32  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

Katrina Evacuees

Hurricane Katrina evacuees: who they are, 

where they are, and how they are faring

Questions added to the Current Population Survey from October

2005 to October 2006 addressed the issue of how Katrina evacuees 

have fared; blacks, young adults, and the never married were

much less likely to return to their homes, and nonreturnees

were more likely to be unemployed and to earn less than returnees

Jeffrey A. Groen

and

Anne E. Polivka

Jeffrey A. Groen and

Anne E. Polivka are

research economists

in the Division of

Employment Research,

Office of Employment

and Unemployment

Statistics, Bureau of

Labor Statistics. E-mail:

groen.jeffrey@bls.gov

or polivka.anne@bls.

gov

Hurricane Katrina, which struck the 

gulf coast in August 2005, has had 

lasting and far-reaching effects. Katrina caused massive flooding in the city of 

New Orleans and catastrophic damage along 

the gulf coasts of Alabama, Mississippi, and 

Louisiana. As a result, Katrina caused one 

of the largest and most abrupt relocations of 

people in U.S. history. The plight of evacuees 

was a central theme in the national news coverage of the hurricane, as Katrina dominated 

the news for an entire month after making 

landfall.1 Indeed, more than 2 years after the 

storm, Katrina evacuees and the condition of 

New Orleans continue to receive considerable 

media attention.2 

In response to the unprecedented damage caused by Hurricane Katrina, along 

with the commensurate massive relocation 

of individuals, questions were added to the 

monthly Current Population Survey (CPS) 

from October 2005 to October 2006 to 

identify Katrina evacuees, the county (or 

parish) from which they had evacuated, 

and if and when these individuals returned 

to their pre-Katrina residences. This article 

uses the responses to those questions, in 

combination with information collected in 

the CPS on a regular basis, to examine the 

demographic characteristics of those who 

evacuated, establish the breadth of the relocation, and explore the labor force status and 

incomes of evacuees.

The estimates derived from the CPS data in the 

analysis that follows indicate that approximately 

1.5 million people aged 16 years and older left their 

residences in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama 

because of Hurricane Katrina and that the demographic characteristics of evacuees closely mirror the demographic characteristics of those who 

resided in the Katrina-affected counties in these 

States prior to the storm. The estimates, however, 

also indicate that those who returned to where they 

were living prior to the storm differed markedly 

from those who did not in terms of demographic 

characteristics, labor force status, and income.

CPS data on evacuees

The CPS is a nationally representative, monthly 

survey of approximately 60,000 occupied housing units. The survey is conducted by the U.S. 

Census Bureau under the auspices of the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics (BLS). Every month, the CPS

collects labor market information on approximately 110,000 individuals aged 15 years and 

older, along with a wide variety of demographic 

and employment-related information. Due to 

the scale of the disaster, Katrina presented challenges to collecting data from households and 

businesses in the affected areas.3 But with these 

challenges came opportunities to enrich ongoing 

surveys to shed light on topics related to Katrina. 

In the immediate aftermath of the hurricane, 
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

there was a great deal of interest in determining how individuals affected by the storm were faring and where they 

were living. As a relatively large monthly survey of a representative sample of U.S. households, the CPS provided a 

unique opportunity to gather some of this information in 

a timely manner. At the same time, however, both BLS and 

Census Bureau staff were extremely sensitive to the need 

not to disrupt the monthly collection of labor force information for the Nation as a whole. Given all the preparation, programming, and testing involved in modifying the 

CPS, inserting new questions into the survey instrument 

within a month or two would be unprecedented. Conscious of both the need for information and the overall 

concerns about preserving the quality of the important 

labor force data collected in the CPS each month, the BLS 

and the Census Bureau jointly decided to add a limited set 

of questions to the CPS on Hurricane Katrina evacuees.4

The new questions, however, could not involve complex 

skip instructions, and they needed to be structured and 

placed in the instrument so as to cause as little risk as possible to the rest of the CPS. 

The new questions were structured to allow the estimation of the demographic characteristics and employment 

status of individuals who had evacuated, even temporarily, 

from their residences due to Hurricane Katrina. The questions also enabled a distinction to be made between those 

who had returned to their pre-Katrina residences and 

those who had relocated elsewhere. Finally, in order to 

analyze the impact of the storm on individuals from different areas, the new questions asked those who had not 

returned to their pre-Katrina residences about the State 

and county (or parish) from which they had evacuated.5 

(For ease of exposition, henceforth the term “county” refers 

to parishes in Louisiana and counties in other States.) The 

new questions were added to the CPS starting in October 

2005—one-and-a-half months after Hurricane Katrina 

struck the Gulf region—and remained in the CPS through 

October 2006.

In June 2006, several questions were added asking 

individuals who were not at their pre-Katrina addresses 

if they had ever returned to those addresses and, if so, 

how long they had stayed and their reasons for leaving. 

These questions were added because there was a concern 

that the original questions could inadvertently classify as 

nonreturnees those individuals who had returned to their 

former addresses and stayed for a relatively long time, but 

then had left their domiciles due to normal circumstances 

of life, such as getting married or attending school. Examination of the data collected in these additional questions indicates that this concern was largely unfounded. 

The box on page 34 contains the entire set of questions 

that were added to the CPS.

6

Initially, it was thought that the Katrina questions 

would be included in the CPS for only a couple of months. 

Subsequently, it was decided to include these questions 

through October 2006. This decision permitted an analysis 

of the consistency of individuals’ identification as Katrina 

evacuees over several months.7 An examination of the data 

across several months revealed some degree of inconsistency. On the basis of interviewer notes and a specially 

convened focus group of interviewers, it was decided for 

the purposes of this article to classify as an evacuee anyone 

who was identified as such in any of the months that his 

or her household was interviewed.8 In addition, to focus 

more carefully on those directly affected by Hurricane 

Katrina, the analysis was restricted to those who, prior to 

the hurricane, lived in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama 

in counties designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as eligible for both public and 

individual disaster assistance as a result of damages due to 

the hurricane.9 (Henceforth, for simplicity, these counties 

are referred to as “counties that were affected by Hurricane 

Katrina” or, simply, “affected counties.”) Map 1 indicates 

where the affected counties are located.10

On the basis of (1) the response to the CPS Katrina 

questions, (2) the restrictions on, and refinements to, the 

data set forth here, and (3) the use of composite weights 

specially adjusted to account for the movement of people 

across States because of the storm, an estimated 1.504 

million individuals aged 16 years and older evacuated 

from their homes, even temporarily, because of Hurricane 

Katrina. Of these evacuees, an estimated 1.127 million 

(75 percent) were living in Louisiana prior to the storm, 

288,000 (19 percent) were living in Mississippi, and 88,000 

(6 percent) were living in Alabama.11 Map 2 depicts the 

number of evacuees identified in the CPS who originated 

in each county, with the darker shading indicating a larger 

number of evacuees coming from that county. The shading 

indicates that the evacuees in the CPS sample were more 

likely to come from coastal areas, particularly New Orleans. 

This pattern of evacuees is consistent with the estimates 

of housing damage prepared by the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development which indicated that 

these coastal areas suffered greater physical damage than 

other areas designated by FEMA.

12

The CPS sample does not include nonresidential housing units such as motels, hotels, homeless shelters, and 

stadiums. Consequently, there was concern that the CPS 

may have missed some of those who evacuated because 

of the storm. The estimates presented here of the number 
Katrina Evacuees

34  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

HHSCREEN

Is there anyone living or staying here who had to 

evacuate, even temporarily, where he or she was 

living in August because of Hurricane Katrina?

<1>Yes [next: KAT1]

<2>No [next: end Katrina questions]

KAT1

Earlier you indicated that at least one person 

in the household had to evacuate where he or 

she was living in August because of Hurricane 

Katrina.

Who was that? 

[Enter all that apply.]

