Gulf Coast Rebuilding: Preliminary Observations on Progress to Date and Challenges for the Future
Published: 2007-04-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The size and scope of the devastation caused by the 2005 Gulf Coast hurricanes presents unprecedented rebuilding challenges. Today, more than a year and a half since the hurricanes made landfall, rebuilding efforts are at a critical turning point. The Gulf Coast must face the daunting challenge of rebuilding its communities and neighborhoods--some from the ground up. This testimony (1) places the federal assistance provided to date in the context of the resources likely needed to rebuild the Gulf Coast, (2) discusses key federal programs currently being used to provide rebuilding assistance, with an emphasis on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, (3) describes Louisiana's and Mississippi's approach to using CDBG funds, and (4) provides observations on planning activities in Louisiana and Mississippi and the federal government's role in coordinating rebuilding efforts. GAO visited the Gulf Coast region, reviewed state and local documents, and interviewed federal, state, and local officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: While the federal government has provided billions of dollars in assistance to the Gulf Coast, a substantial portion was directed to short-term needs, leaving a smaller portion for longer-term rebuilding. It may be useful to view this assistance in the context of the costs of damages incurred by the region and the resources necessary to rebuild. Some damage estimates have put capital losses at a range of $70 billion to over $150 billion, while the State of Louisiana estimated that the economic impact on its state alone could reach $200 billion. Such estimates raise important questions regarding additional assistance that will be needed to help the Gulf Coast rebuild in the future. To date, the federal government has provided long-term rebuilding assistance to the Gulf Coast through 2 key programs, which follow different funding models. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's public assistance program provides public infrastructure funding for specific projects that meet program eligibility requirements. HUD's CDBG program, on the other hand, provides funding for neighborhood revitalization and housing rehabilitation activities, affording states broad discretion and flexibility. To date, the affected states have received $16.7 billion in CDBG funding from supplemental appropriations--so far, the largest share of funding targeted to rebuilding. With the vast number of homes that sustained damage in Louisiana and Mississippi, each state allocated the bulk of its CDBG funds to homeowner assistance. Louisiana developed an assistance program to encourage homeowners to return to Louisiana and begin rebuilding while Mississippi developed a program to target homeowners who suffered losses due to Katrina's storm surge that were not covered by insurance. As of March 28, 2007, Louisiana has awarded 4,808 grants to homeowners with an average award amount of $74,250. Mississippi has awarded 11,894 grants with an average award amount of $69,669. Restoring the region's housing and infrastructure is taking place in the context of broader planning and coordination activities. In Louisiana and Mississippi, state and local governments are engaged in both short-and long-term planning efforts. Further, the President established a position within the Department of Homeland Security to coordinate and support rebuilding activities at the federal, state, and local levels. As states and localities begin to develop plans for rebuilding, there are difficult policy decisions Congress will need to make about the federal government's contribution to the rebuilding effort and the role it might play over the long-term in an era of competing priorities. Based on our work, we raise a number of questions the Subcommittee may wish to consider in its oversight of Gulf Coast rebuilding. Such questions relate to the costs for rebuilding the Gulf Coast--including the federal government's share, the effectiveness of current funding delivery mechanisms, and the federal government's efforts to leverage the public investment in rebuilding.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today’s hearing to discuss our  preliminary work and observations on Gulf Coast rebuilding issues. The  size and scope of the devastation caused by the Gulf Coast hurricanes  presents the nation with unprecedented rebuilding challenges. Wide  swaths of housing, infrastructure, and businesses were destroyed, leaving  more than 1,500 people dead and hundreds of thousands of others  displaced without shelter and employment. Today, more than a year and a  half since the hurricanes made landfall, rebuilding efforts are at a critical  turning point. The Gulf Coast and the nation must now face the daunting  challenges of rebuilding. Our recent work in southern Louisiana and New  Orleans confirms that some communities are still without basic needs,  such as schools, hospitals, and other infrastructure, while the doors of  many businesses remain closed. Many Gulf Coast neighborhoods and  communities will need to be rebuilt—some from the ground up.
