Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA's Mass 
 


Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 


OIG-11-77 April 2011 
Office ofInspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 25028 

Homeland 

Security 

APR 2 1 2011 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office ofInspector 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 published as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

effectiveness, and efficiency within the department. 

This report addresses opportunities to improve the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency's management and coordination of activities associated with providing mass care 

and emergency assistance during a major emergency or national disaster. We contracted 

with the independent public accounting firm ofFoxx & Company to perform the audit. 

Foxx & Company is responsible for the attached auditor's report, dated April I, 2011, 

and the conclusions expressed in the report. 

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

our contractor. We trust that this report will result in more effective and efficient disaster 

response operations. We express our appreciation to all who contributed to the 

preparation ofthis report. 

---"',..._.-----' 

Ma: t Jadacki 

Assistant Inspector General 

Office ofEmergency Management Oversight 
 

 April 1, 2010 

Mr. Matt Jadacki 

Assistant Inspector General for Emergency Management Oversight 

Office of Inspector General 

Department of Homeland Security 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410 

Washington, DC 20528 

Dear Mr. Jadacki: 

Foxx & Company performed an audit of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 

management and coordination of activities associated with providing mass care and 

emergency assistance during a major emergency or national disaster. The audit was 

performed according to Task Order No. TPDFIGBPA070007, Order No. 0002, dated 

September 29, 2009. 

This report presents the results of the audit and includes recommendations to help 

improve FEMA’s mass care and emergency assistance planning, oversight, and 

coordinating activities before and during a major incident. 

Our audit was conducted according to applicable Government Auditing Standards, July 

2007 revision. The audit was a performance audit as defined by Chapter 1 of the 

Standards, and included a review and report of program activities with a compliance 

element. We did not perform a financial audit, the purpose of which would be to render 

an opinion on the agency’s financial statements. 

We appreciate the opportunity to have conducted this audit. Should you have any 

questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please call me at (513) 639-8843. 

Sincerely, 

Foxx & Company 

Martin W. O’Neill 

Partner 
Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology.......................................................19 
 


Appendix B: Management Comments on the Draft Report ......................................21 
 


Appendix C: Report Distribution ..............................................................................28 
 


Abbreviations 

ARC American Red Cross 
 


DHS Department of Homeland Security 
 


ESF Emergency Support Function 
 


FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 
 


GAO Government Accountability Office 
 


JFO Joint Field Office 
 


OIG Office of Inspector General 
 


NRCC National Response Coordination Center 
 


RRCC Regional Response Coordination Center 
 


SOPs Standard Operating Procedures 
 


Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

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


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


Results of Audit..................................................................................................................3
 


Standard Operating Procedures Needed ........................................................................3 
 


Recommendations..........................................................................................................4
 


Management Comments and Contractor Analysis ........................................................5 
 


Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Efforts Untested ...............................................7 
 


Recommendations..........................................................................................................9
 


Management Comments and Contractor Analysis ......................................................10 
 


Automated Interfaces Needed for Existing Shelter Systems ......................................11 
 


Recommendation .........................................................................................................13 
 


Management Comments and Contractor Analysis ......................................................14 
 


National and Regional Exercise Programs Should Include Mass Care and Emergency 
 

Assistance ....................................................................................................................14
 

Recommendations........................................................................................................16
 

Management Comments and Contractor Analysis ......................................................17 
 
OIG
 
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

Since the 2005 hurricane season, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency has made progress toward improving its 

mass care and emergency assistance program. It has coordinated 

more effectively with state and local governments and voluntary 

organizations; developed planning tools to build the mass care and 

emergency assistance capacities of these governments and 

organizations; and created an internal infrastructure to plan, 

coordinate, and provide direct mass care and emergency assistance, 

as needed. 

However, additional actions are needed to ensure that the program 

is implemented effectively in future disasters. Mass care and 

emergency assistance Standard Operating Procedures have not 

been finalized, the effectiveness of planning tools or initiatives 

developed have not been evaluated, and mass care and emergency 

assistance activities have not always been tested during national 

and regional exercises. In addition, an opportunity exists for 

improved efficiency by creating interfaces between the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency and American Red Cross 

National Shelter System databases. 

We are making seven recommendations to strengthen management 

and administration of the agency’s mass care and emergency 

assistance coordination and management activities. A summary 

and evaluation of the agency’s response is at the end of each 

section of the report. Appendix B contains the agency’s full 

response. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 1 
 
Background 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National 

Response Framework, issued in 2008, provides guidance for 

conducting response activities during emergencies and national 

disasters. The Framework includes 15 Emergency Support 

Function (ESF) annexes that describe the responsibilities of federal 

agencies and others during disaster response and recovery 

operations. Mass care and emergency assistance is part of ESF 6. 

Following Hurricane Katrina in 2005, FEMA, the Department of 

Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG), and 

the White House, among others, reported that FEMA did not have 

effective Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and other 

guidance documents to ensure that all federal, state, local, and 

voluntary agencies understood their mass care and emergency 

assistance roles and responsibilities. 

Two reports1

 said that during Hurricane Katrina, FEMA, the 

American Red Cross (ARC), and other federal and voluntary 

agency partners were confused about their mass care and 

emergency assistance roles and responsibilities. This confusion 

resulted in communication difficulties that led to service delays 

and an inability to determine the specific needs for sheltering and 

feeding operations. Both reports recommended that FEMA create 

an ESF 6 working group, consisting of FEMA, the Red Cross, and 

other primary and support mass care and emergency assistance 

partners, to develop standard operating procedures and other plans 

for response activities during a disaster. 

Another report2

 discussed FEMA’s difficulties in fulfilling its 

ESF 6 mass care responsibilities and attributed this condition to a 

need for effective operational plans, procedures, and capabilities 

that support the National Response Plan and its ESF annexes. This 

report recommended that each ESF lead agency develop SOPs and 

notification protocols that conform to the National Incident 

Management System. It also recommended that the procedures be 

exercised at either the national, departmental, or agency level. 

1 2005 Hurricane Season After-Action Report (FEMA, June 26, 2006) and A Performance Review of 
 


FEMA’s Disaster Management Activities in Response to Hurricane Katrina (DHS/OIG 06-32, March
 
 

2006). 


2 The Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned (The White House, February 2006).
 
 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 2 
 
Results of Audit 
 

To improve its effectiveness in managing and coordinating mass care and 

emergency assistance, FEMA needs to finalize SOPs, evaluate the effectiveness 

of the tools and initiatives that have been developed, and ensure that mass care 

and emergency assistance activities are tested during exercises. In addition, 

action is needed to link the FEMA and ARC National Shelter Systems databases. 

Standard Operating Procedures Needed 

FEMA needs to finalize ESF 6 SOPs for its headquarters and regional 

offices. Since 2005, FEMA has been in the process of developing ESF 6 

SOPs for the National Response Coordination Center (NRCC), a FEMA 

headquarters emergency operations center that is responsible for 

coordinating disaster relief at the national level. But these procedures 

have not been finalized. Moreover, FEMA has not developed ESF 6 SOPs 

for its Regional Response Coordination Centers (RRCCs) or Joint Field 

Offices (JFOs), two organizations designed to be activated by FEMA to 

coordinate disaster relief at the state and local levels. As a result, 

confusion over roles and responsibilities may exist during future disasters. 

