Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s 
 

Disaster Housing Assistance Program 
 

OIG-11-102 August 2011 
Office ofInspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

Homeland 

Security 

AUG 1 2 2011 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the strengths and weaknesses oftheFederal Emergency 

Management Agency's Disaster Housing Assistance Program. It is based on interviews 

with employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, 

and a review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

Matt ladacki ~ Assistant Inspector General 

Office ofEmergency Management Oversight 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA's Disaster Housing Assistance Program 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 
 

Executive Summary.............................................................................................................1 
 

Background..........................................................................................................................2 
 

Results of Audit ...................................................................................................................4 
 

Data Needed To Determine the Success of the DHAP Self-Sufficiency Goal..............4 
 

Data Needed To Determine the Cost-Effectiveness of DHAP ......................................5 
 

Cost Reduction Considerations for Future Programs ....................................................6 
 

Conclusions....................................................................................................................7 
 

Recommendations..........................................................................................................7 
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ..................................................................8 
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................10 
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report .......................................11 
 

Appendix C: Disaster Housing Assistance Program Cost Breakdown .....................14 
 

Appendix D: Major Contributors to this Report ........................................................15 
 

Appendix E: Report Distribution ..............................................................................16 
 

 

 

Abbreviations 

DHAP Disaster Housing Assistance Program
 


DHS Department of Homeland Security 
 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
 


HCV Housing Choice Voucher
 


HUD Department of Housing and Urban Development
 


IAA interagency agreement
 


IHP Individuals and Households Program
 


NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework
 


OMB Office of Management and Budget
 


OIG Office of Inspector General
 


PHA Public Housing Authority
 


Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 
 

OIG



Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency needs to better 

manage interagency agreements with the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development concerning the two Disaster Housing 

Assistance Programs after hurricanes Katrina and Rita and 

hurricanes Gustav and Ike. The first program was intended to 

provide rental housing assistance and case management services to 

move participants toward self-sufficiency. Although this 2007 

pilot program cost more than $550 million by its expiration in 

August 2009, there were neither adequate self-sufficiency nor costeffectiveness data to evaluate this pilot program compared with 

other temporary housing programs. 

Without addressing the concerns of the initial pilot program, 

FEMA entered into a second interagency agreement with the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development to provide the 

same services for survivors of hurricanes Gustav and Ike in 2008. 

Again, the agreement did not require the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development to maintain program data to determine 

whether the program was successful in attaining its self-sufficiency 

goal or was cost competitive with other housing options, such as 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s own Individual and 

Households Rental Assistance Program. The Disaster Housing 

Assistance Program for hurricanes Gustav and Ike cost the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency an estimated $15 million in 

administrative fees paid to the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development for households that did not participate. 

We recommend that Federal Emergency Management Agency not 

enter into additional agreements for Disaster Housing Assistance 

Programs until reliable program effectiveness and cost information 

has been developed and the program has been compared with other 

possible options. If future programs are deemed appropriate, we 

recommend requiring additional program and cost-effectiveness 

data; and evaluation of program administrative and case 

management fees, which make up more than 40% of the program 

costs, for possible cost reduction. 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program
 

Page 1
 
 

 

 

Background 

The Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP) is a joint pilot 

initiative undertaken by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD). DHAP provided temporary housing rental 

assistance and case management services for disaster survivors 

displaced by hurricanes Katrina and Rita and, subsequently, by 

hurricanes Gustav and Ike. This was accomplished through two 

separate interagency agreements (IAAs) between FEMA and HUD. 

DHAP Katrina, a pilot housing program for survivors of hurricanes 

Katrina and Rita, began in July 2007, 23 months after the disaster 

was declared, when the President determined that housing 

assistance would be transitioned to HUD, and continued through 

August 2009. DHAP Katrina was intended to provide rental 

housing for survivors in need of long-term housing assistance and 

to prepare these families for the future by promoting selfsufficiency through case management services. To assist in the 

implementation of DHAP Katrina, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provided FEMA a waiver of OMB Circular A-87, 

Cost Principles for State, Local and Indian Tribal Governments, 

and OMB Circular A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements 

with State and Local Governments, and allowed DHAP to be 

operated under HUD’s Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) financial 

management controls. 

Following hurricanes Ike and Gustav in 2008, FEMA entered into 

another IAA with HUD to provide rental assistance and case 

management services for hurricane survivors. DHAP Ike began in 

November 2008, 1 month after the disaster was declared. 