Current rebuilding activities, including the bulk of federal rebuilding  assistance, are directed primarily towards restoring the region’s stock of  livable housing and essential infrastructure. Over the coming years,  perhaps decades, significant and complex challenges lie ahead. Major  decisions will need to be made regarding a wide range of issues including  coastal restoration, levee protection, infrastructure, land use, and  economic recovery. All levels of government, together with the private and  nonprofit sectors will need to play a critical role in this process. Agreeing  on what rebuilding will be done, where, how, and—particularly  important—who will bear the costs, will be key to moving forward with  the rebuilding process.
My testimony today will offer some preliminary observations on rebuilding  efforts in the Gulf Coast that may assist you in your oversight of these  activities—now and over the longer term. I would like to: (1) place the  federal assistance provided to date in the context of the resources likely  needed to rebuild the Gulf Coast; (2) discuss the key federal programs that  provide rebuilding assistance, with an emphasis on the Community  Development Block Grant (CDBG) program; (3) describe some differences  in Louisiana’s and Mississippi’s approach to using CDBG funds; and   (4) provide some observations on planning activities in Louisiana and  Mississippi and the role of the federal government in coordinating Gulf  Coast rebuilding efforts. Finally, I will raise questions that Congress may  wish to consider in carrying out its critical oversight function in reviewing  rebuilding efforts on the Gulf Coast.
My statement is based largely on our work in Louisiana and Mississippi— the two states most directly affected by the Gulf Coast hurricanes.  Specifically, we interviewed state and local officials as well as  representatives from nongovernmental organizations in these two states  and analyzed state and local documentation related to rebuilding funding  and allocations and planning initiatives. We also interviewed various  federal officials from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)  and the Coordinator of Federal Support for the Recovery and Rebuilding  of the Gulf Coast Region within the Department of Homeland Security  (DHS) and analyzed federal regulations and state policies regarding Gulf  Coast federal funding. We performed our work in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: A Relatively Small Portion of Federal Gulf Coast Assistance Is Targeted to Long- Term Rebuilding, While Estimates of Loss Suggest Great Need
paragraphs: To respond to the Gulf Coast devastation, the federal government has  committed an historically high level of resources—over $110 billion— through an array of grants, loan subsidies, and tax relief and incentives.  The bulk of this assistance was provided between September 2005 and  June 2006 through four emergency supplemental appropriations. A  substantial portion of this assistance was directed to emergency  assistance and meeting short-term needs arising from these hurricanes,  such as relocation assistance, emergency housing, immediate levee repair,  and debris removal efforts. Consequently, a relatively small portion of  federal assistance is available for longer-term rebuilding activities such as  the restoration of the region’s housing and infrastructure. Later in this  statement, I will discuss in greater detail the two programs that the federal  government has used so far to provide assistance to the Gulf Coast for  longer-term rebuilding.
It is useful to view the federal assistance provided to the Gulf Coast within  the context of the overall costs of the damages incurred by the region and  the resources necessary to rebuild. Although there are no definitive or  authoritative estimates of these costs, the various estimates of aspects of  these costs offer a sense of their magnitude. For example, early damage  estimates from the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) put capital losses  from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita at a range of $70 billion to $130 billion  while another estimate put losses solely from Hurricane Katrina— including capital losses—at over $150 billion. Further, the state of  Louisiana has estimated that the economic impact on its state alone could  reach $200 billion. While the exact costs of damages and rebuilding the  Gulf Coast may never be known, they will likely surpass those from the  three other costliest disasters in recent history—Hurricane Andrew, the  September 2001 terrorist attacks, and the 1994 Northridge earthquake.  These estimates raise important questions regarding additional assistance  that will be needed to help the Gulf Coast rebuild in the future—including  how the assistance will be provided and by whom.