NRCC Standard Operating Procedures Development Efforts 

On February 1, 2006, FEMA established an ESF 6 working group 

that included ESF 6 primary and support agencies, including ARC. 

By September 2006, the working group had developed drafts of an 

ESF 6 Concept of Operations and SOPs for the NRCC. FEMA did 

not approve these draft documents for use at the NRCC or as a 

guide for ESF 6 disaster activities. Since then, FEMA has made 

three additional attempts to develop NRCC procedures. According 

to FEMA officials, these attempts were not successful primarily 

because of recurring reorganizations and revisions to national 

response plans. 

The most recent attempt included an effort to develop (1) an 

Individual Assistance Branch Concept of Operations, (2) ESF 6 

SOPs, and (3) an ESF 6 Desk Guide. FEMA officials said that the 

most recent documents will likely remain in draft pending the 

results of the 2010 FEMA structural reorganization. 

However, the latest procedural documents were not coordinated 

with any of the ESF 6 partners outside FEMA. A FEMA official 

told us that SOPs are considered internal management documents 

and outside groups do not have a role in how they are written. 

This view is inconsistent with the recommendations in FEMA’s 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 

Page 3 
post-Katrina after-action report3

 and a DHS OIG audit.4 The 

involvement of other ESF 6 mass care partners in the process is 

still needed, because it provides FEMA with an outside perspective 

on the procedures and gives the partners a better understanding of 

FEMA’s rationale for the procedures. 

RRCC and JFO Standard Operating Procedures Development 

Efforts 

FEMA headquarters officials said they have not attempted to 

develop mass care and emergency assistance SOPs for the RRCC 

and JFO. Under the Stafford Act, as amended, FEMA’s 10 

regional offices are responsible for organizing Federal response at 

the local level and responding to a state’s request for disaster 

assistance. Under this authority each regional office is responsible 

for developing its own mass care and emergency assistance SOPs. 

A regional office expressed interest in developing region-wide 

SOPs, but was not aware of any coordinated effort. 

Post-Katrina reports issued by FEMA and DHS OIG recommended 

that ESF 6 Concepts of Operations and SOPs be quickly developed 

through a working group that included ARC and other ESF 6 

support agencies. FEMA has not yet finalized these procedures or 

included external partners in the process. As a result, the risk of 

confusion over mass care and emergency assistance roles and 

responsibilities persists. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Recovery: 

Recommendation #1: Develop and finalize the mass care and 

emergency assistance Standard Operating Procedures and other 

procedural documents for the National Response Coordination 

Center, Regional Response Coordination Centers, and Joint Field 

Offices. 

Recommendation #2: Provide opportunities for FEMA’s mass 

care and emergency assistance partners to review and comment on 

draft Standard Operating Procedures and other procedural 

documents. 

3 2005 Hurricane Season After-Action Report (FEMA, June 26, 2006), Page 67. 
 
 4 A Performance Review of FEMA’s Disaster Management Activities in Response to Hurricane Katrina 
 


(DHS/OIG 06-32, March 2006), Page 38. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 

Page 4 
Management Comments and Contractor Analysis 

FEMA concurred with recommendation #1. However, FEMA 

pointed out that the new NRCC structure is not organized by 

Emergency Support Function. Instead, FEMA has developed a 

new doctrine based on a “National Incident Support Manual” 

which reflects the strategic role that FEMA Headquarters is 

assigned during response operations. Under this new doctrine, the 

NRCC (when activated during an event) will include three 

sections: Resource Support, Planning, and Reporting. In all three 

of these sections, the Individual Assistance Division is involved at 

the “group” level. FEMA said that the Individual Assistance 

Division will develop SOPs for its “group” responsibilities after 

the 2011 hurricane season. 

It may be implied that the new SOPs would include applicable 

NRCC procedures for ESF 6 and mass care and emergency 

assistance. If FEMA follows through with this strategy, it would 

satisfy the intent of this recommendation at the headquarters 

response level. However, by waiting until the completion of the 

2011 hurricane season to draft new SOPs, six years will have 

passed since Hurricane Katrina. Without some renewed 

management emphasis and sense of urgency, the SOPs relating to 

mass care and emergency assistance could be delayed again. 

In its comments, FEMA reiterated that the Regional offices are 

responsible for developing their own support documents, including 

SOPs. FEMA also pointed out that it provides subject matter 

expertise and other assistance to the Regions when requested. For 

example, FEMA referred to the Region 2 Management Guide 

which it would provide to the OIG when completed. During our 

audit, we reviewed this Region 2 Management Guide along with a 

similar Management Guide which had been drafted by Region 6. 

In both cases, the Guides included relevant ESF 6 information, 

much of which was specific to mass care and emergency 

assistance. However, the Management Guide at Region 6 was still 

in draft form and had not been adopted by the regional 

management as its official SOPs for the RRCC or the JFO. 

Importantly, officials in both Region 2 and 6 told us that there 

were other regional SOPs relating to ESF 6 which are not complete 

and had not been updated recently. We believe that the ESF 6 

Management Guide is a good first step in developing applicable 

ESF 6 SOPs for all the Regions. However, it will likely take 

leadership from FEMA headquarters and Regional management to 

convert the Management Guides into “officially approved” SOPs 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 5 
 
at the regional level. During our review, we did not see any 

evidence that leadership was ready to take on this task. 

FEMA pointed out that JFOs will continue to follow the ESF 

model and that FEMA already has a basis for developing further 

JFO support documents relating the mass care and emergency 

assistance. It specifically referred to four related courses, 

including the “Mass Care/Emergency Assistance for Field 

Operations” completed in January 2011. As FEMA points out, it 

provided information to us on this course during our review. We 

were impressed with information provided by the course and 

believe it is a good resource document for developing JFO mass 

care and emergency assistance SOPs. However, the question we 

asked, which was not adequately answered by FEMA, was which 

should come first: the training course or SOPs. Logically, we 

believe that SOPs should come first, with the training course 

developed to support the scope and intent of the SOPs. Otherwise, 

the course could be presenting concepts and ideas which have not 

been vetted and approved officially by legal, policy, and senior 

management personnel in headquarters and the regional offices. 

Therefore, we believe that FEMA should undertake immediate 

actions to develop mass care and emergency assistance SOPs for 

JFOs and, when completed, ensure that any related training classes 

are in compliance. 

FEMA also concurred with recommendation #2. FEMA pointed 

out the significant efforts it has undertaken to collaborate with 

others, at all levels of government and the private sector, in the 

development and review of many types of related documents. 

During our review, we were impressed with the collaborative 

efforts to which FEMA refers. It is establishing the right policies 

and approaches in seeking the outside perspectives on emergency 

management issues. However, our specific objectives in this 

review were narrowly focused on development of mass care and 

emergency assistance SOPs and the degree to which FEMA had 

collaborated with others in that process. As we point out above, 

FEMA did not collaborate with any of its ESF 6 partners outside of 

FEMA as it attempted to develop ESF 6 SOPs. Also, FEMA does 

not believe it had a responsibility to do so. We encourage FEMA 

to revise its approach in this area. 

The comments by FEMA are responsive to recommendations #1 

and #2. However, headquarters and regional management 

leadership will be needed to ensure that the Management Guide is 

converted to regional SOPs. We also believe that FEMA should 

take immediate action to develop JFO Mass Care/Emergency 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 6 
 
Assistance SOPs. The approval of SOPs would ensure that the 

training course adequately reflects FEMA’s legal, policy, and 

management positions with respect to Mass Care/Emergency 

Assistance. 

