United States Government Accountability Office

GAO Report to the Ranking Minority 

Member, Subcommittee on Human 

Resources, Committee on Ways and 

Means, House of Representatives 

CHILD WELFARE

Federal Action 

Needed to Ensure 

States Have Plans to 

Safeguard Children in 

the Child Welfare 

System Displaced by 

Disasters 

July 2006 

 

GAO-06-944 
Contents 

Letter 1

Conclusions 3

Matter for Congressional Consideration 3 

Recommendations for Executive Action 3 

Comments from the Administration for Children and Families and 

Our Evaluation 3 

Appendix I Child Welfare Disaster Planning Presentation 5 

Appendix II Components of State Disaster Plans 34 

Appendix III States Experiencing Disasters in 2005 35 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Health and 

Human Services 37 

Appendix V GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40 

Appendix VI Related GAO Products 41 

Tables 

Table 1: States Reporting Having Disaster Plans 35 

Table 2: States Not Reporting Having Disaster Plans 35 

Page i GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

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

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

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

reproduce this material separately. 

Page ii GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

July 28, 2006

The Honorable Jim McDermott 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 

The Honorable Jim McDermott 

Ranking Minority Member 

Subcommittee on Human Resources 

Committee on Ways and Means 

House of Representatives 

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there were 48 

federally declared disasters in 2005. Two of these disasters—Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita—resulted in a prolonged interruption of child welfare 

services and the dispersion of thousands of children in Louisiana’s foster 

care system to 19 states. As a result, there has been growing interest in the 

extent to which states have developed strategies to cope with disasters 

that could result in the dispersion of children in the child welfare system. 

According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, there were 48 

federally declared disasters in 2005. Two of these disasters—Hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita—resulted in a prolonged interruption of child welfare 

services and the dispersion of thousands of children in Louisiana’s foster 

care system to 19 states. As a result, there has been growing interest in the 

extent to which states have developed strategies to cope with disasters 

that could result in the dispersion of children in the child welfare system. 

You asked us to conduct a study of the challenges facing state child 

welfare systems, including the development of plans for dealing with the 

dispersion of children in the child welfare system due to disasters. This 

report addresses state child welfare disaster planning. Specifically, we are 

providing information on (1) the number of states that have statewide 

child welfare disaster plans and the primary components of those plans,

(2) the extent to which states that experienced federally declared disasters 

in 2005 also had child welfare disaster plans, and (3) how the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) supports states’ efforts to develop

child welfare disaster plans. 

You asked us to conduct a study of the challenges facing state child 

welfare systems, including the development of plans for dealing with the 

dispersion of children in the child welfare system due to disasters. This 

report addresses state child welfare disaster planning. Specifically, we are 

providing information on (1) the number of states that have statewide 

child welfare disaster plans and the primary components of those plans,

(2) the extent to which states that experienced federally declared disasters 

in 2005 also had child welfare disaster plans, and (3) how the Department 

of Health and Human Services (HHS) supports states’ efforts to develop

child welfare disaster plans. 

We used multiple data collection methods, as part of the broader study, to

obtain this information. First, we surveyed state child welfare directors in

50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain information 

on the strategies that they developed to cope with disasters that could 

result in the dispersion of children. Second, we interviewed child welfare 

officials in five states: California, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and 

Utah. These states were selected for variance in program administration

(state administered, state-supervised/county-administered, state and 

county administered), the predominance of urban or rural characteristics, 

the achievement of child welfare standards on HHS’s Child and Family 

Services Review, changes in the number of children reported to be in 

foster care; and geographic location. In addition, we interviewed federal 

child welfare officials and representatives from national child welfare 

organizations concerning the strategies that states had developed. Finally,

We used multiple data collection methods, as part of the broader study, to

obtain this information. First, we surveyed state child welfare directors in

50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to obtain information 

on the strategies that they developed to cope with disasters that could 

result in the dispersion of children. Second, we interviewed child welfare 

officials in five states: California, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and 

Utah. These states were selected for variance in program administration

(state administered, state-supervised/county-administered, state and 

county administered), the predominance of urban or rural characteristics, 

the achievement of child welfare standards on HHS’s Child and Family 

Services Review, changes in the number of children reported to be in 

foster care; and geographic location. In addition, we interviewed federal 

child welfare officials and representatives from national child welfare 

organizations concerning the strategies that states had developed. Finally,

Page 1 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
we analyzed agency documentation, legislation, and other material related 

to child welfare programs and requirements. We conducted our work 

between October 2005 and June 2006 in accordance with generally 

accepted government auditing standards. 