section_title: Two Key Federal Programs That Provide Long-Term Rebuilding Resources Use Different Approaches
paragraphs: The federal government has so far used two key programs—FEMA’s  Public Assistance and the Department of Housing and Urban  Development’s (HUD) CDBG programs—to provide long-term rebuilding  assistance to the Gulf Coast states. These two programs follow different  funding models. Public Assistance provides funding on a project-by- project basis—involving an assessment of specific proposals to determine  eligibility, while CDBG—a block grant—affords broad discretion and  flexibility to states and localities.
subsections: section_title: Public Assistance Grants
paragraphs: FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) supports a range of grant programs in  providing federal assistance to state and local governments,  nongovernment organizations, and individuals when a disaster occurs.  One of its largest programs—Public Assistance—provides assistance  primarily to state and local governments to repair and rebuild damaged  public infrastructure and includes activities such as removing debris,  repairing roads, and reconstructing government buildings, and utilities.  Pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency  Assistance Act (Stafford Act), this assistance is limited to either a   fixed-dollar amount or a percentage of costs for restoring damaged  facilities. Specifically, applicants submit requests for work which is  considered for eligibility and subsequent funding. FEMA obligates funds  for approved projects, providing specific amounts to complete discrete  work segments on projects, while state and local governments pay the  remainder based on the state’s cost share agreement with FEMA. As of  March 16, 2007, FEMA has obligated about $4.6 billion to Louisiana and  about $2 billion to Mississippi through its Public Assistance program.
section_title: Community Development Block Grants
paragraphs: HUD’s Community Development Block Grant program—so far, the largest  federal provider of long-term rebuilding assistance—received $16.7 billion  in supplemental appropriations to help the Gulf Coast states rebuild  damaged housing and other infrastructure. As shown in figure 1,  Louisiana and Mississippi were allocated the largest shares of the CDBG  appropriations, with $10.4 billion allocated to Louisiana, and another $5.5  billion allocated to Mississippi. Florida, Alabama, and Texas received the  remaining share of CDBG funds.
These formula-based grants afford states and local governments a great  deal of discretion in designing directed neighborhood revitalization,  housing rehabilitation, and economic development activities. In some  instances, Congress has provided even greater flexibility when allocating  additional CDBG funds to affected communities and states to help them  recover from presidentially declared disasters, such as the Gulf Coast  hurricanes. The Federal Coordinator for Gulf Coast Rebuilding has said  that the CDBG program allows state leaders “who are closest to the  issues” to make decisions regarding how the money should be spent.
To receive CDBG funds, HUD required that each state submit an action  plan describing how the funds would be used, including how the funds  would address long-term “recovery and restoration of infrastructure.” This  process afforded the states broad discretion in deciding how to allocate  their funding and for what purposes. To coordinate and oversee the state’s  rebuilding efforts, Louisiana created the Louisiana Recovery Authority  (LRA) within the state’s executive branch. As part of its responsibility,  the LRA was also charged with establishing spending priorities and plans  for the state’s share of CDBG funds, subject to the approval of Louisiana’s  state legislature. Mississippi developed its spending plans through the  Mississippi Development Authority (MDA)—the state’s lead economic and  community development agency within its executive branch—and the  Governor’s Office of Recovery and Renewal. In contrast to Louisiana,  Mississippi’s state legislature was not involved in the approval process for  these state funding decisions. Consistent with HUD requirements, both  Louisiana and Mississippi published their action plans to solicit public  input within their state regarding the planned use of CDBG funds.
As shown in figure 2, each state allocated the majority of its share of  CDBG funding to housing priorities. The remaining funds were allocated  primarily to economic development and infrastructure priorities.
section_title: Louisiana and Mississippi Target the Majority of Their CDBG Funds to Homeowners, but Differ in Policies and Procedures
paragraphs: With the vast number of homes that sustained damage in Louisiana and  Mississippi, each state had opted to direct the vast majority of their  housing allocations to homeowners, although each state tailored its  program to address the particular conditions in its state. A portion of these  allocations also was directed to other housing programs such as rental  housing and public housing, as well as to projects that will alleviate costs  associated with housing, such as utility and insurance costs. Louisiana and  Mississippi homeowner assistance programs are similar in that each is  designed to compensate homeowners whose homes were damaged or  destroyed by the storms. In each program, the amount of compensation  that homeowners receive depends on the value of their homes before the  storms and the amount of damage that was not covered by insurance or  other forms of assistance. However, these programs differ in their  premise and eligibility requirements.