PROBE: Anyone else?

[next: KAT2]

KAT2

In August, prior to the hurricane warning, where 

(was NAME/were you) living?

[Read if necessary]

<1>At this current address (in LA, MS, AL, FL) 

[next: KAT4]

<2>Louisiana (but not this address) [next: 

KAT3]

<3>Mississippi (but not this address) [next: 

KAT3]

<4>Alabama (but not this address) [next: KAT3]

<5>Florida (but not this address) [next: end Katrina questions]

<6>Elsewhere in the U.S. [next: end Katrina 

questions]

KAT3

What county, parish, or city (was NAME/were 

you) living in prior to the hurricane warning?

_____________________ [Specify]

[next: KAT5]

KAT4

When did (NAME/you) return to this address?

____ month ____ day

[next: end Katrina questions] 

KAT5

Did you move back, even temporarily, to the address you had prior to Hurricane Katrina?

<1>Yes [next: KAT6]

<2>No [next: end Katrina questions]

CPS questions on Hurricane Katrina evacuees

The first set of questions (HHSCREEN through KAT4) was asked beginning in October 2005. The second set 

(KAT5 through KAT7) was added to the survey in June 2006. The household screener question (HHSCREEN) was 

asked immediately before the creation (for newly sampled households) or verification (for households interviewed 

in previous months) of the roster of those living or staying at the address in question. The other questions were 

asked immediately after the roster was verified.

KAT6

How long did you stay?

<1>Less than 2 weeks

<2>2 to 4 weeks 

<3>A month or more

[next: KAT7]

KAT7

Why did you leave after returning?

_____________________ [Specify]
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

of Katrina evacuees increase from a little more than 1.15 

million in October 2005 to approximately 1.58 million in 

December 2005. However, from December 2005 forward, 

the monthly estimates of the number of evacuees are all in 

the neighborhood of 1.5 million. This pattern of monthly 

estimates, shown graphically in chart 1, suggests that 

missing evacuees because of the CPS sampling constraints 

probably was relatively temporary, and any bias that this 

might introduce likely was slight.13

Who are the evacuees?

Table 1 summarizes the personal characteristics of evacuees, along with the characteristics of individuals who, 

prior to Katrina, were living in two areas: (1) counties 

in Louisiana, Mississippi, or Alabama that were affected 

by Katrina and (2) the remainder of the United States.14

These estimates indicate that the breadth of the evacuation was widespread. Contrary to some reports and 

 Map 1. Counties eligible for individual and public assistance from FEMA for Katrina

 

 

Louisiana

Mississippi Alabama

 Note: Shading indicates eligible counties based on FEMA declarations through Oct. 7, 2005
Katrina Evacuees

36  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

media images, Hurricane Katrina caused individuals of 

all economic and social groups to evacuate. Further, although there were some differences, the evacuation was 

spread fairly uniformly across demographic groups. For 

example, prior to the storm, 65 percent of the residents 

of counties affected by Katrina were white and 33 percent were black. Among those who evacuated, 63 percent were white and 33 percent were black. There is some 

indication that those from the least educated group of 

residents and those from the most educated group of 

residents were slightly less likely to evacuate. There also 

is some indication that those identified as being of Hispanic origin may have been slightly more likely to evacuate. In general, however, there is no indication that any 

demographic group failed to evacuate.

Prior to the storm, the region affected by Katrina 

had a demographic composition quite different from 

that of the remainder of the United States. Before Ka-

 Map 2. Number of evacuees by county of origin, October 2005–October 2006

100,000–350,000

50,000–100,000

10,000–50,000

100–10,000

0–100

Louisiana

Mississippi Alabama
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

trina, the region affected by the storm had a significantly larger proportion of residents who were black 

(33 percent) than did the remainder of the country (11 

percent). The affected region also had a higher proportion of residents with relatively low levels of education. Specifically, prior to the storm, 18 percent of the 

residents in the region affected by the storm did not 

have at least a high school diploma, compared with 11 

percent of the residents in the rest of the country. In 

addition, the affected region had a significantly smaller proportion of residents who identified themselves 

as being of Hispanic ethnicity (2 percent) or Asian (1 

percent) than did the remainder of the country (13 

percent and 4 percent, respectively). 

Where are the evacuees?

Who returned? Although the breadth of the evacuation 

was widespread, there was a large degree of variation 

among the evacuees with regard to both the percentage 

that returned to where they were living prior to the hurricane and the locations to which individuals who did 

not return relocated. The following tabulation, compiled 

from the October 2005–October 2006 CPS data, presents 

estimates of the percentage of all evacuees who returned 

to their prehurricane addresses and the percentage who 

returned to the counties in which they were living prior 

to the storm: 

 Percent Returned to—

State Residence County Difference

 Total .......................... 64.9 72.5 7.6

Louisiana...................... 61.9 68.0 6.1

Mississippi ................... 69.3 83.4 14.1

Alabama ...................... 88.4 94.4 5.9

The county estimate is based on a slightly broader definition of returning because it includes both those who 

returned to their address and those who did not return 

to their exact address, but returned to the same area 

they had lived in prior to the storm. Both definitions of 

returning are used to examine statistics describing the 

migration patterns of evacuees. However, the broader 

definition, based on the county to which the evacuee 

returned, is the one that is primarily used in the comparisons of the demographic characteristics and labor 

market status of those who returned and those who did 

not. This definition is preferable to the narrower one for 

Chart 1. Number of evacuees, by month, October 2005–October 2006

0

Thousands

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

 500

NOTE: The estimated numbers of evacuees are shown on the solid line. The upper and lower bounds of the 90-percent confidence interval 

for the estimates are shown on the dashed lines.

0

Thousands

2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000

 500

October December February April June August October 

2005 2006 

SOURCE: Current Population Survey.
Katrina Evacuees

38  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

opportunities.15

The estimates indicate that a large proportion of people 

who evacuated because of Katrina returned to the areas in 

which they were living prior to the storm. Over the three 

States and throughout the entire period from October 2005 

to October 2006, an estimated 65 percent of evacuees returned to their prehurricane addresses, and 73 percent of 

evacuees returned to the counties in which they were living 

prior to the storm.

Across both definitions, the proportion of evacuees 

who returned is largest among evacuees from Alabama 

and smallest among evacuees from Louisiana: an estimated 88 percent of evacuees from Alabama, 69 percent from Mississippi, and 62 percent from Louisiana 

returned to their pre-Katrina addresses. On the basis of 

the broader definition of returning, 94 percent of evacuees from Alabama, 83 percent from Mississippi, and 68 

percent from Louisiana returned to the area in which 

they were living prior to the storm. The lower percentage of evacuees who returned to Louisiana might be the 

result of greater physical damages resulting from Hurricane Katrina. It might also reflect the differential impact 

of Hurricane Rita, which struck about a month after Katrina and caused damage in Louisiana, but did not affect 

Mississippi or Alabama.16

Chart 2 is a graphical presentation of the estimates of 

the proportion of evacuees, by month, who returned to 

their pre-Katrina addresses, along with monthly estimates 

of the proportion of evacuees who returned to the counties 

in which they were living prior to the hurricane. The proportion of evacuees who returned increased gradually from 

January 2006 to October 2006. In January, 59 percent of 

evacuees had returned to their pre-Katrina addresses and 

68 percent had returned to the counties in which they were 

previously living. By October 2006, the proportions had 

increased to 71 percent and 81 percent, respectively. Even 

as early as October 2005, 59 percent of evacuees had returned to their pre-Katrina addresses, including 54 percent 

of evacuees from Louisiana.

