), Lori Peek (Colorado State University), Brenda 

Phillips (Oklahoma State University), and Debra Washington (Louisiana 

Housing Finance Agency). 

 1

Hospitals and nursing homes are subject to federal and state requirements relating to 

evacuations and disaster plans. We found that they also face challenges in evacuation, 

including deciding whether to evacuate, securing transportation, and maintaining 

communications outside of their facilities. See GAO, Disaster Preparedness: Limitations 

in Federal Evacuation Assistance for Health Facilities Should be Addressed, GAO-06-826 

(Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2006). 

Page 48 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

To identify challenges and barriers, we reviewed selected reports on 

evacuations. Studies and papers from Argonne National Laboratory, the 

National Consortium on the Coordination of Human Services 

Transportation, and the Congressional Research Service contributed to 

our identification of challenges to evacuating transportationdisadvantaged populations. To obtain perspectives from officials involved

in preparing for the evacuation of these populations, we reviewed the 

aforementioned federal reports. We also conducted interviews with state 

and local emergency management, transit and transportation, and public 

safety agency officials, as well as local metropolitan planning and 

advocacy organizations at five major cities and four state capitals: Buffalo 

and Albany, New York; Los Angeles and Sacramento, California; Miami 

and Tallahassee, Florida; New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana; and 

the District of Columbia. Because these sites were selected as part of a 

non-probability sample, the results cannot be generalized. We undertook 

site visits to these locations between March 2006 and June 2006. In 

selecting these major cities, we applied the following criteria: regional 

diversity; major city with a population of over 250,000; high percentage of 

population without personal vehicles; high or medium overall vulnerability 

to hazards; high percent of total population who are elderly, low income, 

or have a disability; and varied public transit ridership levels.

In making our site selections, we used data from the 2000 U.S. Census on 

the percentage of occupied housing units with no vehicle available, city

populations aged 65 and older, civilian non-institutionalized disabled 

persons aged five and older, and persons below the poverty level. To

determine overall vulnerability, we applied Dr. Susan Cutter’s “Overall 

Vulnerability Index” from her presentation “Preparedness and Response: 

Learning from Natural Disasters” to DHS on February 14, 2006. Dr. Cutter 

is a professor of geography at the University of South Carolina, and is part 

of the National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to 

Terrorism, which is funded by DHS. The Overall Vulnerability Index 

incorporates three indices measuring social, environmental, and allhazards vulnerability. The social vulnerability index incorporates social 

demographic factors such as race and income, but also includes factors 

such as distance from hospitals. The environmental index includes the 

proximity of dangerous facilities (such as chemical and nuclear plants) 

and the condition of roadways, among other factors. The all-hazards 

vulnerability index analyzed all disasters recorded in the last 60 years, and 

rated urban areas for the frequency of hazards and the resulting financial 

impact. Public transit ridership was taken from data in the Federal Transit 

Administration’s National Transit Database. We determined that all the 

Page 49 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

data we used were sufficiently reliable for use as criteria in our site 

selection process. 

To better understand issues related to emergency management and 

evacuations, particularly of transportation-disadvantaged populations, we 

interviewed several academics and experts who presented at the 2006 

Transportation Research Board conference and the 2006 Working 

Conference on Emergency Management and Individuals with Disabilities 

and the Elderly; we also interviewed other academics and experts who 

were recommended to us by officials, associations, organizations, and 

others. These academics and experts were Madhu Beriwal (Innovative 

Emergency Management); Susan Cutter (University of South Carolina); 

Elizabeth Davis (EAD and Associates); Jay Goodwill and Amber Reep 

(University of South Florida); John Renne (University of New Orleans); 

William Metz and Edward Tanzman (Argonne National Laboratory); 

Brenda Phillips (Oklahoma State University); Tom Sanchez (Virginia 

Tech); and Kathleen Tierney (University of Colorado at Denver). 

To determine what actions state and local governments have taken to 

address challenges in evacuating transportation-disadvantaged 

populations, we interviewed, at the four states and five major cities we 

visited, state and local emergency management agency officials (who 

prepare for and coordinate evacuations), transit and transportation agency 

officials (who provide and manage transportation during evacuations), and 

public safety (fire and police) agency officials (who assist with 

transportation-disadvantaged populations during an evacuation). We also

interviewed advocacy organizations. Much of the work that state and local

governments are conducting to address these challenges is ongoing. 