subsections: section_title: Louisiana’s Homeowner Assistance Program Aims to Restore a Displaced Population
paragraphs: Louisiana witnessed a significant population loss in the wake of the Gulf  Coast hurricanes, with many residents living in other states and debating  whether to return to Louisiana. The LRA, in consultation with state and  federal agencies, developed a program to restore the housing  infrastructure in Louisiana, using CDBG funds from supplemental  appropriations, as described earlier. Referred to as the Road Home, this  program is designed to encourage homeowners to return to Louisiana and  begin rebuilding. Under the program, homeowners who decide to stay in  the state and rebuild in Louisiana are eligible for the full amount of grant  assistance—up to $150,000—while those leaving the state will receive a  lesser share. Accordingly, aside from the elderly, residents who choose to  sell their homes and leave the state will have their grant awards reduced  by 40 percent. Residents who do not have insurance will have their grant  awards reduced by 30 percent. Further, to receive compensation,  homeowners must comply with applicable code and zoning requirements  and FEMA advisory base flood elevations when rebuilding and agree to  use their home as a primary residence at some point during a 3-year period  after closing.
As of March 28, 2007, the Road Home program had received 119,945  applications, of which 60,675 had been verified and an award amount had  been calculated. Applicants were then asked to decide how they wanted  to proceed (for example, whether to rebuild or sell). As of that date, 25,597  applicants notified the program of their decision. Of those, the program  awarded payments to 4,808 homeowners with an average award amount of  $74,250.
section_title: Mississippi’s Homeowner Assistance Program Aims to Compensate Losses
paragraphs: In Mississippi, Katrina’s storm surge destroyed tens of thousands of  homes, many of which were located outside FEMA’s designated flood  plain and not covered by flood insurance. Mississippi developed a two- phase program to target homeowners who suffered losses due to the  storm surge. Accordingly, Phase I of the program is designed to  compensate homeowners whose properties were located outside the  floodplain and were otherwise fully insured. Eligible for up to $150,000 in  compensation, these homeowners are not subject to a requirement to  rebuild. Phase II of the program, on the other hand, is designed to award  grants to uninsured and underinsured homeowners with incomes at or  below 120 percent of the Area Median Income (AMI). Eligible for up to  $100,000 in grant awards, these homeowners must demonstrate that they  meet current building codes and standards as a condition to receiving their  grants. While they are required to rebuild in south Mississippi, they are not  required to stay in their homes once they have been rebuilt. In addition,  homeowners who do not have insurance will have their grant reduced by  30 percent, although this penalty does not apply to the “special needs”  populations as defined by the state (i.e., elderly, disabled, and low  income).
As of March 28, 2007, Mississippi had received 18,465 applications for  Phase I of its program, of which 14,974 were determined eligible for  consideration. Of those, Mississippi awarded payments to 11,894  homeowners with an average award amount of $69,669. Mississippi has yet  to complete processing applications for any of the more than 10,000  uninsured and underinsured homeowners in Phase II of the program.
It is clear that Louisiana’s and Mississippi’s homeowner assistance  programs are proceeding at different paces. While we did not assess the  causes for these differences, we have begun work as requested by the  Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee to  examine particular aspects of the CDBG program that may provide  important insights into these issues.
section_title: Louisiana and Mississippi Are Engaged in Planning Activities, While the Federal Government Has Assumed a Coordination Role
paragraphs: Restoring the region’s housing and infrastructure is taking place in the  context of broader planning and coordination activities; in Louisiana and  Mississippi, state and local governments are engaged in both short- and  long-term planning efforts. The federal government—specifically, the  Coordinator of Federal Support for the Recovery and Rebuilding of the  Gulf Coast Region—is responsible for coordinating the activities of the  numerous federal departments and agencies involved in rebuilding as well  as supporting rebuilding efforts at the state and local level. Based on our  preliminary work, I would like to describe some of these activities being  undertaken in Louisiana and Mississippi as well as the activities of the  federal government.