Except for the above caveats, the actions identified in FEMA’s 

response should address the conditions addressed in this report. 

Within 90 days, the Assistant Administrator, Recovery, needs to 

provide a plan to ensure that the implementation of the proposed 

actions proceed, as intended. 

Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Efforts Untested 

FEMA has not evaluated the effectiveness of newly developed mass care 

and emergency assistance planning tools and other initiatives. As a result, 

the impact of FEMA’s planning efforts remains untested. 

As the National Response Framework was being developed, FEMA 

became the primary agency for coordinating mass care and emergency 

assistance during an emergency or national disaster. FEMA has worked 

extensively with state and local governments and voluntary agencies and 

developed a number of mass care and emergency assistance planning tools 

to help states and other stakeholders improve their ability to deal with a 

national incident. As these tools are adopted and used, FEMA officials 

hope that state and local governments will become more self sufficient and 

will only need FEMA assistance in the most severe emergencies or 

national disasters. These planning tools include items in Table 1. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 7 
 
 

Table 1. Tools to Improve State and Local Government 
 


Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Capabilities 
 


Tools Purpose 

Multiagency Feeding Completed in March 2010, this plan template is 

Plan Template designed to help state and local governments 

develop a plan that identifies feeding assistance 

needed in advance of, during, and after a disaster. 

Mass Evacuation Launched in June 2010, this system is designed to 

Tracking System (Web­ help states track the movement of transpositionbased database system) assisted evacuees, their household pets, luggage, 

and medical equipment during evacuations. 

Guidance in Support of Finalized in January 2010, this guidance addresses 

Mass Care and how to shelter, feed, and evacuate people during 

Emergency Assistance emergency situations where the goal is to keep 

Functions During a people separated rather than together in a typical 

Pandemic Period mass care setting. 

National Shelter System Completed in June 2009, this system is designed 

to allow users to identify, track, analyze, and 

report on data for almost any facility associated 

with the sheltering and feeding of people and/or 

pets and service animals. 

Guidance on Planning for 

Integration of Functional 

Needs Support Services 

in General Population 

Shelters 

Released on November 1, 2010, this guidance 

assists emergency managers and shelter planners 

in understanding the requirements related to 

sheltering children and adults with functional 

support needs in general population shelters. 

Donations and Volunteer Operational in June 2007, this system includes 

Management System individual state websites which the public can 

(Web-based system) access to volunteer services and donate items 

during an incident. It also includes a national web 

portal allowing FEMA to coordinate donations if a 

state is overwhelmed. 

National Emergency Completed in 2007, this locator system provides a 

Family Registry and mechanism for displaced persons to register in a 

Locator System national database so they can be located and 

reunited with family and friends. 

National Emergency Completed in February 2007, this center was 

Child Locator Center established in collaboration with the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children to help 

track and locate children who have been separated 

from their families during a disaster. 

Most of these planning tools were developed through 

multiagency/organization work groups. For example, development of the 

Multiagency Feeding Plan Template included 40 to 50 people from FEMA 

headquarters and regional offices, state and local governments, voluntary 

agencies, and other federal departments and agencies. Most of the other 

planning tools involved similar work groups. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 

Page 8 
�

�

�

FEMA also has direct support initiatives (e.g., units and task forces) to help 

states deliver needed mass care and emergency assistance during a 

presidentially declared disaster of emergency. If requested by a state, 

FEMA can deploy resources to a disaster location when a state’s capacity to 

respond has been overwhelmed. According to FEMA, these resources can 

come from in-house capabilities, mission assignments, and/or contract 

capabilities. The resources can be in the form of special units or task forces 

which can be stand-alone entities within the Individual Assistance branch of 

the JFO or they can be integrated into existing state response organizations. 

These resources are as follows: 

Congregate Care Coordination Unit 

o Sheltering Support Task Force 

o Distribution of Emergency Supplies Task Force 

o Feeding Support Task Force 

o Functional needs Support Task Force 

o Household Pets and Service Animals Support Task Force 

Mass Evacuation Support Unit 

Reunification Services Unit 

The development of the planning tools and direct support initiatives, along 

with FEMA’s emphasis on coordination, appears to have increased the 

focus on the importance of mass care and emergency assistance 

preparedness. However, many of the planning tools and initiatives have 

been completed recently. Therefore, several of the tools and initiatives 

have not yet been tested in an operating environment or through a 

coordinated exercise program. It remains unclear whether states will 

adopt the new tools, some of which require a state’s financial and staffing 

commitment to implement. 

In future disasters, FEMA should track the use and effectiveness of the 

planning tools and initiatives to ensure that they provide a value-added 

service. FEMA should consider developing a coordinated exercise 

program at the state and regional levels to test the tools’ effectiveness. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Protection and National Preparedness: 

Recommendation #3: Evaluate the effectiveness of the planning 

tools and initiatives through documented coordinated exercise 

programs at the state or regional level. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 9 
 
We recommend that the Deputy Assistant Administrator, 

Protection and National Preparedness and Assistant Administrator, 

Recovery: 

Recommendation #4: Track and document the use and 

effectiveness of the tools and initiatives when adopted by state and 

local governments. 

Management Comments and Contractor Analysis 

FEMA concurred with recommendations #3. FEMA pointed out 

several instances where states and FEMA had exercised or were 

planning to exercise the planning tools. FEMA also said that its 

mass care and emergency assistance branch would (1) encourage 

FEMA regions and the states to use exercises to further evaluate 

the tools and initiatives relating to mass care and emergency 

assistance, (2) work with FEMA’s Recovery Directorate’s, 

National Planning Branch to identify opportunities to evaluate the 

mass care and emergency assistance tools and initiatives through 

exercises, and (3) ensure that lessons learned from exercises are 

implemented through monthly calls with FEMA regions and states 

that have agreed to use FEMA’s National Shelter System. FEMA 

said that the calls to FEMA regions and states will help create a 

dialog that will identify successes, challenges, and ways to provide 

enhancements and technical assistance. Finally, FEMA said that 

its National Exercise Division, which provides direct support for 

regional, state, local, territorial, and tribal exercises, would 

continue to support exercises that focus on mass care and 

emergency assistance. 

FEMA also concurred with recommendation #4. In its comments, 

FEMA committed to using the monthly calls to FEMA regions and 

states, which was discussed in its response to recommendation #3, 

to also document the use and effectiveness of the National Mass 

Evacuation Tracking System and other initiatives as the initiatives 

are completed and implemented. 

FEMA said that it believes that these actions are sufficient to 

comply with the intent of the recommendation. We concur with 

this assessment. If FEMA follows through with its existing and 

planned actions, we believe FEMA will have a better 

understanding of the potential issues that could affect the delivery 

of mass care and emergency assistance services during a major 

event. In addition, FEMA will be in a better position to assess the 

relative value of the tools and initiatives it has developed to 

improve the delivery of those services. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 

Page 10 
The comments by FEMA are responsive to recommendations #3 

and #4. If properly implemented, the actions identified should 

address the conditions identified during the audit. Within 90 days, 

the Deputy Assistant Administrator, Protection and National 

Preparedness and Assistant Administrator, Recovery, need to 

provide plans to ensure that the implementation of the proposed 

actions proceed, as intended. 