In assessing how federal assistance has aided the state and local 

governments we visited in addressing these challenges and what further 

assistance the federal government is proposing, we reviewed the Stafford

Act; the Homeland Security Act of 2002; the Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform Act of 2006; the National Response Plan (including 

the Catastrophic Incident Annex and the Catastrophic Incident

Supplement); DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review and DOT’s Catastrophic 

Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation; and various studies and reports 

on Hurricane Katrina such as those prepared by the White House, House 

of Representatives, and Senate. We interviewed officials from DHS, DOT, 

and DOD to obtain their perspective on the federal role in evacuations. To 

obtain the perspective of federal agencies and councils focused on issues 

specifically related to transportation-disadvantaged populations, we 

interviewed representatives from the Administration on Aging, the Federal

Page 50 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 

Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, the Interagency 

Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with 

Disabilities, the National Council on Disability, and the Interagency 

Council on Homelessness. We also interviewed representatives from 

several national organizations and associations to help evaluate how 

federal programs and policies on evacuations have affected 

transportation-disadvantaged populations. These organizations and 

associations include the National Organization on Disability, the American 

Association of Retired Persons, the American Public Transportation 

Association, the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and

the Community Transportation Association of America. 

Page 51 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix II: Comments from the Department Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security

of Homeland Security 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See comment 1. 

See comment 2. 

Page 52 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

See comment 3. 

See comment 4. 

Page 53 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

See comment 5. 

See comment 6. 

See comment 7. 

See comment 8. 

Page 54 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

Page 55 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

The following are GAO’s comment on the Department of Homeland’s letter 

dated December 7, 2006 

1. DHS commented that it partially implemented one of our 

recommendations by improving the overall functionality of the lessons 

learned information sharing portal. We revisited DHS’s Lessons 

Learned Information Sharing portal as of December 7, 2006 and it 

appears to have improved some of its search and organizational 

functions. We have found, however, that some of the issues we 

previously identified still remain. For example, when using the portal’s 

search function, there was no direct link to key evacuation 

preparedness documents, such as to DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review

reports. Therefore, we revised our recommendation to reflect the need 

for continued improvement of this portal. 

GAO Comments 

2. DHS commented that grant programs have administrative 

requirements that stress the importance of focusing on special needs 

populations. These requirements, while encouraging, do not ensure 

that state and local governments plan, train, and conduct exercises for 

the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged populations. During 

the course of our review, we found that state and local officials do not 

share a consistent definition of special needs and had interpreted the 

term in a manner which does not encompass all transportationdisadvantaged populations that should be included in evacuation 

preparedness. We define transportation-disadvantaged populations to 

include individuals who, by choice or other reasons, do not have 

access to a personal vehicle. These can include persons with 

disabilities, low-income, homeless, or transient persons; children 

without an adult present at home, tourists and commuters who are 

frequent users of public transportation; and those with limited English 

proficiency who tend to rely on public transit more than English 

speakers. 

3. DHS commented that our draft report did not adequately address the 

need to determine how to identify, and actively evacuate all special 

needs populations, including those who are transportationdisadvantaged. We recognize, in our report, the difficulty that state and 

local emergency management officials face in identifying and locating

transportation-disadvantaged populations, determining their 

transportation needs, and providing for their transportation. Two of 

our report’s three sections address this very issue. 

Page 56 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix II: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security

4. DHS commented that our draft report did not recognize that 

transportation of special needs populations is primarily a local 

responsibility. Our report recognizes this fact and clearly states that 

state and local governments are primarily responsible for managing 

responses to disasters, including the evacuation of transportationdisadvantaged populations. 

5. DHS commented that its National Response Plan Review and Revision 

process is currently being conducted and that it will address 

clarification of roles and responsibilities of key structures, positions 

and levels of the government and private sector as well as other 

nongovernmental agencies among other issues related to evacuations. 

We are encouraged by DHS’s efforts in this regard. 