These proportions suggest that those who returned did 

so relatively quickly. Table 2, which contains estimates of 

the month of return for individuals who came back to 

their original addresses, supports this suggestion.17 Among 

evacuees from Louisiana who returned to their pre-Katrina addresses, 61 percent had returned by September 

2005, and 92 percent had returned by October 2005, approximately 2 months after Katrina made landfall. The 

amount of time returnees from Mississippi and Alabama 

were away was even shorter: almost 88 percent of evacuees 

from Mississippi who returned had come back by Septemthese comparisons because individuals who relocated 

within the same county, but who changed residences, are 

arguably more comparable to individuals who returned 

to their residences than to individuals who relocated to 

a different county or to a different State. Despite changing residences, relocating within the same county usually allows one to maintain social ties and employment 

Personal 

 

 

 

 

 Age, years

16 to 19.......................... 9.2 7.5 7.3

20 to 24.......................... 11.0 10.4 9.0

25 to 34.......................... 17.1 17.4 17.4

35 to 44.......................... 17.2 18.3 19.3

45 to 54.......................... 17.7 18.1 18.5

55 to 69.......................... 19.1 18.1 17.5

70 and older................... 8.7 10.3 11.1

 Race

White.............................. 63.3 65.2 82.1

Black .............................. 32.7 32.9 11.2

Asian.............................. 2.6 1.0 4.4

Other race...................... 1.4 1.0 2.3

Hispanic ethnicity

Non-Hispanic ................. 96.4 98.3 87.1

Hispanic ......................... 3.7 1.7 12.9

 Gender

Female........................... 54.5 53.2 51.7

Male ............................... 45.5 46.8 48.3

 Education1

Less than high school.... 16.4 18.2 14.7

High school.................... 36.1 35.4 32.0

Some college................. 26.8 23.7 25.5

College........................... 20.7 22.7 27.9

 Marital status2

Married........................... 50.8 55.5 59.1

Was married3 ................. 22.9 21.0 19.3

Never married ................ 26.3 23.5 21.7

 Number of children4

0..................................... 69.4 68.9 68.5

1..................................... 14.4 13.9 12.9

2..................................... 9.4 11.3 12.2

3 or more ....................... 6.7 5.9 6.4

1

 For persons aged 25 and older.

2

 For persons aged 20 and older.

3

 Widowed, divorced, or separated.

4

 Number of own children under age 18, for persons aged 20 and 

 older.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey.

Affected

counties

Table 1. Personal characteristics of evacuees and 

comparison groups, January 2004–July 2005 

(comparison groups) and October 2005–

October 2006 (evacuees)

[In percent]

Characteristic Evacuees

Comparison groups

(pre-Katrina)

Rest of

United

States
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

ber 2005, and 95 percent had returned by October 2005. In 

Alabama, almost 95 percent of evacuees who returned had 

done so by September 2005, and 100 percent were back 

by October 2005.18 On the basis of the month and day 

that individuals who returned to their prestorm addresses 

reported returning, those living in Louisiana were away an 

average of 33 days, those living in Mississippi were gone an 

average of 20 days, and those living in Alabama were away 

an average of 12 days.

Where are the evacuees who relocated? When combined, the 

estimates plotted in chart 2, those listed in the tabulation on 

page 37, and those presented in table 2 indicate that a large 

proportion of individuals who evacuated because of Hurricane Katrina returned to their homes—and did so relatively 

quickly. However, the estimates also indicate that a sizeable 

number of evacuees relocated because of the storm and did 

not return to the areas in which they lived prior to the storm. 

Of those who evacuated, about 410,000 had not returned to 

their homes by October 2006, and of these, approximately 

280,000 had not even returned to the counties in which they 

were living prior to the storm. Some evacuees who relocated 

moved quite long distances from their original homes. CPS

interviewers found evacuees in nearly every State of the 

Union (45 States and the District of Columbia). The data 

indicate, however, that the majority of Katrina evacuees who 

relocated remained in relatively familiar territory.

The top panel of table 3 contains estimates of the proportion of nonreturnees, defined as individuals who did 

not return to their pre-Katrina addresses, who resided in a 

given State at the time they were surveyed. The estimates 

are presented separately on the basis of the State in which 

these individuals lived prior to the storm. The bottom 

panel contains estimates of those who did not return to the 

counties in which they were residing prior to the storm (based 

on the broader definition of returning). Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama are listed separately as destination 

States in both panels of the table, so that the proportion 

of nonreturnees (under each definition) who remained in 

their original State can be estimated. The States adjacent 

to Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama also are listed 

separately, because these adjacent States received a sizeable 

proportion of evacuees from at least one State. The remaining U.S. States are combined into a single category.19

The estimates shown in the table indicate that 39 percent of Louisiana natives who relocated from their prehurricane addresses, and 28 percent of those who relocated 

from their pre-Katrina parishes, remained in Louisiana. 

Chart 2. Percent of evacuees who returned to their pre-Katrina residences or county, by month, 

 October 2005–October 2006

Source: Current Population Su

October December February April June August October 

2005 2006 

Residence

County

Percent

returned

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Percent

returned
Katrina Evacuees

40  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

Sixty-three percent of Mississippi natives who relocated 

from their pre-Katrina addresses, and 31 percent of those 

who relocated from their pre-Katrina counties, remained 

in Mississippi. Sixty percent of Alabama natives who relocated from their prestorm addresses remained in Alabama, while 17 percent of those who relocated from their 

pre-Katrina counties remained in the State. The percentages differ across definitions of returning due to the different analytical treatments of evacuees who returned to 

their pre-Katrina counties but not to their pre-Katrina 

residences. These evacuees are part of the sample used 

in the top panel (definition by residence), because they 

changed residences; they are counted as having migrated 

within the same State. By contrast, those same evacuees 

are not part of the sample used in the bottom panel (definition by county), because they stayed within the same 

county. As a result, within-State movers are a smaller 

share of the total in the bottom panel than in the top 

panel. Conversely, out-of-State movers are a larger share 

of the total in the bottom panel.

When the estimates in the top panel of table 3 are combined 

(see note 20 for the formula) with the proportion of evacuees 

who returned to their original addresses (see tabulation on 

page 37), 77 percent of Louisiana natives who evacuated because of Katrina are estimated to have continued to reside in 

Louisiana after the storm, while 89 percent of Mississippi natives and 95 percent of Alabama natives continued to reside in 

their States after the storm.20 Although these estimates indicate that many evacuees remained within their State, they also 

indicate that Katrina caused considerable mobility between 

States: twenty-three percent of Louisiana natives affected by 

the storm, representing 8 percent of Louisiana’s population in 

2005, relocated to another State.21

Map 3 covers the entire United States (except Alaska 

and Hawaii) and uses shading to indicate the proportion of 

nonreturnees (definition by county) who were residing in a 

particular State. Examination of this map indicates that, although some evacuees relocated quite far away, the vast majority stayed relatively close to home. More than 81 percent of 

those who did not return to their original counties relocated 

to one of the following eight States in the southeast region: 

Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, 

Florida, and Arkansas. These States either were affected by 

Katrina or were adjacent to the affected States.

Among States that received evacuees, Texas stands out 

in the map and in the estimates in table 3. The extent of 

Katrina-related migration to Texas suggests that both the 

labor force and the social services of the State may have 

been markedly affected. Thirty-seven percent of Katrina 

evacuees from Louisiana who did not return to their preKatrina parishes went to Texas, and so did 9 percent of 

evacuees from Mississippi who relocated outside their 

pre-Katrina counties. Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida 

may have been affected as well, but to a much lesser extent than Texas. The metropolitan areas that received the 

largest number of evacuees who relocated outside their 

pre-Katrina counties are Houston, New Orleans, Dallas, 

Baton Rouge, Atlanta, and Memphis.