Automated Interfaces Needed for Existing Shelter Systems 

Further action is needed to link the FEMA and ARC National Shelter 

databases. FEMA is currently working on a data interface connection that 

will automatically transfer data between the two databases. Following 

Hurricane Katrina, FEMA and ARC initiated efforts to develop a shared 

National Shelter System. However, for contracting and other reasons the 

agencies abandoned the joint effort and developed separate National 

Shelter System databases with different capabilities and data requirements. 

To reduce duplication and enhance efficiency FEMA has undertaken 

efforts to develop automatic interfaces between the two Systems’ 

databases and a prominent commercial system that provides shelter data to 

states during an incident. Until these interfaces are complete and 

operational, many states may opt to rely on other alternatives as a source 

of shelter data during an emergency or national disaster. 

Two of the major post-Katrina reports determined that FEMA and others 

had trouble identifying temporary and long-term housing alternatives for 

Hurricane Katrina victims. A White House review titled “The Federal 

Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned, (February 2006)” 

recommended that FEMA, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, and Red Cross strengthen their planning and operational 

relationships so that disaster victims could transition more seamlessly 

from short term sheltering to longer-term housing solutions. The review 

also recommended that the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, along with other Federal departments, help state and local 

governments’ inventory existing shelters and shelter sites. DHS OIG 

reported in “A Performance Review of FEMA’s Disaster Management 

Activities in Response to Hurricane Katrina (March 2006)” that FEMA as 

the ESF 6 lead had difficulty identifying the number and location of 

evacuees and the need for shelters. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 11 
 
Efforts to Share the FEMA and Red Cross Sheltering Systems 

In 2006, FEMA and ARC entered into a joint informal agreement to 

develop a National Shelter System database that would provide a 

nationwide inventory of possible shelters that could be used during an 

emergency or national disaster. A FEMA official said that according to 

the informal agreement, ARC would develop the first version of the 

National Shelter System and FEMA would be responsible for the second 

version. Both parties would then use the system and share shelter data. 

An ARC official said that ARC completed the first version of the joint 

National Shelter System database in July 2006. However, in October 

2006 FEMA informed ARC that it had decided to develop its own shelter 

system database. A FEMA official said that FEMA could not continue on 

the project due to legal and contractual issues that included the sole source 

nature of the ARC’s contracting arrangement and issues associated with 

access to the shelter data. 

Since that time, according to an ARC official, ARC has updated its 

National Shelter System several times and has the capability to track ARC 

and non-ARC general, functional needs, medical, and pet shelters. The 

database also has 519 registered state and federal users. According to the 

ARC official, ARC is still working to improve and simplify the System. 

For example, the ARC official said that the agency is working on a project 

that will allow users to update shelter counts with smart phones or other 

web-enabled mobile devices. 

In June 2009, FEMA’s National Shelter System database went on line. At 

the completion of our audit, FEMA had Memorandums of Understanding 

with six states to use the system. The FEMA system was designed to 

track any facility associated with the care of disaster survivors and 

displaced pets. The system, among other things, can also identify 

embarkation and disembarkation evacuation sites, location of food 

kitchens, numbers of meals served by shelters, food storage warehouses, 

and portable on-demand storage units. It also has a built-in Geographic 

Information System that shows shelter locations and contains information 

on critical infrastructure, river gauges, flood plains, live weather feeds, 

and seismic data. A FEMA official said that it will be a comprehensive 

tool for not only tracking shelter information but also for managing many 

mass care disaster operations. 

Currently, FEMA must either manually load shelter data into its National 

Shelter System or rely on others (state and local governments, shelter 

operators, etc.) to do it for them. Moreover, according to mass care 

personnel in the two FEMA Regions we visited (Region IV and VI), they 

were of the opinion that the states in their Regions were not likely to adopt 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 

Page 12 
or use FEMA’s National Shelter System database in the near future. The 

regional officials stated that the states were waiting for FEMA to develop 

the capability to automatically share shelter data with the ARC National 

Shelter System and another, commercially available shelter system. 

Otherwise, ARC and state and local governments would have to manually 

enter the same shelter information multiple times to keep FEMA’s 

National Shelter System database current. We were told by a regional 

official that the FEMA system required users to fill out a multitude of 

required fields before the information could be saved in the database. The 

FEMA official said it took him all day to transfer the required data on five 

shelters from a commercial system into the FEMA system. During a 

disaster the official did not think state and local officials would have the 

time to input data for a number of shelters. 

At the time of our audit, FEMA was developing live data interfaces so that 

it can automatically upload and share shelter data with the ARC National 

Shelter System database and a commercially available shelter system. The 

completion of this effort appears to be necessary for FEMA’s National 

Shelter System database to be a viable alternative for those states which 

currently depend on the ARC or other commercially available software 

system databases for critical shelter information before and during an 

emergency or national disaster. 

The interfaces are intended to facilitate the dissemination of sheltering 

information to states for use during an emergency or national disaster. If 

successfully developed, the interfaces would be responsive to the findings 

following Katrina that users had trouble identifying temporary and longterm housing alternatives for Hurricane Katrina victims. However, until 

this effort is completed successfully, state and local officials may be 

reluctant to embrace the FEMA National Shelter System database. 

In commenting on this report, FEMA pointed out that the FEMA National 

Shelter System only had seven “required fields” and that once the data 

bridge is completed, uploads will occur automatically. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Recovery: 

Recommendation #5: Complete efforts to develop automatic data 

interfaces between FEMA’s National Shelter System database, the 

ARC National Shelter System database, and other commercially 

available sheltering system databases that state and local 

governments depend on for shelter-related information during an 

emergency or national disaster. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 

Page 13 
 

Management Comments and Contractor Analysis 

FEMA concurred with recommendation #5. FEMA said that the 

automatic interface between the FEMA and Red Cross National 

Shelter Systems will be completed by the end of March 2011. 

According to FEMA, completion of the system interface with the 

other commercially available shelter system (which we discuss in 

the report) will be completed by July 2011. Moreover, FEMA 

noted that it is also in discussions with representatives from other 

commercially available shelter systems and may develop data 

interfaces with some of those systems. 

In addition, FEMA stated that 10 states had signed Memorandums 

of Understanding to use FEMA’s National Shelter System (rather 

than the six which had signed when completed our work). The 

System currently had 220 Federal, state, and voluntary agency 

users. FEMA also expected more states to sign Memorandums of 

Understanding once the data bridges with the Red Cross and the 

other commercially available system are complete. 

The comments by FEMA are responsive to recommendations #5. 

If properly implemented, the actions identified should address the 

conditions identified during the audit. Within 90 days, the 

Assistant Administrator, Recovery, needs to provide a plan to 

ensure that the implementation of the proposed actions proceed, as 

intended. 

National and Regional Exercise Programs Should Include Mass 

Care and Emergency Assistance 

Mass care and emergency assistance operations are seldom included in 

FEMA’s national and regional exercise programs. As a result, FEMA’s 

mass care and emergency assistance workforce has not had the 

opportunity to coordinate its skills and identify strengths and weaknesses 

in a simulated national emergency. 

Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Operational Plans and 

Procedures Are Not Exercised 

FEMA has annual National Level Exercise involving an event of 

national significance, and a regional exercise program that 

provides contractor support and funding for states or groups of 

states involved in collaborative exercise efforts. These programs 

are designed to test the validity of operational plans and procedures 

and provide emergency management personnel with a greater 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 

Page 14 
understanding of how the plans and procedures might work in an 

operational environment. 