6. DHS commented for large and complex disasters, no single federal 

agency can provide the entire response support required. We agree 

that disaster response is a coordinated interagency effort, but believe 

that clarification of the lead, coordinating, and supporting agencies for 

evacuation support is needed in the National Response Plan to ensure 

a successful response. DHS also commented that it is responsible for 

managing that interagency effort and is, in fact, the single federal 

agency responsible for leading and coordinating evacuation support to 

states. Implementation of enacted Stafford Act legislative changes 

from October 2006 will help address the federal role in providing 

evacuation assistance for transportation of disadvantaged populations. 

We agree that DHS, more specifically FEMA, is responsible for leading 

and coordinating evacuation support to states. 

7. DHS commented that our definition of transportation-disadvantaged

populations was a disservice to the disabled population. While we 

recognize that evacuation is a complex issue and believe that persons 

with disabilities are faced with significant evacuation challenges in the 

event of a disaster and should be a focus of evacuation preparedness, 

it is important that federal, state, and local government emergency

preparedness efforts address planning for all transportationdisadvantaged populations. 

8. DHS commented that our draft report implies that the situation that 

occurred during Katrina was a “typical occurrence.” It is not our intent 

to imply this. However, the events of Hurricane Katrina raised

significant awareness about federal, state, and local preparedness to 

evacuate transportation-disadvantaged populations, and reports, such 

as DHS’s Nationwide Plan Review and DOT’s Catastrophic Hurricane 

Evacuation Plan Evaluation, have further highlighted the need for 

increased evacuation preparedness by these governments. 

Page 57 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix III: GAO’s Observations on Federal 

Proposed Recommendations and Initial 

Conclusions 

In 2006, the White House and several federal agencies released reports that 

reviewed federal, state, and local evacuation preparedness and response 

to Hurricane Katrina. Many of these reports include recommendations or 

initial conclusions for federal, state, and local governments. We have

included a list of recommendations—including some already referenced in 

our report—that address the evacuation of transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. Our observations about each recommendation, based on our 

review, are also listed. (See table 1.)

Table 1: GAO’s Observations on Federal Recommendations and Initial Conclusions Addressing Evacuation Planning for 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion GAO observation

Define “special needs” consistently 

• The federal government should develop a consistent 

definition of the term “special needs.”a

Select federal, state, and local officials had very different definitions 

of special needs populations. Moreover, some state and local 

officials did not have definitions that fully encompassed all special 

needs populations among the transportation-disadvantaged. 

Encourage evacuation preparedness to address transportation-disadvantaged populations

• U.S. DOT should support state and local governments in

planning, training, and exercising evacuation plans and 

ensure that these plans address the challenges posed by 

evacuating hospitals, nursing homes, and individuals with 

special needs.b

In addition, DOT has specialized transportation knowledge, and preexisting relationships with state departments of transportation, 

transit agencies, and contracted private transportation providers. 

Therefore, DOT is well positioned in experience and expertise to 

provide preparedness assistance to state and local governments. 

• DHS should support state and local governments in planning, 

training, and exercising evacuation plans and ensure that 

these plans address the challenges posed by evacuating 

hospitals, nursing homes, and individuals with special 

needs.b

Several select locations have not fully developed plans, training, and 

exercises to address evacuations of all segments of the population. 

In addition, another study we conducted found several challenges in 

evacuating hospitals and nursing homes. 

• Federal, state, and local governments should increase the 

participation of people with disabilities and disability subjectmatter experts in the development and execution of plans, 

training, and exercises.a

In addition to persons with disabilities, in select locations, we found 

that other transportation-disadvantaged populations, such as the 

elderly and persons with limited English proficiency, were not 

adequately considered in evacuation planning. 

• All evacuation plans must provide for populations that do not 

have the means to evacuate. DHS and DOT should make 

available assistance to state and local governments for the 

development of these plans to ensure that the nation’s most

vulnerable citizens are not left behind in a disaster.b

A significant proportion of the population may require evacuation 

assistance during an emergency and the focus of evacuation

planning at the federal, state, and local levels have primarily been 

found on those who own cars. 