On June 26, 2006, we briefed your staff on the results of our study of state 

child welfare disaster planning. This report formally conveys the 

information provided during that briefing. In summary, we found that 

• Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported that they had a 

written child welfare disaster plan. However, the plans varied in the 

extent to which they included selected child welfare program 

components, such as identifying children under state care who may be 

dispersed. Specifically: 

• nineteen state plans addressed preserving child welfare records, 

• thirteen state plans addressed identifying children who may be 

dispersed, 

• eleven state plans addressed identifying new child welfare cases 

and providing services, 

• ten state plans addressed coordinating services and sharing 

information with other states, and 

• six state plans addressed placing children from other states. 

• Of the 29 states and Puerto Rico that experienced a federally declared 

disaster in 2005, 8 reported having a written child welfare disaster plan. 

• While HHS does not have the authority to require states to develop 

child welfare disaster plans, it has assisted states in developing child 

welfare disaster plans by issuing guidance in 1995 and funding 

technical assistance on disaster planning through its network of 

national resource centers. The guidance generally does not address the 

potential dispersion of children and families in a disaster. In addition, 

child welfare officials reported that additional disaster planning 

assistance from the federal government would be helpful, including 

information or training on how to develop a disaster plan and what to 

include. 

HHS is planning several actions with regard to child welfare disaster 

planning. First, the department plans to hold a child welfare disaster 

planning conference for states in August 2006. Second, HHS is updating its 

1995 disaster planning guidance for release at the conference. Finally, the 

department has asked states to voluntarily submit copies of their disaster 

plans for review by December 2006. However, it is unclear how much 

Page 2 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
these efforts will address the potential dispersion of children and families 

in a disaster. 

In the absence of federal requirements that states develop child welfare 

disaster plans, many states have not done so. In addition, states that have 

developed disaster plans do not always address the dispersion of children

and families. The lack of plans for dealing with the dispersion of children 

may result in confusion at a time when families are under strain and need 

services most. Without minimum requirements on what states should 

include in their child welfare disaster plans, some states may be unable to

ensure the continuity of services within and across state lines for the 

children under their care.

To ensure continuity of services within or across state lines for the 

children under state care, Congress should consider requiring that states 

develop and submit child welfare disaster plans for HHS review. 

To better assist states in developing child welfare disaster plans, we are 

recommending that the Secretary of Health and Human Services ensure 

that the department’s child welfare disaster planning guidance address the 

dispersion of children and families within and across state lines. This 

guidance should include information on 

• preserving child welfare records, 

• identifying children who may be dispersed, 

• identifying new child welfare cases and providing services, 

• coordinating services and sharing information with other states, and 

• placing children from other states. 

Finally, we are recommending that the Secretary develop and provide 

training on child welfare disaster planning to all states. 

HHS’s Administration for Children and Families provided written 

comments on a draft of this report; these comments appear in appendix IV. 

Regarding our recommendations that HHS ensure that the department’s 

guidance and training to states on child welfare disaster planning address 

the dispersion of children and families, ACF stated that it has taken action 

to update the guidance and provide training to states and will encourage 

Conclusions 

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

Comments from the 

Administration for 

Children and Families 

and Our Evaluation 

Page 3 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
them to develop and submit disaster plans for review. ACF also requested

that the report be modified to clarify that the focus of this report is on 

programmatic Disaster Recovery Plans (DRP) rather than on information 

technology DRPs. ACF stated that states have information technologyrelated DRPs for their automated systems and those plans address the 

need for preserving essential information recorded in the electronic case 

records. We clarified this point in the report. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services, relevant congressional committees, and other interested parties 

and will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 

report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this 

report, please contact me at (202) 512-7215. Key contributors may be 

found on the last page of the report. 