Table 4 shows the average distance between the origin 

and destination counties for evacuees who did not return 

to their pre-Katrina counties.22 The average distance was 

409 miles, with people who relocated from Louisiana 

being, on average, a slightly shorter distance away from 

their original counties (399 miles) than were those from 

 Percent of returnees by month of return to pre-Katrina residence, by State, October 2005–July 2006

Total Louisiana Mississippi Alabama

Total .................................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

August 2005.............................................. 7.8 5.0 14.3 16.1

September 2005........................................ 61.7 56.3 73.2 79.5

October 2005 ............................................ 23.5 30.2 7.7 4.5

November 2005......................................... 2.8 3.1 2.9 .0

December 2005......................................... 1.8 2.5 .2 .0

January 2006 ............................................ .5 .6 .3 .0

February 2006........................................... .7 .9 .2 .0

March 2006. .............................................. .6 .5 .9 .0

April 2006.................................................. .1 .1 .0 .0

May 2006 .................................................. .4 .5 .0 .0

June 2006. ................................................ .2 .2 .2 .0

July 2006................................................... .1 .1 .0 .0

SOURCE: Current Population Survey.

 Table 2.

 [In percent]

Month
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

Mississippi (469 miles) or Alabama (584 miles). The 

estimates also indicate that there was a large degree of 

variance in how far away evacuees relocated from their 

pre-Katrina counties. Twenty-five percent of these evacuees relocated 10 miles or less from their pre-Katrina 

counties, while 25 percent relocated 461 miles or more, 

and 10 percent relocated at least 839 miles, from their 

pre-Katrina counties.23

Demographics and the decision to return

Although the demographic composition of evacuees reflects the composition of prestorm residents of the Katrina-affected region, the probability of returning varies 

considerably by demographic group. Table 5 shows the 

proportions of evacuees in various demographic groups 

who returned to their pre-Katrina addresses and the 

proportion who returned to their pre-Katrina counties. 

(The discussion that follows employs the county-based 

definition of returning, but the patterns are similar for 

the definition based on address.) The table indicates that 

the probability of returning increases with age (with the 

exception of teenagers, whose migration behavior likely 

depends on their parents’ decisions): fifty-seven percent 

of evacuees 20 to 24 years old returned to their pre-Katrina counties, compared with 78 percent of evacuees 45 

to 54 years old and 83 percent of evacuees 55 to 69 years 

old.

The table also indicates that several demographic 

groups, including blacks, persons who had never married, 

and persons with lower levels of education, were much less 

likely to return than were individuals in other racial, marital, or educational groups. Specifically, 54 percent of black 

evacuees returned to their pre-Katrina counties, compared 

with 82 percent of white evacuees; and 61 percent of never-married evacuees returned, compared with 78 percent 

of married evacuees. The differences among educational 

groups are less marked, but the estimates indicate that 

evacuees without a high school diploma were less likely 

to return than were those with more education: sixtyPercent 

 

 Louisiana 

 Did not return to pre-Katrina residence

 

 All States............................................. 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Affected States:

 Louisiana.................................................. 32.6 39.4 3.5 .0

 Mississippi................................................ 11.4 1.2 62.6 .0

 Alabama................................................... 4.2 3.2 2.7 59.9

Adjacent States:1

 Texas......................................................... 26.3 31.4 5.0 .0

 Tennessee................................................. 4.1 4.5 2.6 .0

 Georgia..................................................... 3.1 2.8 4.0 9.9

 Florida....................................................... 2.9 3.0 1.7 10.2

 Arkansas................................................... .6 .6 .7 .0

 Other States2............................................. 14.7 14.1 17.3 20.0

 

 Did not return to pre-Katrina county

 All States............................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Affected States:

 Louisiana.................................................. 24.8 27.6 6.5 .0

 Mississippi................................................ 4.8 1.4 30.6 .0

 Alabama.................................................... 4.1 3.8 5.1 17.0

Adjacent States:1

 Texas......................................................... 33.7 37.4 9.3 .0 

 Tennessee................................................. 5.2 5.4 4.7 .0

 Georgia..................................................... 4.0 3.4 7.4 20.6

 Florida...................................................... 3.7 3.6 3.1 21.0

 Arkansas.................................................. .7 .7 1.3 .0

 Other States:2............................................... 18.9 16.8 32.1 41.4 

 

 

State evacuee was residing in

at time of survey

 (State of destination)

1

 States adjacent to the affected States.

2

 States other than the affected States and other than the adjacent

States.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey.

Total Mississippi

Table 3. Percent of evacuees who did not return to their pre-Katrina residences or counties, by State of destination 

and State of origin, October 2005–October 2006

 Pre-Katrina State (State of origin)

Alabama
Katrina Evacuees

42  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

eight percent of evacuees without a high school diploma 

returned, while 78 percent with a high school diploma (as 

their highest degree) returned and 75 percent with a college degree returned.

Labor force status of evacuees 

Thus far, the analysis has demonstrated that there was a 

large amount of dislocation associated with the storm. 

Many individuals moved away from the counties in which 

they were located prior to the storm, and still other individuals relocated within their prestorm counties. These 

findings naturally lead to questions about how people 

who evacuated fared in the labor markets in which they 

found themselves. Was the physical and emotional damage caused by the storm so extensive that it seriously af-

 Map 3. Percentage distribution by State of evacuees who have not returned to their pre-Katrina

 counties, October 2005–October 2006

30–34

20–30

3–20

1–3

0–1
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

fected the ability to work of both those who returned and 

those who did not? Alternatively, were evacuees who went 

back to their pre-Katrina areas readily able to return to 

employment and those who did not return able to easily integrate into the labor markets in which they found 

themselves? To help shed light on these questions, using 

data from October 2005 to October 2006, table 6 presents unemployment rates, employment-population ratios, and labor force participation rates for all those who 

evacuated, for those who returned to their pre-Katrina 

counties (returnees), and for those who did not return 

(nonreturnees). 

As mentioned earlier, the analysis presented here uses 

the broader definition of returning. This definition arguably captures the level of labor market disruption that faced 

those who had relocated, because both those who returned 

to their former addresses and those who returned to the 

counties in which they resided prior to the storm are likely 

to have close to the same opportunities to return to their 

former employers. To evaluate the effect of the storm on 

evacuees, their labor force measures are compared with 

those of individuals not affected by the storm (residents of 

unaffected areas who are not classified as evacuees) in three 

geographic areas: the entire Nation, the three affected States 

(Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama), and the five States 

(Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida) adjacent 

to the affected States. Estimates for the latter two groups 

of States are presented in an attempt to reflect any distinct 

regional economic conditions that might exist. Chart 3 

presents monthly comparisons of the unemployment rates, 

employment-population ratios, and labor force participation rates for evacuees and for residents of unaffected areas 

nationwide (excluding evacuees). Chart 4 shows monthly 

estimates for evacuees who returned to their pre-Katrina 

counties and for evacuees who did not. 

The estimates in table 6, chart 3, and chart 4 indicate 

that evacuees faced considerable difficulty with regard to 

the labor market, and those who did not return fared worse 

than those who did return. As indicated by the employment-population ratios in table 6, evacuees were less likely 

to be employed than were those unaffected by the storm: 

the employment-population ratio of evacuees (51.7 percent) was 11 percentage points lower than the ratio among 

residents of unaffected areas nationwide (63.2 percent), as 

well as among residents of unaffected areas in the adjacent 

States (62.6 percent). Furthermore, evacuees were seeking 

employment and unable to find work or were laid off from 

jobs at a much higher rate than either of the other two 

groups: the unemployment rate for all evacuees was 12.1 

percent, compared with unemployment rates of 4.7 percent 

for residents of unaffected areas nationwide and 4.4 percent 

for residents of unaffected areas in the adjacent States.24

Chart 3 indicates that the labor market situation for 

evacuees in the months immediately after the storm was 

considerably worse than later in the period examined. For 

example, the employment-population ratio for evacuees 

was 44.0 percent in October 2005, but had increased to 

54.9 percent by October 2006. Also, the unemployment 

rate for evacuees declined over time, and the gap between 

the unemployment rate for evacuees and the rate for residents of unaffected areas nationwide narrowed. However, 

despite the narrowing of the gap, in October 2006—more 

than a year after Katrina reached shore—the unemployment rate of evacuees (9.3 percent) was still more than 

double the unemployment rate of the latter group (4.1 

percent).