subsections: section_title: Planning Activities in Louisiana
paragraphs: What will be rebuilt in many areas of Louisiana remains uncertain, as a  number of planning efforts at the state and local levels are still evolving. At  the state level, the LRA has coordinated a statewide rebuilding planning  effort that included retaining professional planners and moving towards a  comprehensive rebuilding plan. To facilitate this effort, the LRA endorsed  Louisiana Speaks—a multifaceted process for helping the LRA develop a  comprehensive rebuilding plan for Southern Louisiana and for providing  rebuilding planning resources to homeowners, businesses, communities,  and parishes. For example, Louisiana Speaks developed and distributed a  pattern book for homeowners, architects, and permitting officials about  how to redesign and rebuild commercial and residential buildings.  Through this process, local design workshops—called charrettes—have  been developed to guide neighborhood planning efforts in the impacted  areas, while teams of professional planners, FEMA officials, and LRA  officials and representatives work with affected local parishes to develop  long-term parish recovery plans. Through extensive public input,  Louisiana Speaks also seeks to develop a regional plan for Southern  Louisiana, focusing on a number of critical challenges for the state’s  redevelopment. The regional plan will evaluate economic, environmental,  and social issues that affect Southern Louisiana and explore alternative  ways that growth and development can be accommodated in the context  of varying environmental, economic, and cultural changes. The state of  Louisiana will then use the regional plan to help direct rebuilding policy  and Louisiana’s long-term spending over the next 30 years.
Given the central importance of the city to Louisiana’s overall economy, I  would like to highlight planning efforts in New Orleans. After several  attempts to develop a rebuilding plan for New Orleans—including the  Bring New Orleans Back Commission, efforts initiated by the city council,  Urban Land Institute, and others—in August 2006, New Orleans embarked  on a comprehensive rebuilding planning process, which continues to date.  Referred to as the Unified New Orleans Plan (UNOP), this effort was  designed as a grassroots approach to planning to incorporate the vision of  neighborhoods and districts into multiple district-level plans and one  citywide plan that establishes goals and priorities for rebuilding the city. In  particular, the citywide plan will include priority programs and projects  for repairing and rebuilding the city over a 5- to 10-year period and will  help to inform critical funding and resource allocation decisions by state  and federal agencies. The citywide plan is currently under review by the  New Orleans Planning Commission.
section_title: Planning Activities in Mississippi
paragraphs: Mississippi created an overall plan to serve as a framework for subsequent  planning efforts in affected areas of the state. More specifically, in  September 2005—within days of the hurricanes’ landfall—Governor  Barbour created the Governor’s Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding and  Renewal to identify rebuilding and redevelopment options for the state.  Comprised of over 20 committees, the Commission held numerous public  forums across multiple counties in an effort to solicit input and public  participation from residents throughout the state. In December 2005, the  commission’s work culminated in a final report containing 238 policy  recommendations aimed at addressing a range of rebuilding issues and  concerns across the state, from infrastructure and economic development  to human services and finance. The report also addressed potential  financing mechanisms identifying state, local, private, and federal sources.  Further, the recommendations identified parties responsible for  implementing the recommendations, including the creation of new state  and regional entities to oversee selected recommendations. In addition,  Governor Barbour created the Office of Recovery and Renewal to oversee  and coordinate implementation of these recommendations. Also charged  with identifying funding for rebuilding projects, the office continues to  work with public and private entities as well as state and local  governments.