According to FEMA, an oral OMB waiver was granted for DHAP 

Ike, allowing it to be operated under HUD’s HCV financial 

management controls. The DHAP Ike IAA was designed, 

implemented, and administered by HUD in coordination with, and 

on behalf of, FEMA. As stated in the accompanying Federal 

Register notice, the goal of DHAP Ike was to provide disaster 

survivors with rental assistance and case management services. It 

currently has a revised end date1

 of September 30, 2011. 

To participate in either of the DHAPs, disaster survivors had to 

apply to FEMA for assistance; eligible applicants were referred to 

HUD, which used its existing network of local Public Housing 

Agencies (PHAs) to administer and implement the program. PHAs 

1

 The original end date was March 13, 2010, but DHAP Ike has been extended four times. 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program
 

Page 2
 
 

 

have local market knowledge and the expertise to assist families 

through tenant-based subsidy programs. The PHAs place disaster 

survivors into housing units and make rental assistance payments 

on behalf of eligible families to participating landlords. After 

several months of full subsidy, families are required to pay a 

portion of the rent, starting at $50 per month and gradually 

increasing their contributions, to encourage and help prepare them 

to assume full responsibility for their housing costs at the end of 

DHAP participation. The PHAs are also responsible for 

administering case management services, such as identifying 

nondisaster supported housing solutions, assisting participants in 

securing employment, and connecting them to the public benefits 

for which they are eligible. 

As of November 2010, DHAP Katrina had provided housing to 

36,818 households at a cost of $552.8 million, and DHAP Ike had 

provided housing to 25,316 households at a cost of $281.3 million. 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program
 


Page 3
 

 

 

Results of Audit 

Data Needed To Determine the Success of the DHAP SelfSufficiency Goal 

The case management services for DHAP Katrina and DHAP Ike, which 

were featured in the programs’ respective Federal Register notices, were 

intended to assist survivors in transitioning toward self-sufficiency2

. 

These services, which had not been part of FEMA’s prior temporary 

housing programs, were unique to this program. However, the IAAs 

crafted by FEMA were missing specifics concerning the intended goal of 

participant self-sufficiency through case management and how this goal 

would be tracked. FEMA did not require HUD or the PHAs to report on 

the extent of case management services or their effectiveness in 

transitioning disaster survivors toward self-sufficiency. 

The HUD quarterly management reports required by the IAAs were of 

limited use to FEMA because they were missing information about the 

participants’ progress. For example, FEMA officials were unaware of the 

case management needs of participant families or their rate of progress as 

they proceeded through the program. As a result, FEMA was unable to 

quantify whether DHAP case management services met the selfsufficiency goal. FEMA housed 36,818 households through DHAP 

Katrina without an agreement on how this program should lead program 

participants toward self-sufficiency and how its successes should be 

measured. 

HUD officials provided documentation showing that 14,192 (39%) 

households moved on to their HCV program prior to, or at the conclusion 

of, DHAP Katrina, and 22,626 (61%) of households left DHAP Katrina 

for reasons such as voluntarily ending program participation, violation of 

family obligations,3

 evictions, or death. Although 61% of households 

ended their participation, FEMA does not have accurate information on 

the number of participants who attained self-sufficiency. 

As of November 2010, DHAP Ike had provided housing to 25,316 

households. Currently, at least 5,850 households (23%) continue to need 

assistance. During the audit, HUD and PHA officials said that these 

families will most likely transition to the HCV program. Once again, 

FEMA was unable to use the information to determine the number of 

participants who attained self-sufficiency. 

2

 During the course of our audit, the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development did not have a unified definition for “self-sufficiency.” 3

 A violation of family obligations is a HUD term defined in 24 CFR Part 982.551. Overall, the HUD 

regulation outlines the program participation terms for families in the HCV housing program. 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program
 

Page 4
 
 

We tested 1,547 DHAP Katrina and Ike participant files to determine 

whether the self-sufficiency goal was attained. Approximately 50% of all 

tested records for DHAP Katrina and Ike were missing evidence to 

determine participant self-sufficiency. However, the records that did have 

evidence disclosed the following data: 

DHAP Katrina—106 of 340 (31.2%) households were designated 

as self-sufficient. 

DHAP Ike—100 of 341 (29.3%) households to date are designated 

as self-sufficient. 