The inability of evacuees to be gainfully employed seems 

to have been particularly acute among those who did not 

return to their pre-Katrina counties. As shown in table 6, 

the employment-population ratio for nonreturnees was 26 

percentage points lower than the ratio for residents of unaffected areas nationwide (37.1 percent and 63.2 percent, 

respectively) and approximately 20 percentage points lower 

than the employment-population ratio for evacuees who 

returned to their pre-Katrina counties (37.1 percent and 

 Distance (in miles) between destination and 

 origin counties of nonreturning evacuees, 

 October 2005–October 2006

 

 State evacuee

 was residing in 

 at time of survey

(State of destination)

 All States.................... 409 399 469

Affected States:

Louisiana...................... 66 64 150

Mississippi.................... 70 104 58

Alabama....................... 300 332 131

Adjacent States:2 

Texas............................ 378 367 710

Tennessee.................... 381 392 286

Georgia......................... 432 460 382

Florida........................... 414 475 (

3

)

Arkansas....................... 464 473 (

3

)

Other States4................... 1,110 1,120 1,029

 

1

 Includes evacuees whose pre-Katrina State is Alabama.

2

 States adjacent to the affected States.

3 Sample size too small to estimate average distance reliably.

4

 States other than the affected States and other than the adjacent

 States.

NOTE: The numbers of miles are averages for evacuees who did 

 not return to their pre-Katrina counties.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey.

Pre-Katrina State

 (State of origin)

Table 4.

Louisiana Mississippi

Total1
Katrina Evacuees

44  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

57.3 percent). The unemployment rate for evacuees who did 

not return was 30.6 percent, compared with an unemployment rate of 6.0 percent for evacuees who returned and 4.7 

percent for residents of unaffected areas nationwide. Furthermore, the estimates in table 6 indicate that the higher 

unemployment rate of nonreturnees is due to these workers’ 

inability to find new employment: very few nonreturnees 

were classified as unemployed because they indicated that 

they expected to be recalled to their former employer within 

the next 6 months.

The differences in labor force status between returnees and nonreturnees after the storm might reflect differences that existed between those groups prior to the 

storm. Further analysis indicates that differences between 

groups in individual and family characteristics (including 

those characteristics listed in table 5) can account for about 

25 percent of the difference in the unemployment rate between returnees and nonreturnees. By contrast, differences 

in these characteristics can account for only about 5 percent 

of the difference in the employment-population ratio and 

cannot account for any part of the difference in the labor 

force participation rate.25 Thus, although individual and 

family characteristics can explain some of the differences 

in labor force status between returnees and nonreturnees, 

a substantial proportion of those differences cannot be explained by such characteristics.

Interestingly, among both returnees and nonreturnees 

who were employed, self-employment rates appear to 

be relatively high compared with self-employment rates 

among those who were employed in the affected counties 

before the storm. In the 19 months prior to the storm, 

the average self-employment rate among those who were 

employed was 7.3 percent, while after the storm, the selfemployment rate of employed returnees was 11.3 percent 

and the self-employment rate of employed nonreturnees 

was 9.5 percent. It is not possible to determine from these 

estimates whether these evacuees were self-employed prior 

to the storm or whether they turned to self-employment 

after the storm as a means of finding employment. However, the lower employment-population ratio of evacuees, 

in combination with their higher self-employment rates, 

further suggest that evacuees were particularly unsuccessful in finding employment other than self-employment.

The graphs presented in chart 4 suggest that, although 

the unemployment rate was always higher and the employment-population ratio always lower for nonreturnees than 

for returnees, the decline in the unemployment rate for 

evacuees displayed in chart 3 was driven almost entirely by 

the changes among nonreturnees. Similarly, the rise in the 

employment-population ratio among evacuees was driven 

largely by changes among nonreturnees (although early 

in the recovery period after the storm, the employmentpopulation ratio among returnees increased markedly). 

These estimates suggest that the labor market situation improved over time for evacuees who did not return to their 

pre-Katrina counties. Nevertheless, the estimates indicate 

that even more than a year after the storm, nonreturnees 

had not integrated well into the labor market and still were 

facing considerable difficulties in obtaining employment. 

In October 2006, only 44.9 percent of nonreturnees were 

 

 Age, years

16 to 19................................ 63.5 71.2

20 to 24................................ 44.5 56.8

25 to 34................................ 53.8 64.8

35 to 44................................ 65.0 70.6

45 to 54................................ 68.9 77.5

55 to 69................................ 78.3 82.6

70 and older......................... 76.0 80.0

 Race

White.................................... 73.2 81.9

Black.................................... 48.5 53.8

Asian.................................... 80.7 84.5

Other race............................ 42.9 58.1

 Hispanic ethnicity

Non-Hispanic....................... 65.2 72.5

Hispanic............................... 57.1 72.2

 Gender

Female................................. 63.7 71.1

Male..................................... 66.3 74.1

 Education1

 Less than high school.......... 59.3 67.9

High school.......................... 72.5 77.9

Some college....................... 64.9 74.9

College................................. 70.3 74.7

 Marital status2

Married................................. 72.8 78.2

Was married3........................ 64.3 73.4

Never married....................... 50.7 61.1

 Number of children4

0............................................ 66.1 74.0

1............................................ 61.3 68.8

2 ........................................... 64.7 71.9

3 or more............................... 62.2 66.9

1

 For persons aged 25 years and older.

2

 For persons aged 20 years and older.

3

 Widowed, divorced, or separated.

4

 Number of own children under age 18, for persons aged 20 years 

 and older.

SOURCE: Current Population Survey.

Characteristic Returned to

 residence

Returned to

 county

Percent of evacuees who returned to their preKatrina residences or counties, by personal 

characteristics, October 2005–October 2006

Table 5.
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

Table 6. Labor force measures for Katrina evacuees and for residents of unaffected areas, October 2005–October 2006 

 Proportion of 

Labor force Employment- unemployed— 

participation population 

rate ratio Laid 

 off 

 

 All............................. 58.8 51.7 12.1 9.1 90.9 10.9

Nonreturnees................. 53.4 37.1 30.6 4.0 96.0 9.5

Returnees...................... 60.9 57.3 6.0 17.7 82.3 11.3

 Residents of unaffected 

 areas1 

 Nationwide ............... 66.2 63.2 4.7 12.6 87.4 11.1

Affected States2.............. 61.5 58.6 4.7 12.5 87.5 8.7

Adjacent States3............. 65.4 62.6 4.4 8.8 91.2 11.2

1

 Excluding evacuees.

2

 Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama.

 Evacuees

Unemployment

 rate

Looking

SOURCE: Current Population Survey.

U.S. population

Proportion of 

employed 

who are selfemployed

3

 Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, Georgia, and Florida.

employed, and their unemployment rate was 18.9 percent.

Income and governmental and private assistance

Given that nonreturnees fared so poorly in the labor market compared with returnees and residents of unaffected 

areas nationwide, it is natural to ask whether nonreturnees have received compensating assistance either from the 

government or from friends or relatives. The 2006 Annual 

Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC), administered as 

a supplement to the monthly CPS for all sampled households in March and for part of the sampled households in 

February and April, can shed some light on this issue.26 In 

order to construct poverty measures, the ASEC collects information on income that individuals received from various governmental and private sources in the calendar year 

prior to when the survey was administered. The ASEC collects information on the following governmental sources 

of income: unemployment insurance, welfare payments 

(including Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or 

TANF), Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, 

workers’ compensation from a State government, veterans’ benefits, survivors’ income from a government agency, 

educational assistance from the government, disability income from a government agency, and retirement income 

from State or local governments or from the U.S. Railroad 

Retirement Board. In addition, the ASEC collects information on whether an individual’s household (as opposed to 

the individual him- or herself) received food stamps.27 The 

ASEC also collects information on the following private 

sources of income: interest income, dividend income, rental income, child support, alimony, retirement income from 

a private source (including company pensions and regular 

payments from individual retirement accounts, KEOGH accounts, and 401(k) accounts), educational assistance from 

a private source, disability income from a private source, 

and regular financial assistance from friends or relatives 

not living in the household.

