We found that FEMA provided nearly $17 million in potentially improper and/or fraudulent rental assistance payments to individuals already housed in other accommodations that FEMA provided through other disaster assistance programs. The Stafford Act prohibits FEMA from providing rental assistance payments under IHP to an applicant if temporary housing has been provided by any other source. Despite this prohibition, FEMA did not have an effective process in place to compare IHP registrant data with data on individuals already housed in FEMA- purchased trailers and FEMA-provided apartments. FEMA also failed to adequately advise victims that they were prohibited from receiving rental assistance for the same period they occupied rent-free housing. Consequently, FEMA improperly paid nearly $17 million to over 8,600 registrants after they had already moved into FEMA trailers. While the quality of FEMA data did not allow us to make similar calculations for the amount and number of individuals receiving rental assistance payments after they had been housed in FEMA-provided apartments, the amount could be substantial. In the aftermath of hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA used various programs to house displaced victims, including financial assistance for rent and rent-free housing. Rent-free housing included trailers that FEMA purchased and apartments that FEMA either paid for directly or reimbursed state and local governments for after they paid landlords on behalf of the disaster victims. According to a FEMA official, to expedite apartment rental assistance, FEMA provided payments to over 100 different state and local governments for the provision of rent-free apartments. By comparing information in two of FEMA's databases--the FEMA Response and Recovery Applicant Tracking System (FRRATS) and the National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS)--we calculated that FEMA improperly made rental assistance payments-- intended to cover out-of-pocket rental expenses--totaling nearly $17 million to over 8,600 individuals after they had moved into FEMA-provided trailers. Some received multiple rental assistance payments even after they moved into free FEMA-provided housing. In some instances, the payments were made based on potentially fraudulent claims because recipients typically have to certify to FEMA that they continued to need IHP rental assistance. Limitations in FEMA apartment data did not allow us to determine the magnitude of potentially duplicate rental assistance payment to individuals housed in rent-free apartments. In contrast to trailer data, which FEMA maintains in the FRRATS database, we could not validate accuracy or completeness of apartment data. According to FEMA officials, the accuracy of apartment data was questionable because it came from the over 100 state and local authorities who assisted in delivering housing aid for FEMA. The completeness of data was also at issue because FEMA did not ask states to collect registration data from individuals in rent-free apartments until well after the aid was provided, and therefore individuals who may have left the rent-free apartments were not included in the data. Table 1 provides illustrative examples of duplicate rental assistance payments to registrants in FEMA trailers and rent-free apartments. Case 1 relates to a series of potentially improper and/or fraudulent IHP rental assistance payments totaling $46,000 made to 10 registrants already housed in rent-free housing. In this case, FEMA paid nearly $46,000 in rental assistance to 10 residents of an apartment complex in Plano, Texas, from September 2005 through June 2006. However, at about the same time period (October 2005 through March 2006), the city of Plano made payments totaling more than $74,000 directly to the apartment, for which it received reimbursements from FEMA. Of the total amount paid, $46,000 was duplicative and therefore potentially improper and/or fraudulent. Our review of FEMA records indicated that 7 of the 10 individuals certified to FEMA that they were in need of rental assistance, even after they had been provided with free housing. Further, FEMA records showed that 7 provided rental receipts and/or leases that clearly indicated that the rent was paid by the city of Plano. Case 5 relates to a family of five, all of whom registered for IHP using the same damaged address. Four registrations were duplicative and therefore payments on those registrations are potentially improper and/or fraudulent. Further, despite the fact that FEMA had installed a trailer on the damaged property in January 2006, FEMA continued to send rental assistance payments in late January, February, and April 2006 totaling approximately $5,500. Further, a family member informed us that the family had moved back into the damaged home prior to the trailer being delivered. Consequently, when the trailer was delivered, it simply increased the living space for the household, and it was used by a family member who lived in the house prior to the hurricane. Further, evidence we gathered during the course of the investigation indicated that a rental receipt provided to FEMA to justify continued need for rental assistance was fictitious, and that the family member who submitted the receipt had never paid rent to the supposed landlord. In addition to the $5,500 in improper duplicative rental assistance payments, we found that the family members also received at least $6,000 in other potentially improper and/or fraudulent IHP payments arising from the duplicate registrations. In the course of apartment-related audit and investigative work, we also identified 14 individuals who improperly received more than $75,000 in disaster assistance using one apartment building as their hurricane- damaged address, even though the building had minimal damage and residents were not forced to evacuate. We provide further details in appendix II. FEMA made nearly $20 million in duplicate payments to thousands of individuals who submitted claims for damages to the same primary residences from both hurricanes Katrina and Rita. With few exceptions, FEMA officials explained that victims of both disasters should not receive duplicate benefits for the same necessities and/or damages to the same property. However, in order to process disaster claims more quickly, FEMA disabled a system edit check in NEMIS that could have alerted FEMA officials when the same individual applied for both disasters using the same identifying information. This system change resulted in nearly $20 million in duplicate payments being made based on duplicate registrations for hurricanes Katrina and Rita. In October 2005, FEMA officials informed us that the small amount of time between the impact of hurricanes Katrina and Rita had necessitated the issuance of new policy to prevent duplicate claims for the same damaged property for both hurricanes. FEMA officials said that, with few exceptions, the new policy specified that registrants were entitled to one payment for the same damage and/or need. FEMA explained to us that this was necessary because most individuals did not have an opportunity to replace and/or repair damages they incurred from Hurricane Katrina before Hurricane Rita struck, and because their displacement was likely