Appendix III: GAO’s Observations on Federal 

Proposed Recommendations and Initial 

Conclusions 

Page 58 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix III: GAO’s Observations on Federal 

Proposed Recommendations and Initial 

Conclusions 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion GAO observation

• States with high-risk urban areas should develop multiphased evacuation plans that provide for the speediest 

evacuation of residents most at risk, particularly those who 

lack the means to evacuate on their own. Neighboring 

political entities should work together to coordinate 

evacuation plans in advance, and state and local 

governments should publicize their evacuation plans and 

ensure that citizens are familiar with one or more evacuation 

options. States whose location puts them at high risk of 

recurring hurricanes and tropical storms should use updated

storm surge estimates to establish evacuation zones and 

evacuation clearance times. States whose locations put them 

at risk of other types of natural disasters should evaluate 

those risks and consider evacuation zones and clearance 

times in line with them.b

One select state that faces frequent natural hazards had developed 

detailed evacuation plans that provide timely evacuations for

transportation-disadvantaged populations. Often, high-risk residents 

who need transportation assistance are evacuated first because this 

assistance can be time consuming. In addition, within the state, a 

major city communicates evacuation plans to citizens in a number of 

ways (e.g., radio and TV, leaflets and mailings, and community 

outreach efforts) to enhance individual preparedness during

emergencies. 

Provide technical assistance for evacuation preparedness for transportation-disadvantaged populations

• The federal government should provide technical assistance 

to clarify the extent to which emergency communications, 

including public information associated with emergencies, 

must be in accessible formats for persons with disabilities. 

This assistance should address all aspects of 

communication, including, for example, televised and other 

types of emergency notification and instructions, shelter 

announcement, and applications and forms for government 

and private disaster benefits.a

Select states and cities have experienced challenges in 

communicating public information, both prior to and during

emergencies, to many populations among the transportationdisadvantaged, including persons with disabilities, the elderly, and 

persons with limited English proficiency. 

• Federal, state, and local governments should work with the 

private sector to identify and coordinate effective means of 

transporting individuals with disabilities before, during, and 

after an emergency.a

Private sector assets, such as buses and ambulance services, along 

with public sector assets, can be used to provide general and 

specialized transportation resources during disasters for 

transportation-disadvantaged populations. Several social service 

providers from select cities told us that emergency management 

officials often do not consider these providers useful partners in the 

planning process. 

Clarify federal role regarding evacuations

• Designate DOT as the primary agency responsible for 

developing the federal government’s capability to conduct 

mass evacuations when disasters overwhelm state and local 

governments.c

In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, DOT plans to have a more active 

role in providing transportation to state and local governments for 

emergency evacuations. In 2006, DOT officials said that, while DOT

has not been officially designated under the National Response Plan 

as the lead and coordinating agency for carrying out evacuations 

when state and local governments are overwhelmed, it has taken 

additional steps necessary to provide additional evacuation 

capabilities. 

Page 59 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix III: GAO’s Observations on Federal 

Proposed Recommendations and Initial 

Conclusions 

Federal recommendation or initial conclusion GAO observation

• As the primary federal agency under Emergency Support 

Function-1 (Transportation), DOT, in coordination with DHS, 

should develop plans to assist in conducting mass 

evacuations when an effective evacuation is beyond the 

capabilities, or is likely to be beyond the capabilities, of the 

state and affected local governments. DOT should develop 

plans to quickly deploy transportation assets to an area in

need of mass evacuation. DHS should, in coordination with

DOT, assist state and affected local governments in 

evacuating populations when requested; in coordination with 

the states, DOT should plan, train, and exercise for 

evacuations, including evacuations of medical patients and 

others with special needs. These evacuations would be 

conducted in coordination with other relevant federal 

agencies, the American Red Cross, and state and local 

partners. DOT should consider using a variety of 

transportation modes, including air medical services. DOT

should also work with state and local emergency planners—

in particular, state and local agencies charged with 

Emergency Support Function-1 responsibilities—to help 

them (1) assess the resources needed to assist with 

evacuations, which of these resources are locally available, 

and what shortfalls exist; (2) determine unique 

geographical/demographic obstacles to evacuation in 

particular areas; and (3) develop catalogues of regionally 

available evacuation-related assets, including transit 

agencies from various municipalities. Establish liaisons with

ESF-6 (Mass Care, Housing, and Human Services) to 

coordinate sheltering destinations for evacuees from various 

areas, and work with ESF-13 (Public Safety and Security) to 

ensure that air, bus, and other transportation providers have

appropriate security escorts to ensure safety during 

evacuation activities.b

 