However, mass care and emergency assistance-related disaster 

activities and operating procedures have seldom been included in 

national and regional exercise programs. According to FEMA 

officials, most exercise programs focus on “response” activities 

during the first 72 hours during a disaster. These response 

activities include determining and reporting on situational 

awareness, emergency power generation, search and rescue 

missions, and other activities designed to protect the immediate 

health and safety of the public. Mass care and emergency 

assistance also typically becomes operational during the first 72 

hours of a national incident. However, because mass care and 

emergency assistance is organizationally included in FEMA’s 

Recovery Directorate, headquarters recovery and regional officials 

said that mass care activities are typically overlooked during the 

design and implementation of exercise programs. 

Mass care and emergency assistance activities are beginning to be 

included in the national-level exercises. The Recovery Directorate 

has exerted some influence over the design of the national 

program. For example, National Level Exercise 2010 process 

(focusing on the National response to an improvised nuclear device 

detonation), dedicated a full day to “recovery” issues, including 

mass care and emergency assistance”. According to a FEMA 

official, planning for National Level Exercise 2011 (involving a 

large earthquake along the New Madrid fault) will also include an 

evaluation of mass care and emergency assistance and other 

recovery issues. 

We discussed mass care and emergency assistance exercises with 

officials in Regions IV and VI. In Region IV, officials pointed out 

that Florida, with FEMA’s participation, reviewed its Mass Care 

Feeding Plan as part of Florida’s 2009 Hurricane Exercise. A 

Florida mass care official said that Florida may also review mass 

evacuation procedures as part of its 2011 Hurricane Exercise. In 

Region VI, FEMA officials told us that mass care and emergency 

assistance activities were not part of its regional exercise programs. 

However, they were aware of the Florida exercise and the planned 

2011 New Madrid Exercise. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 15 
 
Risks of Limited Mass Care and Emergency Assistance 

Exercises 

Mass care and emergency assistance are among the most important 

public safety activities undertaken during the early stages of a 

major emergency or national disaster. Limited inclusion of these 

activities in FEMA’s national or regional exercise programs 

increases the risk that FEMA will make mistakes similar to those 

that occurred during Hurricane Katrina. 

Moreover, with such limited inclusion, FEMA reduces its ability to 

identify new mass care and emergency assistance issues. For 

example, FEMA’s Region IV participated in Florida’s 2009 

Hurricane Exercise program by activating the region’s RRCC and 

sending regional staff to participate in the exercise. During this 

exercise, Florida identified a number of issues, such as a critical 

shortage of insulated food containers and a shortage of nationally 

identified and trained mass care staff. These shortages would limit 

Florida’s or FEMA’s ability to deliver an estimated 1.6 million 

meals daily to the affected population. Florida’s after-action report 

commented on the need for a national inventory of insulated food 

containers for mass care planners and noted that very few states 

have dedicated ESF 6 personnel to coordinate mass care activities 

in the event of a disaster. 

National and regional exercise programs should include, as 

appropriate, mass care and emergency assistance operational plans 

and procedures evaluations. These evaluations would enable 

FEMA to assess the efficacy of its mass care and emergency 

assistance operational plans and procedures. The evaluations 

would also provide FEMA staff opportunities to interact with state 

and local governments and voluntary agencies to identify potential 

gaps in service coverage and areas where FEMA can provide 

value-added services to disaster survivors. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Deputy Administrator, Protection and 

National Preparedness: 

Recommendation #6: Revise internal policies and procedures to 

ensure that mass care and emergency assistance plans and 

procedures are included, as appropriate, in FEMA’s national and 

regional exercise programs. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 16 
 
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Recovery: 

Recommendation #7: Develop and implement procedures to 

track, accumulate, and disseminate mass care and emergency 

assistance-related lessons learned from exercises that include mass 

care and emergency assistance support and operating procedures. 

Management Comments and Contractor Analysis 

FEMA concurred with recommendation #6. FEMA said that mass 

care and emergency assistance is a major focus of its preparedness 

activities. It noted that FEMA’s response, recovery, and 

preparedness components had begun to include mass care and 

emergency assistance in their “Thunderbolt” table top exercises, 

National Level Exercises, and other exercise programs. FEMA 

also noted instances where FEMA regions had supported the states 

in efforts to include mass care and emergency assistance activities 

in state exercise programs. FEMA said that in February 2011, 

FEMA’s Recovery and Logistics Directorates streamlined internal 

procedures to provide mass care support for infants, seniors, and 

persons with disabilities. Also, it had developed infant and toddler 

shelter kits which will be included as inventory in FEMA’s 

distribution centers. According to FEMA, these and other mass 

care-related procedures will be among those tested in the 2011 

National Level Exercise. Finally, FEMA committed to the 

development of new training programs and workshops that will 

help facilitate the inclusion of mass care and emergency assistance 

plans into various exercises, exercise plans, and respective 

evaluation processes. 

FEMA partially concurred with recommendation #7. FEMA said 

that the Homeland Security Information Network Mass 

Care/Emergency Assistance Community of Interest website is 

under construction. Once completed, FEMA said that the share 

site will be a forum that will allow FEMA and its mass care and 

emergency assistance partners to submit, share, and exchange 

information. The type of information on the share site will include 

lessons learned, plans, policies, doctrine, guidance and other 

resource documents. The site will also be designed to provide a 

primary location for vetting documents under review with a broad 

range of government and voluntary agency partners. 

We believe that the shared website is an important undertaking that 

should help FEMA track, accumulate, and disseminate mass care 

and emergency assistance-related lessons learned. However, 

having such a website does not always mean that the lessons 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 17 
 
learned are implemented or that positive improvements result. 

Therefore, we believe that it is also important that FEMA evaluate 

the importance of the lessons learned, track their implementation 

through performance-based metrics, and periodically report on the 

impact of the shared website program. 

The comments by FEMA are responsive to recommendations #6 

and #7. If properly implemented, the actions identified should 

address the conditions identified during the audit. Within 90 days, 

the Deputy Administrator, National Preparedness Directorate, and 

the Assistant Administrator, Recovery, need to provide plans to 

ensure that the implementation of the proposed actions proceed, as 

intended. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 18 
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Foxx & Company audited FEMA’s mass care and emergency assistance 

program. The overall objective of the audit was to determine if FEMA 

completed effective mass care and emergency assistance operational plans 

and procedures following Hurricane Katrina and adequately coordinated 

with and considered the views of others outside of FEMA. Specific audit 

objectives were to— 

1.	 Determine if FEMA’s mass care and emergency assistance operational 

plans and procedures provide an effective framework for guiding, 

directing, and coordinating related services during presidentially 

declared emergencies and national disasters; and 

2.	 Evaluate the extent to which FEMA coordinated with applicable 

federal, state, tribal, local, and voluntary agencies in developing mass 

care and emergency assistance operational plans and procedures. 

The scope of the audit included interviews of FEMA headquarters officials 

who managed the mass care and emergency assistance functions and 

developed and coordinated various operational plans and procedures. 