Cornelia M. Ashby 

Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues 

Page 4 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning Appendix I: Child W Presentation elfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation 

1

Child Welfare Disaster Planning

Briefing for

Representative Jim McDermott, Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Human Resources

House Committee on Ways and Means

June 2006

Page 5 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 6 GAO-06-944

2

Introduction

• Two 2005 disasters—Hurricanes Katrina and Rita—resulted

in a prolonged interruption of child welfare services and the

dispersion of thousands of Louisiana’s child welfare children 

to 19 states. 

• There has been growing interest in the extent to which 

states have developed strategies to cope with disasters that

could result in the dispersal of children in the child welfare 

system.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 7 GAO-06-944

3

Objectives

Our objectives were to determine: 

Q1: How many states have statewide child welfare disaster

plans and what are the primary components of those 

plans?

Q2: To what extent do the states that experienced federally 

declared disasters in 2005 also have child welfare 

disaster plans? 

Q3: How does the Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) support states’ efforts to develop child welfare 

disaster plans?

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 8 GAO-06-944

4

Scope and Methodology

To attain our objectives, we

• Surveyed state child welfare officials in 50 states, the

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. Thirty-seven 

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico 

responded to the questions on disaster planning.

• Interviewed child welfare officials in five states: 

California, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and Utah.

• Interviewed federal child welfare officials and reviewed 

agency documentation.

We conducted our work between October 2005 and June 

2006 in accordance with generally accepted government

auditing standards.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 9 GAO-06-944

5

Summary of Results

We found that

• Twenty states and the District of Columbia reported that

they had a written child welfare disaster plan. However, the 

plans varied in the extent to which they addressed selected

child welfare program components, such as identifying

children under state care who may be dispersed.

• Eight of the 29 states, plus Puerto Rico, that experienced a 

federally declared disaster in 2005 reported having a written 

child welfare disaster plan. 

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 10 GAO-06-944

6

Summary of Results

• HHS has assisted states in developing child welfare disaster

plans by issuing guidance and funding technical assistance

on disaster planning through its network of national 

resource centers. The guidance, however, generally does 

not address the potential dispersion of children and families 

in a disaster. 

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 11 GAO-06-944

7

Background

• Child welfare programs are intended to prevent child abuse

and neglect and to protect and improve the lives of children 

who have experienced maltreatment.

• HHS’s Children’s Bureau of the Administration for Children 

and Families (ACF) establishes policy, oversees states’ 

child welfare programs, and provides technical assistance to

states primarily through its national resource centers (NRC).

• State or local child welfare agencies administer the

programs and monitor the children and their families.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 12 GAO-06-944

8

Background

• In order to receive federal child welfare funds, states must

meet a set of program requirements that are described in 

their 5-year Child and Family Services Plans.

• There are no federal requirements for states to develop 

plans that address the needs of children during disasters. 

However, according to HHS, states have developed 

information technology-related DRPs that address the need 

for preserving essential information recorded in electronic

case records.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 13 GAO-06-944

9

Background

• In 2005, 29 states and Puerto Rico experienced federally 

declared disasters. 

• Severe storms and flooding were the most commonly 

experienced types of disaster.

• A disaster can affect states that do not directly experience

the disaster when they receive children evacuated from

states experiencing the disaster.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 14 GAO-06-944

10

Research Question 1

How many states have statewide child welfare disaster

plans and what are the primary components of those plans?

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 15 GAO-06-944

11

Q1: Status of State Disaster Plans

In a GAO survey of state child welfare officials in the 50

states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico:

• Twenty states and the District of Columbia responded

that they had a written child welfare disaster plan.

• Seventeen states and Puerto Rico responded that they

did not have a written child welfare disaster plan.