Local governments in south Mississippi are also engaged in rebuilding  planning activities. For example, modeled after the Governor’s  Commission on Renewal and Recovery, the city of Biloxi established a  volunteer steering committee to develop a rebuilding plan for the city.  Biloxi’s final rebuilding plan resulted in 162 recommendations to address  core issues affecting the city, such as infrastructure, economic  development, human services, and finance. In addition, the steering  committee commissioned a separate rebuilding plan for East Biloxi—a  low-lying area that had been heavily damaged by Hurricane Katrina—that  included 27 recommendations for addressing this area of the city. A  number of other impacted communities in south Mississippi have  undertaken planning initiatives as well.
section_title: Coordination at the Federal Level
paragraphs: In light of the magnitude of the Gulf Coast hurricanes, the administration  recognized the need to provide a mechanism to coordinate with—and  support rebuilding activities at—the federal, state, and local levels. More  specifically, in November 2005, the President issued executive orders  establishing two new entities to help provide a governmentwide response  to federal rebuilding efforts. The first of these orders created the position  of Coordinator of Federal Support for the Recovery and Rebuilding of the  Gulf Coast Region within the Department of Homeland Security.  Accordingly, the Federal Coordinator is responsible for developing  principles and goals, leading the development of federal recovery  activities, and monitoring the implementation of designated federal  support. The Coordinator also serves as the administration’s focal point  for managing information flow, requests for actions, and discussions with  Congress, state, and local governments, the private sector, and community  leaders.
Our discussions with state and local officials in Louisiana revealed a  largely positive disposition towards the Federal Coordinator and his role  in support of the Gulf Coast. During our field work, for example, Louisiana  state and local officials said the Coordinator had played an integral role in  helping to identify and negotiate an appropriate level of CDBG funding for  the state.
The second executive order established a Gulf Coast Recovery and  Rebuilding Council within the Executive Office of the President for a  period of 3 years. Chaired by the Assistant to the President for Economic  Policy, the council includes most members of the Cabinet and is charged  with examining issues related to the furtherance of the President’s policy  on recovery and rebuilding of the Gulf Coast.
section_title: Selected Questions for Congressional Oversight of Gulf Coast Rebuilding
paragraphs: Rebuilding efforts in the Gulf Coast are at a critical turning point—a time  when decisions now being made in community rooms, city halls, and state  houses will have a significant impact on the complexion and future of the  Gulf Coast. As states and localities begin to assume responsibility for  developing plans for rebuilding, there are difficult policy decisions  Congress will need to make about the federal government’s contribution  to the rebuilding effort and the role it might play over the long-term in an  era of competing priorities. Based on the preliminary work I have  discussed today, the Subcommittee way wish to consider the following  questions as it continues to carry out its critical oversight function in  reviewing Gulf Coast rebuilding efforts:    How much will it cost to rebuild the Gulf Coast and how much of this  cost should the federal government bear?
How effective are current funding delivery mechanisms—such as  Public Assistance and CDBG—and should they be modified or  supplemented by other mechanisms?
How can the federal government further partner with state and local  governments and the nonprofit and private sectors to leverage the  public investment in rebuilding?
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my  statement. I would be happy to respond to any questions you or other  members of the Subcommittee may have at this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For information about this testimony, please contact Stanley J.  Czerwinski, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6806 or  Czerwinskis@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional  Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this  statement. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include  Charlesetta Bailey, Dean Campbell, Roshni Davé, Peter Del Toro, Laura  Kunz, Brenda Rabinowitz, Michael Springer, and Diana Zinkl.
section_title: Related GAO Products
subsections: section_title: Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Recovery
paragraphs: Hurricane Katrina: Allocation and Use of $2 Billion for Medicaid and  Other Health Care Needs. GAO-07-67. February 28, 2007.
Disaster Assistance: Better Planning Needed for Housing Victims of  Catastrophic Disasters. GAO-07-88. February 28, 2007.
Small Business Administration: Additional Steps Needed to Enhance  Agency Preparedness for Future Disasters. GAO-07-114. February 14,  2007.
Small Business Administration: Response to the Gulf Coast Hurricanes  Highlights Need for Enhanced Disaster Preparedness. GAO-07-484T.  February 14, 2007.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Federal Actions Could Enhance  Preparedness of Certain State-Administered Federal Support Programs.  GAO-07-219. February 7, 2007.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita Disaster Relief: Prevention is the Key to  Minimizing Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Recovery Effort. GAO-07-418T.  January 29, 2007.