Data Needed To Determine the Cost-Effectiveness of DHAP 

Although DHAP Katrina cost more than $550 million by its expiration in 

August 2009 and DHAP Ike has cost more than $280 million (table 1), 

FEMA was unable to use the data to compare actual costs of these 

programs with other possible temporary housing options, such as the 

FEMA Individuals and Households Rental Assistance Program (IHP), 

which provides up to 18 months of short-term housing. In addition, 

FEMA officials said that with the OMB waivers, they did not follow their 

standard grants management requirements but relied heavily on HUD’s 

framework of oversight, program integrity, and financial management. 

Table 1. Cost Breakdowns for DHAP Katrina and Ike as of 

November 5, 2010 

Costs Katrina Ike 

Fees $164,439,446 $98,576,688 

Case Management Fees $61,666,525 $29,256,400 

Deposits $0 $25,326,631 

Housing Assistance $326,669,542 $128,155,684 

Total Costs for each DHAP $552,775,513 $281,315,403 

Total Costs of DHAPs $834,090,916 

Our analysis showed that the rental cost per household over the life of the 

program was $8,872 for DHAP Katrina and, to date, $7,302 for DHAP 

Ike. However, these numbers cannot be used as meaningful cost-ofhousing figures because data were not available showing the length of 

time that participants resided in program housing. Without such 

information, we were unable to determine any cost-effectiveness 

measures. Participants who might have stayed in the program’s housing 

for only 1 month are not adequately differentiated from those who stayed 

in the housing for a year or more in the determination of this average 

rental cost. In addition, the average rental costs do not account for the 

administrative and case management costs of more than $353 million paid 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 5 
 

 

to HUD and the PHAs, which adds more than 40% to the program costs 

and should be considered part of the housing costs. 

Cost Reduction Considerations for Future Programs 

The two DHAPs differed significantly in the way FEMA was charged 

administrative fees for participants who were referred to HUD, thereby 

affecting FEMA’s cost. For DHAP Katrina, only individuals identified by 

FEMA with a continuing need for housing at the closeout of FEMA’s IHP 

program were referred to HUD. According to the DHAP Katrina 

Operating Requirements, PHAs received $92 per month for each 

household referred until the family exited the program or the program 

ended. Of the 46,937 households that FEMA referred to HUD, 10,119 

ultimately declined to participate in DHAP Katrina. Although there are no 

data that detail how many months passed before the families declined 

participation in DHAP Katrina, the cost to FEMA for these families would 

have been $930,948 per month. 

Under DHAP Ike, FEMA referred to HUD all disaster survivors who 

qualified for FEMA IHP rental assistance, and agreed to pay the PHAs an 

administrative fee of $1,000 for each of the 40,140 families referred, 

regardless of their participation. However, 14,824 of those households 

declined to participate in DHAP Ike, costing FEMA $14,824,000. FEMA 

would have saved $14,824,000 if it had referred to HUD only those families 

that agreed to participate. 

In addition to the fees paid upon each applicant’s referral to the PHAs, 

FEMA paid the PHAs administrative fees based on a percentage of each 

participant’s estimated Housing Assistance Payments. For DHAP Katrina, 

the percentage was 15%; for DHAP Ike, it was 14%. Overall, 

administrative fees accounted for 30% of DHAP Katrina costs and 35% of 

DHAP Ike costs. Figure 1 shows the high-level breakdown of DHAP 

costs. Appendix C provides a detailed breakdown of DHAP rental, 

administrative, and other costs. 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program
 


Page 6
 

Figure 1. DHAP Cost 

Breakdown 

DHAP Disbursements Breakout 

As of November 5, 2010 

DHAP - Katrina DHAP - Ike 

30.0% 

58.9% 

11.1% 

54.6% 

35.0% 

10.4% 

Administrative Fees 

Case Management 

HAP & Deposits 

Conclusions 

More than $830 million has been spent on the DHAP efforts under two 

IAAs without FEMA obtaining program and cost-effectiveness data that 

could be used to measure the success of key aspects of the program or to 

compare the program with other possible alternatives. Although FEMA 

did not have adequate analysis of the success or cost-effectiveness of the 

first DHAP, FEMA officials entered into a second IAA for a DHAP for 

survivors of hurricanes Ike and Gustav. This IAA was also deficient in its 

requirement for tracking and reporting costs and program effectiveness. 

FEMA should not enter into another DHAP agreement without 

determining how successful and cost-effective the program has been to 

date. If FEMA does determine that another DHAP is warranted, then it 

should determine whether the agreement should be developed in 

accordance with HCV program guidance requirements. In either case, the 

IAA needs to require the participating agencies to define, track, and report 

meaningful data on success in promoting self-sufficiency and on costs per 

month per household of housing the served population. 