• Eleven states did not respond to the disaster planning 

questions in the GAO child welfare survey.

• Two states did not respond to the survey.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 16 GAO-06-944

12

Q1: Status of State Disaster Plans

States reporting having

a disaster plan (21)

Puerto Rico

D.C.

States reporting not

having a disaster plan

(18), not responding to

disaster planning 

questions on survey

(11), or not responding

to the GAO survey (2).

RI

Note: In this slide the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico are considered states.

Source: Analysis of GAO national survey of state child welfare systems challenges.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 17 GAO-06-944

13

Q1: States Reporting Not Having a 

Plan or Not Responding

Maryland Vermont

Michigan West Virginia

Indiana Puerto Rico

Hawaii Ohio

Florida New Mexico

Delaware New Hampshire

California Missouri

Arizona Mississippi

Alaska Minnesota

States reporting not having

a plan

New Jersey

Maine Wyoming

Louisiana South Dakota

Kentucky Pennsylvania

Connecticut Oklahoma

Colorado New York

States not responding to 

disaster planning questions

Massachusetts Nebraska

States not responding to 

survey

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 18 GAO-06-944

14

Q1: Selected Child Welfare Program

Components

GAO surveyed state child welfare officials in 50 states, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico on whether their

state’s child welfare disaster plan addressed each of the

following selected program components:

• identifying children under state care who may be dispersed,

• identifying caseworkers who may be dispersed,

• continuing services for children under state care who 

may be dispersed,

• coordinating services and sharing information with

intrastate agencies,

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 19 GAO-06-944

15

Q1: Selected Child Welfare Program

Components, con’t.

• coordinating services and sharing information with other 

states,

• placing children from other states,

• providing in-home family services to children from other

states,

• identifying new child welfare cases and providing 

appropriate services, and

• preserving essential case information, electronic and

documentary.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 20 GAO-06-944

16

Q1: Selected Child Welfare Disaster 

Plan Elements, con’t.

The 21 existing child welfare disaster plans varied in the 

extent to which they addressed selected child welfare program

elements. 

For example, 3 states—Illinois, Montana, and Washington—

addressed all of the selected child welfare program elements.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 21 GAO-06-944

17

Q1: Program Components

Addressed by State Disaster Plans

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Preserving information

Coordinating in-state services

Continuing services

Identifying children

Identifying caseworkers

Identifying new cases

Coordinating with other states

Placing children from other states

Providing in-home services

Number of plans

Source: Analysis of GAO national survey of state child welfare systems challenges.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 22 GAO-06-944

18

Research Question 2

To what extent do the states that experienced federally 

declared disasters in 2005 also have child welfare disaster

plans?

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 23 GAO-06-944

19

Q2: Comparison of States With Disasters

And Existing Disaster Plans

Of the 29 states and Puerto Rico that experienced a federally

declared disaster in 2005:

• Eight states reported having written child welfare disaster plans. 

• Ten states and Puerto Rico reported that they did not have a written 

child welfare disaster plan.

• Nine states did not respond to the disaster planning questions 

contained in the GAO survey.

• Two states did not respond to the GAO survey.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 24 GAO-06-944

20

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 25 GAO-06-944

21

Research Question 3

How does the Department of Health and Human Services 

support states’ efforts to develop child welfare disaster 

plans?

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 26 GAO-06-944

22

Q3: HHS Efforts To Assist States In

Developing Disaster Plans

HHS has assisted states in developing child welfare disaster

plans by:

• providing disaster planning guidance to states in 1995;

• disseminating disaster planning guidance though the

National Resource Centers for Family-Centered Practice 

and Permanency Planning, and on Legal and Judicial

Issues Web sites; and

• providing $2.8 million to eight National Resource 

Centers to help states with disaster planning.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 27 GAO-06-944

23

Q3: HHS Disaster Planning

Guidance Is Limited

Federal disaster planning guidance generally does not

address:

• identifying children who may be dispersed,

• preserving child welfare records,

• coordinating services and sharing information with other

states,

• placing children from other states, and

• identifying new child welfare cases and providing services.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 28 GAO-06-944

24

Q3: Additional Federal Assistance On 

Disaster Planning Would Be Helpful

Child welfare officials reported that additional disaster

planning assistance from the federal government would be 

helpful, including:

• information on disaster planning requirements or criteria,

• training on how to develop a disaster plan,

• examples of good disaster plans, and

• forums for exchanging disaster planning information with 

other states. 