The National Response Plan does not clearly lay out evacuation 

responsibilities among federal agencies. We found that significant 

challenges exist in evacuating transportation-disadvantaged 

populations. Therefore, an effective federal evacuation response 

may require clarification of roles and responsibilities for the lead, 

coordinating, and supporting federal agencies to provide evacuation 

assistance for transportation-disadvantaged and other populations 

when a disaster overwhelms state and local governments. 

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

• State and local agencies should work with the special needs 

communities to develop systems whereby those requiring 

specialized transportation or sheltering services during 

evacuations can make these needs known to emergency 

managers and operators of transportation and sheltering 

services before evacuations.d

Social-service and other transportation providers—both public and 

private sector—have distinct knowledge about their customers, 

some of whom may have special needs. This knowledge includes 

their physical location as well as their transportation and medical

needs. However, select local site visits revealed that emergency 

management officials have often not worked with such providers to 

enhance their ability to identify, locate, and transport special needs 

populations during emergencies. 

• The federal government should provide guidance to state 

and local governments on the incorporation of disabilityrelated demographic analysis into emergency planning.a

Select locations have experienced challenges in locating 

transportation-disadvantaged populations. However, in those same 

communities, metropolitan planning organizations have already 

carried out demographic analysis specific to transportationdisadvantaged populations (including but not limited to persons with 

disabilities) that can be helpful to emergency planners. 

Source: GAO analysis of White House, Senate, DHS and DOT data.

a

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

Page 60 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix III: GAO’s Observations on Federal 

Proposed Recommendations and Initial 

Conclusions 

b

Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still 

Unprepared (Washington, D.C.: May 2006). 

c

White House Homeland Security Council, The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons

Learned (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 2006). 

d

DOT in cooperation with DHS, Catastrophic Hurricane Evacuation Plan Evaluation: A Report to 

Congress (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2006). 

Page 61 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix IV: Other Federal Initiatives 

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

Related to Evacuating TransportationDisadvantaged Populations 

The following is a list of initiatives we identified during our review that the 

federal government has undertaken to address the evacuation of 

transportation-disadvantaged populations. 

• The Federal Transit Administration has awarded the American Public 

Transportation Association a $300,000 grant to establish and administer a 

transit mutual aid program. The goal of the program is to provide 

immediate assistance to a community in need of emergency transit 

services, with a focus on evacuation and business continuity support. The 

American Public Transportation Association will obtain formal 

commitments from willing transit agencies and, with committed resources, 

develop and maintain a database of transit vehicles, personnel, and 

equipment. The target for the database is to have between 250 and 500 

buses nationwide, as well as support equipment and personnel, ready to

respond at any time. Moreover, the American Public Transportation 

Association will reach out to federal, state, and regional agencies to ensure 

that during an emergency, these agencies can provide a coordinated and 

effective response. 

• The Community Transportation Association of America conducted an

expert panel discussion—sponsored by the National Consortium on the 

Coordination of Human Services Transportation—on the role of public 

and community transportation services during an emergency. The 

resulting white paper (which outlines community strategies to evacuate 

and challenges for transportation-disadvantaged populations during 

emergencies) and emergency preparedness checklist is intended as 

guidance for transportation providers and their partner organizations. This 

panel was conducted in cooperation with the Federal Interagency 

Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, and DHS’s Interagency 

Coordinating Council on Emergency Preparedness and Individuals with 

Disabilities. 

• The Federal Transit Administration has awarded a grant to the University 

of New Orleans to develop a manual and professional development course 

for transit agencies to enhance their emergency preparedness. 