Foxx & Company discussed mass care and emergency assistance issues 

with other officials within the Recovery Directorate. We did extensive 

research on past mass care and emergency assistance problems that 

occurred during Hurricane Katrina and FEMA efforts to correct the 

problems. This research included reviews of Katrina-related reports 

prepared after the incident to document problems and recommend 

solutions. Our primary focus was on gaining an understanding of the 

recent mass care and emergency assistance changes that FEMA has made 

to address the documented shortcomings during the response to Hurricane 

Katrina. We also visited or talked with officials in the following 

locations: 

�	 

�	 

�	 

�	 

FEMA Regional Offices in Atlanta, GA, and Denton, TX 

State emergency management offices in Austin, TX and 
 


Tallahassee, FL
 
 

National Individual Assistance ESF 6 Conference in San Diego, CA 

Washington, DC, offices of the following mass care and 
 

emergency assistance designated support agencies: 
 

o	 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 

o	 U.S. Department of Agriculture 

o	 American Red Cross 

o	 National Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster 

At these locations, the audit team collected related documents and 

solicited the views of officials on FEMA’s coordination process and the 

effectiveness of various initiatives undertaken by FEMA to improve mass 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 19 
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

care and emergency assistance operating procedures following Hurricane 

Katrina. 

This performance audit was conducted in accordance with Government 

Auditing Standards, July 2007 Revision. The 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 on our 

audit objectives. The evidence obtained supports the findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities 
 

Page 20 
 
I .!-. U'p."mtnl Ur Ilnnlt'l.nd "'..uri.)

<lWl< Sin,•. ,\\

\\ ....... l'k ::l14"

~AR 1 4 1011

Mr. 1\·1311 Jad3Cki

Assist3nt Inspector GencrJ!

Ofliec of Emergency Manag<:ment OnTSight

Office of [nsp<..-etor General

U.S. Department ofHomciaod Security

Washington. DC 20528

Re: O[G Draft Report. Opporlllllities 10 Improw.' FE.lIA·s Mass Care (/lui Emergency

Assistance Activilies. OIG Project No. 09·214-EMO·FEMA

Dear Mr. Jadaeki:

The Department of 110meland Security's Fc(kral Emergency Management Agl'fley (FEMA)

appreciatcs the opportunity to review and respond to the Office ofInspector General (O[G) draft

report. Oppol"lllllirics /0 Improl'c ITAlA's /1-1(/.55 Cll,.C alld ElI1crgellcy Ass;'vlallcc IIc/i\'ifies. OIG

Projl'Ct No. OIJ-214-EMO-FEMA. FEMA is actively resoh'ing thc issues identiticd in the audit.

The draft fllJOrt highlighls many impro\'Cml'flls FEMA has mooe since the 2005 hurricane

season. but some portions do not accurately characterize FEMA's responsibilities in relation 10

mass care and emergl"11ey assistance. The report notes that FEMA is coordinating more

cffectively with slate and local govemml'llts and voluntary organil.l1tions and has dcvcloped

planning tools to build mass care and cmergl'flCY assistance capabilities at the state and local

le\·d. While the O[G's audit concluded that additional actions arc needed to ensure that the

program is effectively implemented in future disasllTS. it pointed out thai FEMA has created an

internal infrastructure to plan. coordinate. and provide dircct mass case and emergency assistance

during and following disasters. The report inaccurately characterizes FEMA's responsibilities in

relation to mass care and l'lnergl'flcy assistance by oVl"TStating FE\1A's role in state and local

c:l;ercises and 1,'Uidanec lmplementauon. It bears emphasis that FE\IA is only onc member of a

broad national emergency managemenlleam--one that includes alllC\-els of government, the

private sector, nongovernmental organizations. and the American public.

FEMA has already begun to take rcme(hal aelion 10 shortcomings identified in the report.

FEVlA's "'lass Care Emergcncy ASSistance Branch in the Recovery Dirtttorate's Individual

Assistance (IA) DIviSIon has made great stndes in dC\e1opmg guIdance and tools 10 help develop

mass care and emergency assIstance capabllitlcs at the state and localleye!. AddlllOnally, the

Mass Care/Emergcncy Assistance Branch is working closely with the Recovery Directorate's

National Planning Branch and the '-:allonal Preparedness Directorate's (\'PD) National Exercise

Division C\jED) to ensure that mass care and emergency assistance are included in FEMA's

.......fctn:O,I:<l\

Appendix B 

Management Comments on the Draft Report 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities
 
 

Page 21
 
 
eXl'fCise progr.uns. FE~'IA response. rl'COvl'1)'. and pl\.'parcdnl'Ss l'Omponents havc be~'1In to

include mass carc and emcrgl'J1ey assistance in thdr "ThundlTbolt" and othl"T table-top cxereises.

Morcon."T. mass care will be tested as one ofthe thirtC\.'J1 core c::ap::abilitics in e::at::astrophie

planning during the 2011 N::ation::alll,:vc! Excn.:ise (NlE). To support the NLE. NED is

prcs;.'I\ting workshops in pTL"Par:l.tion for the NLE and mass care is one ofthc courses included on

1\'ED's sehl'dule. FEMA will continue with these programs. and othCT'S discussed below. to

properly address lhe OIG's recommendations.

The OIG m::akcs se\'cn rccommend::ations in its dmll rl1xm. FEMA's responses to those

recommcnd::atioltS follow:

Recommendlition #1: Oe\'elop lind fmlilize the mliSS ure lind emergene~' lissiSllincc SOPs

and olher procedural documents for the ~lilional Responsc Coordinating Cenler. Rcgional

Response Coordinating CClllers, lind Joint Field Offiees.

FEMA concurs with this recommend::ation.

Moving forward the procedural documents for the N::ational Response Cooniin::ation Center

(NRCC) the Regional Response Coordination CentCT'S. and the Joint Field Offices will be the

N::ational Incident Support Manual. the Regional Irn::ident Support Manual. and the Incident

Managl'J1lent Manual respectively. The Response Directorate's Doctrine Unit has created and

updated these base documents. The new NRCC doctrine is being finalized and training for

NRCC Activation Team members is being implemented in February/March 2011.

The new NRCC structurc is not organizt.-d by Emergency Support Function (ESF). Instead. it

reflects the strategic role that FEMA He::adquartCT'S is assigned during response operations. The

new doctrine ineludes a national resource support structure with a Resources Support Sl'CIion.

undt."T which FEMA's IA Division participates at the group level. IA also is involved in the

pl1lOning and n:porting sections ofthc ncw NRCC. IA anticipatcs drafting lhe NRCC IA Group

SOPs aller hurricane season 2011, Development and implementation ofthc next iteration ofthe

SOPs will include input from ESF #6 partners. The ESF 6 structure will no longer bc applicable

under the new doctrine. Thc ncw structure will bc test",-d during 201 [ NlE.

Regions arc responsible for developing their own support documents. ineluding SOPs. with

guidance and techniC<l1 assiSl<lllCC from FEMA J-1c<ldquancrs. which provides subject mailer

cxpertisc and othcr assistancc to thc regional officcs whcn requcstcd. An cltample ofthe type of

collaborative eITon in which FEMA HQ cngages with [(,'qucsting regions is the Region 2 ESF #6

Management Guide (currently in draft fonn. will be provided to the OIG upon completion).

As Jomt Field Offices OFOs) will continue to be tactical. coordinaung services through the

tr"d1tlonal ESF model, FE;>.·IA already has a baSIS for developmg further JFO support documents.

In thc document submission phase of the OIG audll of mass care and l.'J1lcrgency assistance.