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 29 GAO-06-944

25

HHS’s Child Welfare Disaster 

Planning Initiatives

HHS initiatives to improve state child welfare disaster planning

include:

• planning a child welfare disaster planning conference for

states in August 2006,

• updating its 1995 disaster planning guidance for release

at the conference, and 

• asking states to voluntarily submit copies of their disaster 

plans for review by December 2006.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 30 GAO-06-944

26

Conclusions

• In the absence of federal requirements that states develop

disaster plans, many states have not done so.

• Without disaster plans, these states may be unprepared to

provide continuity of services for children and families who 

have been dispersed to or from other counties in the state or 

across state lines.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 31 GAO-06-944

27

Conclusions

• States that have developed disaster plans do not always

address the dispersal of child welfare children and families, 

and the lack of dispersal plans may result in confusion at a 

time when families are under strain and need services most.

• Without minimum requirements on what states should

include in their child welfare disaster plans, some states

may be unable to ensure continuity of services within or

across state lines for the children under their care.

• For example, of Louisiana’s 5,000 foster children, close 

to 2,000 were displaced by Hurricane Katrina. During that time, child welfare officials did not have current 

emergency contact information, which made it hard for 

them to find the foster families that had to evacuate.

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 32 GAO-06-944

28

Matter for Congressional Consideration

To ensure continuity of services within or across state lines 

for the children under state care, Congress should consider

requiring that states develop and submit child welfare 

disaster plans for HHS review. 

Child Welfare
Appendix I: Child Welfare Disaster Planning 

Presentation

Page 33 GAO-06-944

29

Recommendations

To better assist states in developing child welfare disaster plans, we 

recommend that the Secretary of Health and Human Services:

• ensure that the department’s disaster planning guidance address

the dispersion of children and families within and across state lines, 

including steps for:

• identifying children who may be dispersed,

• preserving child welfare records,

• coordinating services and sharing information with other states,

• placing children from other states, and

• identifying new child welfare cases and providing services.

• develop and provide training to states on child welfare disaster

planning.

Child Welfare
Appendix II: Components of State Disaster Appendix II: Components of State Disaster Plans 

Plans 

State Plan Components

State

Identify 

children who

may be

dispersed

Identify 

caseworkers 

who may be

dispersed 

Continue

services 

to 

children

who may

be

dispersed

Preserve 

essential 

case 

information

Coordinate

services 

within

state 

Coordinate

services 

outside

state 

Place 

children

from 

other

states 

Provide 

in-home

family 

services 

Identify 

new 

child 

welfare 

cases 

Alabama

Arkansas X

District of 

Columbia 

X X X X

Georgia X X X X X X X

Iowa X X X X X

Idaho X X X X X X

Illinois X X X X X X X X X

Kansas X X X

Montana X X X X X X X X X

Nevada X X X

North Carolina X X X X X X X 

North Dakota X X X X X 

Oregon X X X X X X

Rhode Island X X X 

South Carolina X X X X 

Tennessee

Texas X X X X X X X X

Utah X X X X X

Virginia X X X X X X X X X

Washington X X X X X X X X X

Wisconsin X

Source: Analysis of GAO national survey of state child welfare systems challenges. 