Because Katrina struck the gulf coast in August 2005, 

if evacuees received assistance from the government or 

from friends or relatives in the last 4 months (September, October, November, and December) of that year due 

to the storm, the receipt of these benefits should be captured in the 2006 ASEC, and the proportion of individuals participating in these programs should be higher than 

what was observed in the Katrina-affected counties a year 

earlier. Different levels of income from private sources 

other than friends or relatives also may provide evidence of the comparative pre-Katrina wealth of returnees 

compared with nonreturnees, because this other private 

income includes dividend and interest payments that could 

have been received prior to or after the storm. Table 7 reports per-person averages of total income, earnings from 

employment, income from governmental sources, and income from private sources in 2004 for all residents of Katrina-affected counties and in 2005 for returnees and nonreturnees, with nonreturnees defined as those who did not 

return to their pre-Katrina counties.28 Table 7 also reports 

the proportion of individuals in each of these three groups 

who received any governmental assistance, along with the 

proportion who participated in five particular government 

programs that might be expected to support evacuees in 

the wake of the storm: unemployment insurance, welfare, 

Social Security, Supplemental Security Income, and Food 
Katrina Evacuees

46  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

 Chart 3. Monthly estimates of labor force measures: evacuees

 and residents of unaffected areas, October 2005–

 October 2006

Source: Current Population Su

Percent Employment-population ratio

70

65

60

55

50

75

45

Residents of unaffected areas nationwide (excluding evacuees)

Evacuees

Oct. Dec. Feb.

2005

June Aug.

2006

Apr. Oct.

40

Oct. Dec. Feb.

2005

Apr. June Aug. Oct.

Labor force participation rate

Residents of unaffected areas nationwide (excluding evacuees)

Evacuees

Percent

70

60

50

2006

Unemployment rate

Residents of unaffected areas nationwide (excluding evacuees)

Evacuees

Oct. Dec. Feb.

2005

June Aug.

2006

Apr. Oct.

20

15

10

5

0

Percent

Stamps.29 The proportion of individuals 

in each group who received income from 

private sources also is reported in table 

7, along with the proportion that received regular monetary assistance from 

friends or relatives. (As noted earlier, the 

other sources of private income—such 

as dividends, interest, child support, and 

alimony—might be somewhat less influenced by Katrina.) 

Consistent with how returnees and 

nonreturnees fared in the labor market, 

on average, returnees had $3,731 less, 

and nonreturnees had $9,291 less, earnings from employment in 2005 than did 

those who resided in Katrina-affected 

counties in 2004.30 These lower earnings 

are consistent with a loss of at least some 

time of employment by evacuees, especially nonreturnees.

The estimates in table 7 also indicate 

that when all sources of governmental 

income are taken into account, nonreturnees were more likely than returnees 

to receive some form of governmental 

assistance, and the proportion of both 

types of evacuees who received such 

assistance was higher than the proportion of residents of the affected counties 

receiving assistance prior to the storm. 

For example, nonreturnees were more 

than twice as likely as returnees to 

receive unemployment insurance payments (9.9 percent compared with 4.9 

percent), and both groups were more 

likely to receive unemployment insurance payments than were those who 

resided in the Katrina-affected counties 

before the storm. This higher incidence 

of receipt of unemployment insurance 

payments probably reflects the increase 

in job loss due to the storm, but it also 

might reflect the relaxation of benefit 

rules in State unemployment insurance programs in response to the storm. 

In addition, nonreturnees were more 

likely than returnees to receive welfare 

payments and Supplemental Security 

Income payments. Each of these types 

of payment could be a direct response 

65

55
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

 Chart 4. Monthly estimates of labor force measures: returnees 

and nonreturnees, October 2005–October 2006 (using

county definition of returning)

Source: Current Population Su

Percent Labor force participation rate

Returnees

Nonreturnees

Oct. Dec. Feb.

2005 Apr. June Aug. Oct.

2006

65

60

55

50

45

40

Percent Employment-population ratio

Returnees

Nonreturnees

Oct. Dec. Feb.

2005 Apr. June Aug. Oct.

2006

65

60

55

50

45

40

35

30

25

Percent

Returnees

Nonreturnees

Unemployment rate

Oct. Dec. Feb.

2005 Apr. June Aug. Oct.

2006

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

to the storm; however, it is not possible to determine whether that is 

so from the descriptive estimates 

presented here. These differences between returnees and nonreturnees 

might be due in part to differences 

in the prestorm economic situations 

of returnees and nonreturnees and 

thus differences in the propensity of 

returnees and nonreturnees to receive these types of assistance prior 

to the storm. Nonetheless, a separate 

analysis of labor force status indicates 

that the majority of the differences 

in outcomes between returnees and 

nonreturnees cannot be attributed to 

prestorm differences between the two 

groups, suggesting that the storm did 

indeed contribute to differences in the 

receipt of governmental assistance between the groups.31

Perhaps the most interesting difference with regard to governmental 

assistance is the markedly greater 

proportion of both returnees and nonreturnees who received food stamps, 

compared with residents of Katrinaaffected counties in 2004. Only 6.3 

percent of residents of Katrina-affected counties lived in a household that 

received food stamps in 2004, whereas 

20.3 percent of returnees and 30.6 

percent of nonreturnees resided in a 

household that received food stamps 

in 2005. These estimates indicate that 

the Food Stamp program may have 

provided relatively immediate assistance to evacuees and offered a way 

for both returnees and nonreturnees 

to support themselves in the wake of 

the storm. Although the Food Stamp 

program appears to be the most important program in this regard, other 

governmental programs also appear 

to have supported evacuees after the 

storm. Excluding food stamps, an estimated 31.8 percent of returnees and 

42.4 percent of nonreturnees received 

some form of governmental assistance.

The estimates in table 7 indicate that 
Katrina Evacuees

48  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

relatively few evacuees reported receiving regular monetary 

income from friends or relatives, although the proportion 

of nonreturnees who reported receiving income from this 

source was slightly larger than the proportion of returnees. 

In general, the estimates in the table indicate that neither 

the government nor friends or relatives provided massive 

amounts of income to compensate Katrina evacuees for 

their loss of earnings due to the storm, because the average 

total income of evacuees (both returnees and nonreturnees) was lower than the average total income of residents 

of the affected counties prior to the storm.

SINCE HURRICANE KATRINA STRUCK THE GULF COAST

in August 2005, there has been much interest in how those 

affected by the storm have fared. The issue was examined 

in this article using data that were collected with a set of 

Katrina-related questions that were added to the CPS. The 

analysis of responses to these questions indicates that approximately 1.5 million people aged 16 years and older 

evacuated from their homes and that the breadth of the 

Table 7. Income and assistance from various sources, 2004 and 2005

Residents of 

affected counties, 

 pre-Katrina 

(2004)

Per-person average income:1

 Total income.............................................................. $28,779 $26,424 $19,386

 Earnings.................................................................... 24,150 20,419 14,859

 Income from governmental sources.......................... 3,011 3,548 3,434

 Income from private sources (excluding

 earnings)................................................................ 1,672 2,481 1,098

Percent receiving income or assistance:

 Received any governmental assistance2 .................. 30.2 41.5 54.7

 Unemployment insurance ..................................... 1.3 4.9 9.9

 Welfare (including TANF3) ....................................... .7 1.3 7.9

 Social Security ...................................................... 19.5 20.5 17.8

 Supplemental Security Income ............................. 2.5 1.4 4.3

 Food stamps ......................................................... 6.3 20.3 30.6

 Received income from private sources4.................... 42.6 39.1 39.3

 Friends or relatives (regularly) .............................. 1.4 1.4 2.7

1

 In 2005 dollars.