In addition, given the federal funds at risk, FEMA needs to reduce the 

administrative costs of future DHAPs and ensure that service fees are paid 

only for households that receive housing services. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Recovery: 

Recommendation #1: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for DHAP and 

renew the program only if the analysis demonstrates the program to be the 

same as or superior to other housing program options available to FEMA. 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 7 
 

 

 

Recommendation #2: If it is determined that future DHAPs are 

warranted: 

A. Implement needed FEMA program, financial management, and 

oversight policies, procedures, and framework into DHAP 

Interagency agreements. 

B. Establish requirements for cost and program effectiveness data to 

be maintained and reported to FEMA on a regular basis. 

C. Identify the areas of administrative fees being charged under 

DHAP, evaluate their benefits, and, if appropriate, negotiate an 

appropriate reduction in fees. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurs with Recommendation 1, Recommendation 2 B, and 

Recommendation 2 C. When the DHAP Ike program ends on September 

30, 2011, FEMA will conduct a cost-benefit analysis. FEMA will 

consider the results in determining whether it makes economic and 

programmatic sense to continue DHAPs. 

Since this analysis will take some time to complete, FEMA needs the 

interim flexibility to use the DHAP if it is deemed essential for housing 

disaster survivors. FEMA and HUD are working on an IAA that will 

provide DHAP housing assistance and will address FEMA’s need for 

increased reporting frequency, increased specific family and program data, 

and increased financial data to run the program and analyze its 

effectiveness. FEMA is also addressing the administrative fees and 

negotiating a new fee structure for this agreement. In addition, a 

Computer Matching Agreement is being developed to enable the two 

agencies to safely share data. 

FEMA continues to work with HUD to develop the National Disaster 

Recovery Framework (NDRF). When finalized, the NDRF will organize 

support for communities, including housing. HUD will serve as a 

coordination point when assistance is requested to address housing issues 

after disasters. 

We agree with the actions that FEMA has taken and is taking to address 

these issues. We believe the cost-benefit analysis will provide FEMA 

officials with a sound basis for decision-making on future DHAPs. We 

agree with FEMA’s need to continue efforts to provide housing assistance 

through DHAP in the interim and to work with HUD to develop the 

NDRF. The additional reporting requirements and efforts to address and 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 8 
 

renegotiate the administrative fee structure will improve the costeffectiveness of any interim DHAP. We will determine the status of these 

recommendations once we receive the detailed corrective action plan in 

FEMA’s 90-day letter. 

FEMA did not concur with Recommendation 2 A, as previously written. 

FEMA said that it cannot comment on the program integrity, financial 

management, or oversight framework used by HUD to administer DHAP. 

FEMA is correct that commentary on HUD’s program finance, and 

oversight would be inappropriate. The intent of our recommendation was 

to address FEMA’s need for its specific program, financial, and oversight 

requirements to be included in the implementation of any future DHAP. 

The inclusion of FEMA’s requirements will allow enhanced decisionmaking and oversight. In light of FEMA’s response, we reworded the 

recommendation to convey this message. We will determine the status of 

this part of the recommendation once we receive the detailed corrective 

action plan in FEMA’s 90-day letter. 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program
 


Page 9
 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The purpose of this audit was to determine whether FEMA has 

adequate information to determine if DHAP has achieved its 

desired outcome of participant self-sufficiency or independence, 

and if the program is cost-effective in comparison with other 

possible emergency housing programs. 

We interviewed officials from FEMA’s Individual Assistance 

Division and Virginia National Processing Service Center, and 

HUD’s Office of Public and Indian Housing and Office of 

Inspector General on the creation, goals, and implementation of 

DHAP. 

We examined 1,547 DHAP participant files to determine to what 

extent DHAP participants moved toward self-sufficiency. During 

our initial fieldwork site visits, we tested 1,435 DHAP participant 

files sampled from the top six Public Housing Authorities that 

housed DHAP disaster survivors. One of the PHAs visited was 

able to provide records for DHAP Ike participants but not for 

DHAP Katrina participants. We consulted with HUD officials to 

resolve this issue, and arranged for the PHA to provide all DHAP 

Katrina participant files for our review. In our second site visit, we 

tested an additional 112 files to ensure that the PHA had all DHAP 

Katrina participant files to satisfy our testing methodology. 