Page 34 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
Appendix III: States Experiencing Disasters 

in 2005 

Table 1: States Reporting Having Disaster Plans 

State Type of disaster Month 

Alabama Hurricane Dennis

Hurricane Katrina 

July 

August 

Idaho Heavy rains, flooding July 

Kansas Severe winter storms, heavy rains, flooding 

Severe storms, flooding 

Severe storms, flooding 

February 

August 

November 

Nevada Heavy rains, flooding March 

North Carolina Hurricane Ophelia October 

North Dakota Severe storms, flooding, ground saturation 

Severe winter storms and record/near-record snow 

July 

November 

Texas Hurricane Rita September

Utah Severe storms, flooding 

Flood, landslide

February 

August 

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005 federally declared disaster data at 

http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2005

Table 2: States Not Reporting Having Disaster Plans 

State Type of disaster Month 

Alaska Severe winter storm

Severe fall storm, tidal surges, flooding 

March 

December 

Arizona Severe storms, flooding 

Severe storms, flooding 

February 

April 

California Severe storms, flooding, debris flows, mudslides 

Severe storms, flooding, landslides, mud and debris flows 

February 

April 

Connecticut Severe storms, flooding December 

Florida Hurricane Dennis

Hurricane Katrina 

Hurricane Wilma 

July 

August 

October 

Hawaii Severe storms, flash flooding February 

Indiana Severe winter storms, flooding 

Tornado, severe storms 

January 

November 

Kentucky Severe winter storm, record snow 

Severe storms, tornadoes 

February 

December 

Appendix III: States Experiencing Disasters 

in 2005 

Page 35 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
Appendix III: States Experiencing Disasters 

in 2005 

State Type of disaster Month 

Louisiana Tropical storm Cindy

Hurricane Katrina 

Hurricane Rita 

August 

August 

September 

Maine Severe storms, flooding, snow jams, ice melts June 

Massachusetts Severe storms, flooding November 

Mississippi Hurricane Dennis

Hurricane Katrina 

July 

August 

New Hampshire Severe storms, flooding October 

Nebraska Severe storms, flooding June 

New Jersey Severe storms, flooding April 

New York Severe storms, flooding April 

Ohio Severe winter storms, flooding, mudslides February 

Pennsylvania Severe storms, flooding April 

Puerto Rico Severe storms, flooding, landslides, mudslides November 

South Dakota Severe storm 

Severe winter storm 

July 

December 

West Virginia Severe storms, flooding, landslides February 

Wyoming Tornado August

Source: GAO analysis of Federal Emergency Management Agency 2005 federally declared disaster data at 

http://www.fema.gov/news/disasters.fema?year=2005. 

Page 36 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department Appendix IV of Health and Human Services : Comments from the 

Department of Health and Human Services 

Page 37 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services 

Page 38 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Health and Human Services 

Page 39 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
Appendix V: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 40 GAO-06-944

Appendix V: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Cornelia M. Ashby, (202)512-7215, ashbyc@gao.gov 

Cindy Ayers (Assistant Director) and Arthur T. Merriam Jr. (Analyst-inCharge) managed all aspects of the assignment. Wayne Sylvia, Mark E. 

Ward, Christopher T. Langford, and Kathleen Boggs made significant 

contributions to this report, in all aspects of the work. In addition, Carolyn 

Boyce provided technical support, James Rebbe provided legal support, 

and Charles Willson assisted in the message and report development. 

GAO Contact 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Child Welfare
Appendix VI: Related GAO Products Appendix VI: Related GAO Products 

Lessons Learned for Protecting and Educating Children after the Gulf 

Coast Hurricanes, GAO-06-680R, Washington, D.C.: May 11, 2006. 

Hurricanes Katrina: GAO’s Preliminary Observations Regarding 

Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, GAO-06-442T, Washington, D.C.: 

March 8, 2006. 

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Provisions of Charitable Assistance, GAO06-297T, Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2005. 

September 11: More Effective Collaboration Could Enhance Charitable 

Organizations’ Contributions in Disasters, GAO-03-259, Washington, 

D.C.: December 19, 2002.

Disaster Management: Improving the Nation’s Response to Catastrophic 

Disasters, RCED-93-186, Washington, D.C.: July 23, 1993. 

 (130589) Page 41 GAO-06-944 Child Welfare
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