2

 Proportion of individuals who received any income from the governmental sources listed in this table, plus the following: workers’ 

compensation from a State government, veterans’ benefits, survivors’ 

income from a government agency, educational assistance from the 

government, disability income from a government agency, and retirement income from State or local governments or from the U.S. 

Railroad Retirement Board. Income from these additional government 

programs is included in “Income from governmental sources.” 3

 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families.

4

 Proportion of individuals who received any income from private 

sources, including interest income, dividend income, rental income, 

child support, alimony, retirement income from a private source (including company pensions and regular payments from individual retirement accounts, KEOGH accounts, and 401(k) accounts), educational assistance from a private source, disability income from a private source, 

and regular financial assistance from friends or relatives not living in 

the household. “Income received from private sources” is the value of 

income from all of these sources.

SOURCE: 2005 and 2006 Annual Social and Economic Supplement 

to the Current Population Survey (CPS); basic CPS data from February, 

March, and April of those years.

 Income or assistance, and source Returnees 

(2005)

Nonreturnees

(2005)

evacuation was widespread: the demographic composition 

of evacuees mirrors the demographic composition of those 

residing in the Katrina-affected counties prior to the storm. 

The analysis of responses also indicates that evacuees who 

returned to the areas from which they evacuated differed 

markedly from those who did not in terms of demographic 

characteristics, labor force status, and income.

Of those who evacuated, about 71 percent had returned to their homes by October 2006, but around 29 

percent—about 410,000—had not returned to their 

homes, and of these, approximately 280,000 had not 

even returned to the counties in which they were living 

prior to the storm. Further, although about 45 percent 

of evacuees who did not return to their homes continued to reside in the same State, Katrina also caused 

large numbers of people to move between States: an estimated 23 percent of Louisiana natives affected by the 

storm, representing 8 percent of Louisiana’s population 

in 2005, no longer live in the State.

Blacks, young adults, and single people who never had 
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

married were significantly less likely to return to their homes 

after the storm than were whites, individuals over the age of 

55, and married persons. An examination of the proportion 

of evacuees who were employed and of their unemployment 

rates suggests that individuals who evacuated because of the 

storm suffered greatly—particularly those who did not return 

to the counties in which they were living prior to Katrina. In 

October 2006, more than a year after the storm struck, less 

than half of those who had not returned to their prestorm 

counties were employed, and the unemployment rate of these 

nonreturnees was almost 19 percent. These lower levels of 

employment appeared to translate into lower earnings for 

evacuees. Further, although there is some evidence that evacuees received food stamps and unemployment insurance in 

response to the storm, it appears that neither assistance from 

governmental sources nor assistance from friends or relatives 

fully compensated evacuees for their lower earnings. The estimates of evacuees’ poststorm locations, labor force status, 

and incomes all support the notion that evacuees (especially 

nonreturnees) fared poorly in the wake of the storm. Katrina 

undoubtedly caused massive physical damage, but the storm 

also profoundly affected the lives of people in its path.

Notes

ACKNOWLEDGMENT: We are grateful to Chuck Pierret and seminar 

participants at the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the 2007 Society of 

Labor Economists meetings for useful comments. The views expressed 

in this article are solely those of the authors and do not reflect the 

views of the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

1Miles Kimball, Helen Levy, Fumio Ohtake, and Yoshiro Tsutsui, 

“Unhappiness after Hurricane Katrina,” NBER Working Paper 12062 

(Cambridge, MA, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2006).

 2See, for example, Shaila Dewan, “Road to New Life After Katrina 

is Closed to Many,” New York Times, July 12, 2007; Peter Whoriskey, 

“Study Says Storms Displaced More People than Estimated,” Washington Post, Aug. 8, 2007; and Michael Abramowitz and Michael A. 

Fletcher, “Bush Says Gulf Coast Isn’t Forgotten,” Washington Post, Aug. 

30, 2007.

3See the following articles in the August 2006 issue of the Monthly 

Labor Review: Molly Garber, Linda Unger, James White, and Linda 

Wohlford, “Hurricane Katrina’s effects on industry employment and 

wages,” pp. 22–39; Lawrence S. Cahoon, Diane E. Herz, Richard C. 

Ning, Anne E. Polivka, Maria E. Reed, Edwin L. Robison, and Gregory D. Weyland, “The Current Population Survey response to Hurricane 

Katrina,” pp. 40–51; and Sharon P. Brown and Patrick Carey, “Conducting the Mass Layoff Statistics program: response and findings,” 

pp. 70–75.

4For a detailed description of the discussion and resolution of issues 

related to conducting the CPS in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, see 

Cahoon and others, “The Current Population Survey response.” 

5 Initially, it was thought that information about the county and 

State that relocated evacuees came from would assist in the adjustment of CPS population weights to account for the movement of people 

from one area to another. However, the U.S. Postal Service’s National 

Change of Address file was obtained by the Census Bureau in a timely 

manner and proved to be of sufficient quality that it was not necessary 

to use the CPS data for the aforesaid purpose.

6Due to the desire to start collecting information quickly, the first 

set of Katrina questions was not tested extensively prior to its inclusion in the CPS. The entire set of questions (including the additional 

ones) was cognitively tested prior to its inclusion in June 2006. These 

questions were tested primarily on evacuees who were living in the 

Washington, DC, metropolitan area. The testing revealed no cognitive 

difficulties with the original set of questions among those who had 

relocated. However, several times the questions did evoke emotional 

responses from respondents.

7The CPS uses a 4–8–4 sample design in which an address is scheduled to be interviewed for 4 consecutive months, not interviewed for 

the next 8 consecutive months, and then interviewed again for the 

subsequent 4 months. Each calendar month, a new group of residential addresses starts this rotation pattern. Given this rotation pattern 

and the inclusion of the CPS Katrina questions from October 2005 to 

October 2006, households can be observed for up to 5 months. The 

average number of months that evacuees are observed in the CPS data 

is 4 months.

8A focus group of interviewers indicated that, because the wording 

of the questions was the same every month, some respondents who 

identified themselves as evacuees in a particular month did not answer 

the Katrina questions in a subsequent interview because they had already identified themselves as evacuees. Other respondents interpreted 

the first Katrina question (see box on page 34) as asking whether there 

were any additional (since the previous interview) household members 

who were evacuees. For the same reasons, some interviewers didn’t ask the 

Katrina questions in a given month if the household roster was the same 

and the household had responded to the questions in an earlier month.

9These restrictions and refinements result in estimates of the number 

of Katrina evacuees and the number of evacuees who relocated that are 

different from those previously published by the BLS. In addition to the 

restrictions and refinements requisite for an individual to be classified 

as an evacuee enumerated in the text, it was required that the household 

screener be “yes” for an individual to be classified as an evacuee.

10 The list of counties used in the analysis is based on FEMA disaster declarations for Hurricane Katrina through October 7, 2005, 

and includes 31 parishes in Louisiana (of a total of 64 in the State), 

49 counties in Mississippi (of 82), and 11 counties in Alabama (of 

67). No other States contained counties eligible for both public and 

individual disaster assistance. This list of counties differs slightly from 

that used in “Labor Market Statistics Prior to Disaster for Areas Affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,” published on the BLS Web site 

(http://www.bls.gov/katrina). That list refers to counties affected by 

Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita (or both) and was based on FEMA

declarations through September 30, 2005.

11Figures are from the October 2005–October 2006 CPS.