Our analysis is based on direct observation, review of applicable 

documentation, and interviews. We conducted this performance 

audit between May and December 2010, pursuant to the Inspector 

General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to generally 

accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require 

that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based upon our audit objectives. We believe that the 

evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based upon our audit objectives. 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 10 
U.S. l){"pa rtlUcnt of Il omeland Security 

Washingtoll. DC 20472 

JuLt'll1i 2011 

MEMORANDUM FOR, Mall ladacki 

Assistant Inspector Gcncf<ll 

Office of Emergency Management Agency 

David J. Kaufman f ll --

OfrLce 

Director 

of Poliey and 

~ 

Program Analysis 

SUBJECT, Response to Office of Inspector Gcneral (OIG) Draft Report, Effectiveness 

and Costs of FEMA 's Disaster /-Iol/sing Assistance Program 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on your Draft Report, Effectiveness 

and Costs ofFEMA 's Disaster /-Iol/sillg Assistallce Program (OIG Project #10-OI4-EMO-FEMA). 

Your report explained the actions takcn by your office to review the Disaster Housing Assistance 

Pilot Program (DHAP) and identi fied measures th at the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) could take to improve the program's overall effectiveness. Our response to the two 

recommendations outlined in the Draft Report report follows. 

Background: 

DHAP refers to two pilot grant prol:.>Tams developed through a partnership between FEMA and the 

Department of Housing & Urban Development (HUO) to provide temporary housing assistance and 

housing service connection assistance to eligible individuals and households. OHAP is intended to 

provide a tool to FEMA for those situations where the Agency's traditional temporary housing 

assistance programs coul d be bolstered by the use of HUD's Public Housing Agencies (PHAs). The 

DHAP programs are administered through HUD's existing infrastructure of PH As to bell' FEMA 

facilitate the transition of disaster survivors to non-disaster housing. 

Under DHAP, HUD provides resources through PHAs for rental assistance, security and uti lity 

deposits, and housing service connection for households that are eligible for FEMA housi ng 

assistance under Section 408 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Reliefand Emergency Assistance 

Act, as amended (42 U.S.c. 5174). PHAs execute Disaster Rent Subsidy Contracts (DRSCs) with 

participating landlords to provide rental assistance directly to landlords on behalf of those disaster 

survivors referred to HUD by FEMA. To participate in DHAP, each participating household must 

agree to participate in DHAP Service Connection programs, wherein PHAs refer households to case 

management providers and other social services for any identifi ed disaster·related unmet needs. 

Due to the severi ty of Hurricanes Katrina & Rita in 2005 and Gustav & Ike in 2008, abnonnally 

large numbers of individuals and houscholds required temporary housing and were expected to need 

long·tenn housing assistance. 

www.fcma .llov 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 11 
As a result, FEMA and HUD executed an Interagency Agreement (lAA) to implement DHAP for 

each of these combined events. The IAAs were developed at different stages in the disaster. The 

first, DHAP-Katrina, was implemented more than two years after the disaster occurred. while 

DHAP-Ike was implemented less than two months after the disaster was declared. 

FEMA's Response to OIG's Recommendations: 

Recommendation 1: Conduct a cost-benefit analysis for DHAP and renew the program only if the 

analysis demonstrates the program to be the same as or superior to other housing program options 

available to FEMA. 

FEMA's Response: FEMA concurs with the recommendation to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of 

DHAP and will begin that analysis following conclusion of the DHAP Ike program which is 

scheduled to end September 30, 2011. It will take some time for the cost-benefit analysis to be 

completed, and during this interim period FEMA needs the flexibility to utilize the DHAP program 

should it be essential to meet the housing needs of disaster survivors. FEMA and HUD are 

currently working on an Inter-Agency Agreement (lAA) for use in such an event should it become 

necessary. Once the cost-benefit analysis is completed, FEMA will consider the results in 

determining whether or not it makes economic and programmatic sense to continue having the 

DHAP program available to meet FEMA's mission requirements and disaster survivors' housing 

needs. 

Recommendation 2 (includes parts A, B, and C): If it is determined that future DHAP 

programs are warranted: 

A. Determine whether they should be administered 10 accordance with the Housing Choice 

Voucher (HCy) Programs integrity, fmancial management and oversight framework. 