FEMA provided illfonnalion on four COUTSl'S thaI were undl"T dc\ elopment. In January 2011. the

FEMA Emerg"''1lcy Management Institute eompll1.l'd the Mass Care Emergenc.v Assistanc.efor

Field OperatlolU training course. This course eslablishes the JFO structure for mass care and

emergency assIstance. defines activilles. Identifies resources and provides information on

2

Appendix B 

Management Comments on the Draft Report 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities
 
 

Page 22
 
 
processes. and can SCf\'e as the basis for an SOP for field staff. A pilot ofthe new training course

validated that the curriculum effectively addresses field requirements and operations for mass

care and <''J1lerg<.'llcy assistance activities.

Recomnlendation #2: PrOl'ide opporlunities for FE:'\IA's mass care and enlergenc~'

assistance parlners 10 re\'iew and comment on draft SOPs and olher procedural

documents.

FEMA concurs with this n:commendation.

In coordination with the Emergency Support Function Leadership Grollp (ESFLG). comments

have been solicited and incorporated into the Nationlll Incident Support Manual. the Regional

Incident Support MllnUa1. and the Incident Management Manual respectively.

With respect to other documents. the M3SS Care/Emergcncy Assistance Br.mch typically

includes its partners when developing guidance. hazard.specific plans. and oth<.'f functionspecilic documcnts. An example of our collaborative document developm<.'t1t process is the

FEMAIAmcrican Red Cross (ARC) Shelter Field Guide. This guide provides pruclical

opcr.1lional instruction on all phases ofsheller operations for non-ARC·managed facilities. This

guide is curR't1lly in druft fonn and will be forwarded once il has been finalized.

Additionally. ARC is involved in the development of four rraining courses menlioned in our

response to recommendation ;# I. The Mass Care/Emergency Assistance Branch also routinely

collaborates wilh ESF 146 stakeholders in the development of national guidance. including the

Multi-Agency Feeding Plan Template and Task Force Guidance (aullchcd) and the I>andemic

Planning Gllidefor Mass Care/Emergency Assislallce Fllnclions (currently in draft fonn. will be

provided 10 the DIG upon completion). wilh the participation of fifty stakeholders from Federal.

Slate and local !,'Ovemmcnt. voluntary organi7.ations. and the private sector. AllOth<.'f example of

successful collaboration is thc G,lidallce 011 Plal/ningfor IlIIegrolioll ofFIIIICliol/o/ Needs

Support Sen'ices (I'"/I.'SS) ill GC'lIeral Popu/miol! Shelters. which includcc.l FederaL State and local

govcmmr..'lt, and voluntary organizations with a focus on access and functional needs.

FEMA crcated the FNSS in collaboration with the Officc of Disability lntcgration lind

Coordination (ODIC). and Regions I. VI. and X. Other Federal involvemcnt came from the

Departmcnts ofJustice and Health and Human Scrvices, the National Council 011 Disability. and

the DHS Oniec ofCivil Rights and Civil Liberties. Nonprolit partner rl,.l'reselllativcs includ<."(\

the Amencan Rr..-d Cross. National Disability RIghts Network, and the National Council on

Independent Living. Slate rcprcscntati"es from Florida. Rhode Island. and Califomi3 were also

invohed m the development process. A copy oflhe FNSS GUIdance document is attached.

The \iass CarC/Emergency ASSistance Branch has t,nbarkcd on the dcvelopment of a\'atlonal

'\!a.ss Care Slrau:l!J' m collaboration .... Ith ARC. '\;allonal Volu11taJ) OrgamzauDns Aeme m

DISllStr..-r (NatloMI VOAD) and lis mcmbers. '\;.1IIonal EmcrgCflcy Managcment Association,

county l..'J1lC!'g\..'llcy management associations. the pri\ale sector. academia. and others. This cfTort

bnngs together representatives from a broad spectrum ofmass care scnicc providers with the

J

Appendix B 

Management Comments on the Draft Report 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities
 
 

Page 23
 
 
intention of developing guidelines and initimi\"es to cstablish a nmional strategy for providing

mass carc sen'ices.

Not only arc these individual elTor1s reaching out to important stakeholders. the Administrator's

Whole Comlllunity initiative is encouraging the llgency and membcrs of the cmcrgency

management team to reconsider our approach 10 emergency managemcnt ;md cngage thc full

spl'Ctrum of community residents and members. Working with Fcder'II, stlltc, tribal and local

govcmmellts. voluntary organi"ations. and privatc Sl'Ctor stakeholders. the emergency

management team is encouraging thc public participate in the dcvclopment of innovative. out-ofthe-box solutions to large-scale events-including those thaI rl-quire a mass care and emergency

assistancc rcsponse. lniti'ltivc I in FEMA 's Slr(/(egic P{(III for Fiscal Years 201 1-20/4 details

this efTort.

FEMA believes we have complied with this OIG rcc0l11lm:ndalion. and rcmains commiltcd to

engaging our partners in future activities.

Recommendation #3: [\'aluate the effectiveness of the planning lools and initiath'cs

through a documented coordinated exercise programs at the state or regionallc\·cl.

FEMA concurs with this recommendation. The agency has begun to cncourage cxercise ofthesc

programs at the state or regionallevcl and will continue to do so moving forward.

In 2009. the Mlllli-Agency Feeding Plan Temp/arc was exercised hy the State of Florida. In 2010.

the Mass Carc/Emergeney Assistance Branch had the opportunity to test two of its systt1lls: the

National Shelter System (NSS) during an exercise in the State of Maine and thc N<ltional Mass

Evacuation Tracking Systems during an eXl'Tcise in the State of Maryland. [n February 20 11. thc

State of Washington eXl'TciSl'<! the NSS <lnd in May 2011. the NLE will include mass care and

emergency assistance injects. During the NLE. FEMA Individual Assist<lllCC Tedmical

Assistance Contract capahilities lor sheltering and tceding will be tcsted.

The Mass CardEmergency Assistancc Branch strongly encouragcs rcgions and statcs to usc

excrcises to cvalu<ltc tools and initiatives mass care and emcrgl'T\CY assistance will continue

working elosely with thc Rl'Covcry Directomtc's National Planning Branch to idcntify

opportunitics to cvaluate mass carc and cmergency assistance tools and initiativcs through

cXl'Tciscs. Morl'()ver the NED's Regional Excrcisc Supportl'rogram-which provides direct

support for regional. state. local. tcrritorial. and tribal exercises-continues to support exercises

that focus on mass case and emergency assistance.

To ensure lessons learned from exercises arc implcmented. the Mass Carc/Emergency Assistance

Branch has Illstituted monthly calls with FEMA regions and states that have signed the

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to adopt the FEMA NSS. These meetings provide an

opportunity for regions and states to discuss suceesscs. challenges, request requirements for

future versions ofthe software and ask questions, as well as an opportunity for Mass

CardEmcrgcncy Assistance Branch staff to updatc partieipmlls on enhancements. answer

questions, and provide technical assistance.

4

Appendix B 

Management Comments on the Draft Report 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities
 
 

Page 24
 
 
FEMA beli~'vcs we have complied with this OIG rccommcnd:ttion. and n:mains commil1ed to

t'11couraging exercise programs at the state and regional k-vt:ls.

Recommendation #4: Track and document the use and effeclivencss of Ihe lools and

initiath'es when adopted by slale and local governments.