12Current Housing Unit Damage Estimates: Hurricanes Katrina, 

Rita, and Wilma (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Office of Policy Development and Research, Feb. 12, 2006). This 

analysis was based on direct inspection of housing units to determine 

eligibility for FEMA housing assistance. The inspections that were carried out assessed damages resulting from Hurricane Katrina and two 
Katrina Evacuees

50  Monthly Labor Review • March 2008

other hurricanes from the fall of 2005 (Rita and Wilma).

13For January 2006, FEMA data on the number of hotel rooms occupied by people affected by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita 

(or both) can be used to construct an estimate of the effect of those 

living in hotels on the CPS estimates of the number of evacuees. As of 

January 22, 2006, FEMA reported that there were 26,879 hotel rooms 

occupied by Hurricane Katrina or Hurricane Rita evacuees. If there 

was an average of 3 people per hotel room and the individuals living in hotel rooms were added to the number of people identified as 

Katrina evacuees, then a reasonable estimate is that the CPS missed 

only about 4.8 percent of Katrina evacuees. This number would be an 

underestimate if the average number of people occupying a hotel room 

were greater than 3; at the same time, however, that number could be 

an overestimate because the number of occupied hotel rooms includes 

both those who evacuated because of Hurricane Katrina and those 

who evacuated because of Hurricane Rita. If the number of people 

per hotel room were assumed to be 5 rather than 3, the proportion of 

evacuees missed by the CPS would increase to approximately 7.7 percent. Hotels were not the only type of places at which evacuees could 

have been staying that were not in the CPS sample. For instance, large 

facilities such as the Houston Astrodome and emergency shelters set 

up in places of worship also were not included in the sample. However, 

anecdotal evidence indicates that the majority of these emergency 

shelters were no longer in use by January 2006. FEMA trailers set up at 

an existing address would be included in the CPS sample from which 

households could be drawn.

14 The characteristics of those living in the counties affected by 

the storm and the characteristics of those living in the remainder of 

the United States were calculated from CPS data for January 2004 

to July 2005. A comparison of the CPS estimates for those in the affected counties with estimates generated by the Census Bureau from 

American Community Survey data for these counties indicates a large 

degree of concordance between the two sets of estimates.

15An analysis using the narrower definition of a returnee (based on 

residence) is available from the authors upon request.

16An estimated 32.0 percent of evacuees who originally lived in 

Louisiana did not return to their prestorm parishes. Combining this 

estimate with the estimate of the total number of Louisiana natives 

who evacuated because of Katrina yields the result that approximately 

360,672 Louisiana natives moved to another State or parish because 

of Katrina. This estimate is consistent with an independent estimate 

by the Louisiana Recovery Authority and the Louisiana Department 

of Health and Hospitals (“Migration Patterns: Estimates of Parish 

Level Migrations due to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita,” 2006 Louisiana 

Health and Population Survey). Using data they collected via a door-todoor survey to supplement 2006 Census Bureau population estimates, 

these organizations estimate that, approximately 15 months after Katrina struck, 398,000 individuals who originally lived in 18 southern 

Louisiana parishes had moved to another State or parish because of 

the storm. The periods covered by this estimate and the estimate from 

the CPS data are similar. The estimate from Louisiana staff could be 

expected to be slightly higher than the CPS estimate because the former 

includes those who evacuated because of either Katrina or Rita, whereas 

the latter includes only individuals who evacuated because of Katrina. 

By contrast, the CPS estimate might be expected to be slightly larger 

because it includes any individuals who lived in the FEMA-designated 

disaster area, which includes 31 parishes in Louisiana.

17Because the question about the date that individuals returned 

was asked only of those who returned to the same address, similar estimates cannot be generated for individuals who returned to the counties in which they resided prior to the storm, but did not return to their 

previous address. The estimates in table 2 stop in July 2006 because the 

survey instrument did not record the year individuals returned. Without an indication of that year, it is not possible to distinguish individuals who returned in August 2005 from those who returned in August 

2006. The year was not included in the survey instrument because, at 

the time that the Katrina questions were inserted into the CPS, it was 

anticipated that the questions would be administered for only a couple 

of months. August 2005 returnees were individuals who reported that 

they returned between August 27 and August 31.

18The estimates of the proportion of evacuees who returned to their 

pre-Katrina addresses and the length of time they were away are not 

meant to suggest that evacuees who returned quickly did not suffer 

significant property damage or other severe economic hardships.

19Among these remaining States, the five with the largest proportion of evacuees (regardless of their State of origin) who had not returned to their pre-Katrina counties are Illinois, California, Missouri, 

Virginia, and Ohio.

20Let a be the proportion of natives of a State who returned to their 

residences and b be the proportion of nonreturnees who remained in 

their State. Then the proportion of evacuees who reside in the State of 

their pre-Katrina residence is a + (1 – a) × b.

21This estimate is based on the Census Bureau’s estimate of Louisiana’s total population (July 1, 2005) and an estimate of the proportion 

of the Louisiana population that is 16 years and older, taken from the 

2000 Census.

22The CPS data identify the county of the evacuee’s residence at 

the time of the survey and (for most evacuees) the county of his or 

her pre-Katrina residence. Table 4 uses the latitude and longitude 

of a county’s center of population, computed by the Census Bureau 

from 2000 census data, to identify the location of the county. The 

table makes use of the Haversine formula (from Roger W. Sinnott, 

“Virtues of the Haversine,” Sky and Telescope, August 1984, p. 159), 

which takes account of the curvature of the earth, to compute the 

distance (in miles) between the county of origin and the destination 

county. For use in the formula, the radius of the earth is assumed to 

be 3,956 miles. 

23As points of reference for the figures listed in table 4, consider the 

distance from New Orleans to Baton Rouge (71 miles), Houston (321 

miles), and Las Vegas (1,508 miles).

24Table 6 reports the proportion of those classified as unemployed 

who said they were on layoff from a job to which they expected to 

return, as well as the proportion of those who said they were looking for work. Although the proportion of unemployed evacuees who 

returned to their pre-Katrina counties and who were on layoff from 

a job was slightly higher than the corresponding proportion among 

unemployed residents of unaffected areas in the entire Nation, virtually all of the difference in unemployment rates between evacuees who 

did not return and the latter individuals is due to a higher proportion 

of nonreturning evacuees looking for work and being unable to find 

employment. The proportion of the unemployed who were on layoff was substantially lower among evacuees who did not return than 

among residents of unaffected areas nationwide. Nearly 18 percent of 

returnees who were unemployed said that they were on layoff from 

a job to which they expected to return, compared with 4 percent of 

nonreturnees. Among residents of unaffected areas nationwide, approximately 13 percent of the unemployed were on layoff from a job 

to which they expected to return.

25 Jeffrey A. Groen and Anne E. Polivka, “The Effect of Hurricane 

Katrina on the Labor Market Outcomes of Evacuees,” BLS Working 

Paper 415, March 2008.

26ASEC formerly was known as the Annual Demographic Survey and 
Monthly Labor Review • March 2008  

has been informally referred to as the March Income Supplement.

27The Food Stamp program is listed separately from the other 

sources of assistance in this article, for two reasons: (1) the Food Stamp 

program applies to households, while the other sources of income apply 

to individuals; and (2) food stamps are considered an in-kind benefit 

rather than an income benefit.

28The estimates in table 7 are based on 718 pre-Katrina, 440 returnee, and 182 nonreturnee observations that were weighted with the 

use of the supplement weight.

29The amount of income received from the first four of these programs is not listed separately because the sample of participants in 

some of these programs is small. Note that a monetized value of food 

stamps is not included in “income from governmental sources.”

30The 2004 estimates are expressed in 2005 dollars. In nominal dollars, the difference in earnings between evacuees (in 2005 dollars) and 

residents of affected counties in 2004 (in 2004 dollars) is $2,941 for 

returnees and $8,501 for nonreturnees.

31Groen and Polivka, “The Effect of Hurricane Katrina.”