Hurricane Katrina: Status of Hospital Inpatient and Emergency  Departments in the Greater New Orleans Area. GAO-06-1003. September  29, 2006.
Catastrophic Disasters: Enhanced Leadership, Capabilities, and  Accountability Controls Will Improve the Effectiveness of the Nation’s  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery System. GAO-06-618. September 6,  2006.
Disaster Relief: Governmentwide Framework Needed to Collect and  Consolidate Information to Report on Billions in Federal Funding for  the 2005 Gulf Coast Hurricanes. GAO-06-834. September 6, 2006.
Coast Guard: Observations on the Preparation, Response, and Recovery  Missions Related to Hurricane Katrina. GAO-06-903. July 31, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: Improving Federal Contracting Practices in  Disaster Recovery Operations. GAO-06-714T. May 4, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: Planning for and Management of Federal Disaster  Recovery Contracts. GAO-06-622T. April 10, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: Status of the Health Care System in New Orleans  and Difficult Decisions Related to Efforts to Rebuild It Approximately 6  Months after Hurricane Katrina. GAO-06-576R. March 28, 2006.
Hurricane Katrina: GAO’s Preliminary Observations Regarding  Preparedness, Response, and Recovery. GAO-06-442T. March 8, 2006.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Preliminary Observations on Contracting  for Response and Recovery Efforts. GAO-06-246T. November 8, 2005.
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita: Contracting for Response and Recovery  Efforts. GAO-06-235T. November 2, 2005.
Hurricane Katrina: Providing Oversight of the Nation’s Preparedness,  Response, and Recovery Activities. GAO-05-1053T. September 28, 2005.
section_title: Other Domestic Disaster Recovery
paragraphs: Biscuit Fire Recovery Project: Analysis of Project Development, Salvage  Sales, and Other Activities. GAO-06-967. September 18, 2006.
September 11: Overview of Federal Disaster Assistance to the New York  City Area. GAO-04-72. October 31, 2003.
Disaster Assistance: Information on FEMA’s Post 9/11 Public Assistance  to the New York City Area. GAO-03-926. August 29, 2003.
Small Business Administration: Response to September 11 Victims and  Performance Measures for Disaster Lending. GAO-03-385. January 29,  2003.
September 11: Small Business Assistance Provided in Lower Manhattan  in Response to the Terrorist Attacks. GAO-03-88. November 1, 2002.
Los Angeles Earthquake: Opinions of Officials on Federal Impediments  to Rebuilding. GAO/RCED-94-193. June 17, 1994.
Hurricane Iniki Expenditures. GAO/RCED-94-132R. April 18, 1994.
Time-Critical Aid: Disaster Reconstruction Assistance—A Better  Delivery System Is Needed. GAO/NSIAD-87-1. October 16, 1986.
Guidelines for Rescuing Large Failing Firms and Municipalities.  GAO/GGD-84-34. March 29, 1984.
section_title: International Disaster Recovery
paragraphs: Rebuilding Iraq: More Comprehensive National Strategy Needed to Help  Achieve U.S. Goals. GAO-06-788. July 11, 2006.
Foreign Assistance: USAID Completed Many Caribbean Disaster  Recovery Activities, but Several Challenges Hampered Efforts. GAO-06- 645. May 26, 2006.
Foreign Assistance: USAID Has Begun Tsunami Reconstruction in  Indonesia and Sri Lanka, but Key Projects May Exceed Initial Cost and  Schedule Estimates. GAO-06-488. April 14, 2006.
Foreign Assistance: USAID’s Earthquake Recovery Program in El  Salvador Has Made Progress, but Key Activities Are Behind Schedule.  GAO-03-656. May 15, 2003.
Foreign Assistance: Disaster Recovery Program Addressed Intended  Purposes, but USAID Needs Greater Flexibility to Improve Its Response  Capability. GAO-02-787. July 24, 2002.
Foreign Assistance: Implementing Disaster Recovery Assistance in  Latin America. GAO-01-541T. March 21, 2001.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.