FEMA concurs with this K"'Commcndulion. As statt"(\ in the response to recommendation three.

the Mass CardEml.:rgcncy Assistunce Branch holds monthly calls with regions and stalcs that

han: adopted thc NSS. These calls encourage feedback and dialog with system USCf5. lbc branch

has also bc!,'\In to roll OUI the National :\1ass Evacuation Tracking System. Once states have

implemellled the system. the branch will begin to document the usc.: and effectivClless ofthe tool.

We will look for opponunilics in collabor.ation with regional offices to document and cvaluate

the effectivCtlcss of tools as they are de\'elopc<! and implemCtlted.

Recommendation #5: Complete efforts to develop automalic data inlerfaces between

FEMA's National Shelter System database. the Red Cross National Shelter S~'slem

database. and other commercially a,'ailable sheltering system databases that state and local

gO\'ernmenIS depend on for shelter-rdated information during an cnlergen9 or national

disaster.

FEMA concurs with this recommendation.

Devclopmelll ofthe automatic dma bridge bclween the FEMA and ARC NSS's is slaled to be

completed by the end of March 2011. The Mass CarelEmergcncy Assistance Branch is also in

discussions wilh representatives from other comrm:rcial systems and may develop dala interfaces

with some of those other systt't1ls. Completion ofsystem integration with the other commercially

available sheltt:ring system will be completed by July 2011.

As of Fl-bruary I, 2011, the FEMA NSS had MOUs with tCtl states, Additional statcs arc

expected to sign an MOU with FEMA when the dala bridges arc implemented. The Systl"1Tl

currently has 220 Federal. State, and voluntary organi7.8tion users.

Additionally, FEMA's impk1nentation of Disaster Management and Suppon Environment

(DMSE) and the Situlllional Awareness Viewer for Emergency Response:md Rl"'Covery

(SAVER2) will allow "real time" or "ncar real time" infonnntional capabilities Ihat will equip

decision makers with the best available inronnation. E>etaik,(! information such as cntlcal shelter

and demographic data will assist in the proper allocation of governmCtlt resourcc5 and

1O\'cstmmls associaled with assisting the disaster survivor.

R«omm('ndalion #6: Re\'isc internal policies lind procedures 10 ensure thai ma.ss C1U(' and

emergency assistance 1)lans and procedures are included. as appropriat(', in .~E,\IA 's

nalional and regional exercise programs.

FEMA concurs with this rl'COmOlendatioll.

5

Appendix B 

Management Comments on the Draft Report 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities
 
 

Page 25
 
 
Mass care and t'Tm.'1"gt.'JlCy assistance activities arc and ha\'e been very important an.-as of focus

for FE~1A's preparedness acth ities. FE~1A response, rcco\ l'T')'. and prl'Paredncss components

have begun to include mass care and l'lncrgt'JlCy assistance in their "Thunderbolt.. table top

e.l;crciscs. NLEs. and mhcr eXl'T'Cisc programs. In 2010. Mass Care \\ as included in scveral "no

notice" and announet'd e.l;ercises. as well as Ihe NLE Resource Allocation Workshop held in

November. FEMA has also includl'tlthe participation of mass care non-govenullent. private

Sl'Ctor, and voluntary agency panners in natiollallhunderbolt e:u;rciscs. In 2009 national and

regional FEMA mass eare/enlcrgcncy assistance program offiCt.'S supportt"tlthe Statc of Florida

in cXl'T'Cising mass care during its annual hurrieanc exercise. with simil3r in\'olvctnl'Jlt begin

plannl'd for 2011. In 2010, Region IV alone supported 1'\onh Carolina. SoUlh Carolina.

Kentucky. and Tenncsscc in the mass care portions orstate tablcrop exercises.

In Fcbruary 2011. FEMA's Rcco\'cry and Logistics Directorates streamlined intl'TTIal procedures

to provide mass care suppon for infants. Sl'Tliors. and persons with disabilities consistent with the

Administrator's Whole Community Initiative. Infant and toddler shelter kits (itemizeu list

attached) will be included inventory in FEMA distribution Cl'JlleTS and the directorates arc in Ihe

process of transitioning cot inventories to a "universaUaceessible" standard. In 20 II. these mass

carc procedures will be among lhosc lested in the NlE. In addition, the Nalional EXl'T'Cisc

Division (NED) is presenting workshops in preparation for NlE and Mass Care is one ofthe

courses included on NED's sehedule. Materials are currently under dC"c!opmcnl and will be

rolled out in March 2011.

The Mass Care/Emergency Assistance Branch is working closely with the Recovery

Dircctonlte's National Planning Braneh and NED to ensure that Mass Care/Emergency

Assistance is includt"tl in other cxereisc programs by working collabonltivcly with intl;ragcncy

partners at alllevcls of government and non·govcrnmental organizations. Thl"Se efforts will be

primarily undertaken through the implemt'Jltation ofthe National Exercise Program (NEP) and

close coordination with Training and Exercise Planning Workshops (TEPW) that OC{;ur at

regional. state, and locallc\'e1s. Within the NEP and regular TEPW process. FEMA will help

facilitate the inclusion of mass care and cmeri,'eflCY assistance plans into \'!lnous exercises.

ext.'1"cise plans. and respective evaluation processes.

Recommcndation #7; DC\'elop and implement procedures to track, accumulate. and

disseminate mass care and elller~ellc~' assistance-related lessons learned from exercises that

include mass care and emergenc~' assistance support and operatin~ procedures,

FE\lA con<:l!n With thIS recommendatIon m part The Homeland Secunty Infonnation Ncrwork

Mass CareEmergency Assistance: Commumty of[nterest .... ebslte IS under conslnlCllon. This

shared site Will be a forum that will allo.... FE\1A and Its \1ass Care-Emergency ASSIstance

partnt~ to submit. share and e'tchange infonnatlon, mcludmg lessons leamed, plans, poliCies,

doctnne, guidance and other resource documents, It .... 111 also provide a pnmllr) locatIon for

\ C1tmg documents under rCV1C\\ \\'lth II broad range of b'O\emmenl (al aI11cvc1s) and volunlary

organizlltloll p'lrtncrs.

6

Appendix B 

Management Comments on the Draft Report 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities
 
 

Page 26
 
 
Once again. thank you for the opportunity 10 romment on thc dmft Tq)OT1. In addition to the

alxwc comments. a list oftcchnical comments IS inchxkd in the attached Addendum. 11001.:

forward 10 working with you on future homeland security and emergency mM:lgeml'Tll

~'Tlgageml'Tlts.

Sincerely.

t!:f:~f~~ev----- Dirl'Ctor. Office of Policy and I'rogrom Analysis

Addendum: Tl'Chnical Comments

Attachmcnts:

Multi-Agel/C)' Feeding Plan Templale ami Task Foree Guidance

Guidance 0" Plam'il/gfor Integration ofFunctional Needs Support Se"'l'ices ii' Generaf

Population She{rers

7

Appendix B 

Management Comments on the Draft Report 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities
 
 

Page 27
 
 
Appendix C 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretary 

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 

Under Secretary, Management 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Administrator 

Chief of Staff 

Assistant Administrator, Recovery 

Deputy Administrator, Protection and National Preparedness 

FEMA Audit Liaison (Project Number 09-214-EMO-FEMA) 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Mass Care and Emergency Assistance Activities
 
 

Page 28
 
 
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.