• The Federal Transit Administration, along with the Federal Interagency

Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility, has created a pamphlet 

entitled “Disaster Response and Recovery Resource for Transit Agencies” 

to provide local transit agencies and transportation providers with useful 

information and best practices in emergency preparedness and disaster 

response and recovery. The resource provides summary information for 

general background, and includes best practices and links to more specific 

resources and more detailed information for local agencies concerning 

Page 62 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix IV: Other Federal Initiatives 

Related to Evacuating TransportationDisadvantaged Populations 

critical disaster related elements such as emergency preparedness, 

disaster response, and disaster recovery. 

• The Federal Interagency Coordinating Council on Access and Mobility—

which awards grants to states for human service transportation 

coordination between state agencies—added an emergency preparedness

priority to its grant guidelines, thereby encouraging state to consider 

emergency preparedness among its grant priorities. As of July 2006, nine

states have addressed emergency preparedness as a priority.

• The Federal Highway Administration is producing a series of primers for 

state and local emergency managers and transportation officials to aid 

them in developing evacuation plans for incidents that occur with or 

without notice. A special primer is under development to aid state and 

local officials in designing evacuation plans that include transportationdisadvantaged populations. This primer will be released no later than 

March 2007.

• The Transportation Research Board has convened a committee to examine 

the role of public transportation in emergency evacuation. The committee 

will evaluate the role that the public transportation systems serving the 38 

largest urbanized areas in the United States could play in the evacuation 

of, egress, and ingress of people to or from critical locations in times of 

emergency. The committee is expected to issue a report by April 20, 2008.

1

 1

The committee and report are mandated by the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient 

Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users, Section 3046 (a)(1). 

Page 63 GAO-07-44 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 64 GAO-07-44 

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

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

In addition to the contact named above, Steve Cohen, Assistant Director; 

Ashley Alley; Elizabeth Eisenstadt; Colin Fallon; Deborah Landis; 

Christopher Lyons; SaraAnn Moessbauer; Laina Poon; Tina Won Sherman; 

and Alwynne Wilbur made key contributions to this report. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

 Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations
Page 65

Related GAO Products 

Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and 

Accountability Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation’s

Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System. GAO-06-618. Washington, 

D.C.: September 6, 2006. 

Disaster Preparedness: Limitations in Federal Evacuation Assistance

for Health Facilities Should Be Addressed. GAO-06-826. Washington, D.C.: 

July 20, 2006.

Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation of 

Vulnerable Populations due to Hurricanes and Other Disasters. GAO-06-

790T. Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2006. 

Hurricane Katrina: GAO’s Preliminary Observations Regarding 

Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. GAO-06-442T. Washington, D.C.: 

March 8, 2006. 

Disaster Preparedness: Preliminary Observations on the Evacuation of 

Hospitals and Nursing Homes Due to Hurricanes. GAO-06-443R. 

Washington, D.C.: February 16, 2006.

Statement by Comptroller General David M. Walker on GAO’s 

Preliminary Observations Regarding Preparedness and Response to 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. GAO-06-365R. Washington, D.C.: February

1, 2006. 

Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT’s 

Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient

Populations. GAO-06-52. Washington, D.C.: November 2, 2005.

Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT’s 

Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient

Populations (Chinese Edition). GAO-06-186. Washington, D.C.: November 

2, 2005. 

Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT’s 

Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient

Populations (Korean Version). GAO-06-188. Washington, D.C.: November 

2, 2005. 

Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT’s 

Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient
Populations (Spanish Version). GAO-06-185. Washington, D.C.: November 

2, 2005. 

Transportation Services: Better Dissemination and Oversight of DOT’s 

Guidance Could Lead to Improved Access for Limited English-Proficient

Populations (Vietnamese Version). GAO-06-187. Washington, D.C.: 

November 2, 2005. 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Seniors: Efforts to Enhance Senior 

Mobility Could Benefit from Additional Guidance and 

Information. GAO-04-971. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2004. 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Federal Agencies Are 

Taking Steps to Assist States and Local Agencies in Coordinating 

Transportation Services. GAO-04-420R. Washington, D.C.: February 24, 

2004. 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Some Coordination Efforts 

Among Programs Providing Transportation Services, but Obstacles 

Persist. GAO-03-697. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2003. 

Transportation-Disadvantaged Populations: Many Federal Programs 

Fund Transportation Services, but Obstacles to Coordination 

Persist. GAO-03-698T. Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003. 

(542081) Page 66
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