FEMA Response: FEMA non- concurs with this recommendation. As the HCV Program is 

managed by HUD, FEMA CatUlot comment on the program's integrity, financial management or 

oversight framework. FEMA continues to partner with HUD on exploring additional options for 

addressing the housing needs of disaster survivors through the National Disaster Housing Task 

Force (NDHTF) and the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF). While not yet 

finalized, the NDRF will organize support for communities through Recovery Support Functions 

(RSFs) which are delineated along sector lines, including Housing. The Housing RSF, which is 

led by HUD, will not direct any jurisdiction to implement specific housing solutions, but will 

serve as a coordination point when requested for assistance to address housing issues after 

disasters. 

B. EstabUsh requirements for cost and program effectiveness data to be maintained and 

reported to FEMA on a regular basis. 

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with this recommendation. As discussed above, FEMA and 

HUD are in the process of developing an IAA which would address the need to increase 

reporting frequency, increase and specify family/program data, and increase financial data 

required to run the program and analyze its effectiveness. Learning from the KatrinalRita and 

Ike/Gustav pilots, changes may be implemented which would allow the program to operate in a 

more expedient and fiscally prudent matUler. Although FEMA expects to sign this lAA before 

2 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 12 
the completion of the cost-benefit analysis, FEMA will incorporate findings from that analysis 

into the document, as appropriate. Additionally, FEMA and HUD are developing a Computer 

Matching Agreement (CMA) which would enable each agency to safely share data in a more 

timely and effective manner. 

C. Identify the areas of administrative fees being charged under DHAP, evaluate their 

benefits, and, if appropriate, negotiate an appropriate reduction in fees. 

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with this recommendation. In the current efforts to develop a 

new DHAP IAA, FEMA has been actively engaged in discussions with HUD regarding the 

administrative fees associated with DHAP. As a result of those discussions, FEMA has a clearer 

understanding of the rationale for the administrative fees and is currently in the process of 

negotiating a new fee structure. Once the cost-benefit analysis is completed, FEMA will also 

take those results into consideration and will modify the lAA as needed. 

Again, we thank you for the opportunity to review and provide comments on your Draft Report. 

Please feel free to contact Bradley Shefka; Chief, FEMA GAO/OIG Audit Liaison Office; regarding 

any questions or concerns. 

3 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 13 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Appendix C 

Disaster Housing Assistance Program Cost Breakdown 

DHAP Katrina 
 

DHAP Katrina Cost Breakout as of 

November 5, 2010 

Cost Amount Percentage 

Housing 

Assistance 

Payment $326,669,542 59.10% 

PHA Admin Fees $95,586,660 17.29% 

HUD Admin Fees $19,622,736 3.54% 

Case 

Management $61,666,525 11.16% 

Placement Fees $49,230,050 8.91% 

Cumulative $552,775,513 100.00% 

DHAP Katrina Disbursements Breakout 

as of November 5, 2010 

9% 

4% 

11% 

17% 

59% HAP 

Placement Fees 

HUD Admin Fees 

Case Management 

PHA Admin Fees 

DHAP Ike
 


DHAP Ike Cost Breakout as of 

November 5, 2010 

Type Amount Percentage 

Housing 

Assistance 

Payment $128,155,684 45.56% 

PHA Admin Fees $53,242,836 18.93% 

HUD Admin Fees $18,267,876 6.49% 

Case 

Management $29,256,400 10.40% 

Placement Fees $27,065,976 9.62% 

Rental Deposit $13,655,914 4.85% 

Utility Deposit $11,670,717 4.15% 

Cumulative $281,315,403 100.00% 

DHAP Ike Disbursements Breakout 

as of November 5, 2010 

46% 

19% 

6% 

10% 

10% 

5% 4% 

HAP 

PHA Admin Fees 

HUD Admin Fees 

Case Management 

Placement Fees 

Rental Deposit 

Utility Deposit 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 14 
Appendix D 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Office of Emergency Management Oversight 

Kaye McTighe, Director 

Nigel Gardner, Audit Manager 

Christine Alvarez, Auditor in Charge 

Julie Wong, Auditor 

Nathaniel Nicholson, Auditor 

Ronald Jackson, Auditor 

Chiquita Washington, Auditor 

Jeanette Burbank, Office Manager 

Brandon Landry, Independent Referencer 

Office of Audits 

Mohammad Islam, Audit Manager, Technical Assistance Group 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 15 
 

Appendix E 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Administrator 

Chief of Staff 

Associate Administrator, Response and Recovery 

Deputy Associate Administrator, Response and Recovery 

Assistant Administrator, Recovery 

FEMA Audit Liaison (Project Number 10-014-EMO-FEMA) 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Effectiveness and Costs of FEMA’s Disaster Housing Assistance Program 

Page 16 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.