caused by both hurricanes. At the time, FEMA officials informed us that they had available a system edit check in NEMIS intended to alert FEMA system administrators when the same individual applies for assistance for both disasters, so that FEMA personnel could perform a manual review prior to payments being made. Despite having a control available, we identified through our review of FEMA's NEMIS that FEMA made payments to about 7,600 individuals who used the same social security number (SSN) and hurricane-damaged addresses for their Hurricane Katrina registration that they used for their Hurricane Rita registration. Subsequently, FEMA officials informed us that these duplicate payments occurred because FEMA disabled the system edit check feature. FEMA stated that they deactivated the system edit check in order to process disaster claims more quickly, because the manual review process that they had intended for these duplicate registrations would have held up many eligible payments. Because of this, FEMA paid nearly $20 million in duplicate payments to individuals who submitted duplicate registrations using the same SSNs and damaged addresses. The nearly $20 million includes duplicate payments for all areas of IHP assistance, including expedited assistance, rental assistance, housing replacement payments, or a combination of these. In five of the six cases where we performed investigative work, the same individual received duplicate payments to replace the same damaged property. The individuals also failed to provide FEMA with evidence that they had replaced the items or conducted repair work after Hurricane Katrina, only to have those items or that work destroyed again by Hurricane Rita. In all cases, FEMA performed its first physical inspection of the damaged property after the passing of both hurricanes. In addition to other IHP payment types, all six individuals we investigated also received IHP personal property payments to compensate them for lost or destroyed household items, twice--once for Hurricane Katrina and again for Hurricane Rita. In one case, an individual received multiple payments for more than $27,000--over the $26,200 cap--for personal property replacement alone. In total, this individual received more than $51,800 in IHP assistance, of which at least $25,000 is potentially improper and/or fraudulent. According to FEMA records, another registrant received two housing replacement payments of $10,500 each, despite the fact that the individual had only one property to replace. FEMA made at least $3 million dollars of improper and potentially fraudulent payments to nonqualified aliens who were not eligible for IHP financial assistance. U.S. law specifically prohibits nonqualified aliens, such as foreign students and workers on temporary visas, from receiving financial assistance in case of disaster. However, FEMA did not have implementing controls in place, such as an agreement in place with other government agencies, such as the Social Security Administration (SSA), to identify nonqualified aliens and prevent them from receiving such assistance. Consequently, FEMA paid at least $3 million to foreign students from four selected universities. FEMA also made payments to other nonqualified aliens, such as workers on temporary visas. However, because of a lack of data on other nonqualified aliens, we were unable determine the magnitude of any such improper payments. FEMA made such payments even in cases in which FEMA received information indicating that the alien applying for assistance was not qualified to receive financial disaster assistance. The destruction caused by hurricanes Katrina and Rita affected thousands of college students in the fall of 2005. As with other U.S. citizens and qualified aliens, college students who were able to demonstrate losses were eligible to receive IHP payments to assist them in recovering from the disaster. However, U.S. law and FEMA policy specifically prohibits students in the United States on student visas from receiving IHP assistance. By comparing data provided by four universities in Louisiana and Texas against registrant information in NEMIS, we determined that FEMA improperly provided at least $3 million in financial assistance, in the form of IHP payments, to more than 500 students in the United States on student visas. This amount could understate the total payments to ineligible foreign students because we requested information on international students from only four of the colleges and universities in the areas affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Our interviews of school officials and several of the ineligible students stated that they received misleading information from FEMA personnel. Specifically, officials at several universities informed us that FEMA personnel actively encouraged all students--including international students--to register for IHP assistance. Despite being ineligible for financial disaster assistance, many international students with whom we spoke stated that FEMA officials told them they were eligible to receive IHP payments and should apply for aid. We found that FEMA made these payments despite evidence provided to FEMA by students--specifically their student visas--that indicated that they were not eligible for cash assistance. Further, consistent with a finding we reported on previously, FEMA could have identified these students if it had validated their identities with SSA prior to issuing IHP payments. In fact, more than 400 of the students reported as foreign by the four universities were also identified by SSA as non-U.S. citizens. Table 2 displays some examples of ineligible students and payments they received. Case 4 concerns a student in New Orleans who received more than $16,000 in FEMA payments, including payments for expedited assistance, rental assistance, and personal property replacement. According to NEMIS data, the student's damaged property was in the hardest-hit area of the city, and therefore the student's qualification for IHP was performed through geospatial mapping, while his identity was also validated through a third-party contractor. The student told us that he repeatedly informed FEMA personnel that he was an international student on an F1 visa, and was told each time that he qualified for assistance. In addition to receiving rental payments from FEMA, the student also received a trailer in April 2006. The student stated that he received a letter from FEMA in August 2006 asking for the money back. Further, he is concerned because a FEMA representative informed him that he was not immune to legal action for receiving payments he was ineligible for, despite the fact that he had informed FEMA of his status all along. Case 6 involves an international student in New Orleans who received nearly $11,000 in FEMA payments. The student had a student visa from Brazil, and stated on his IHP registration that he owned a home in the New Orleans area. The registrant informed us that he applied via phone, and that he took care to inform the FEMA personnel that he was an international student. According to this student, in this and subsequent conversations with FEMA employees (one of whom was a supervisor at a relief center he visited), he was repeatedly told that he qualified for assistance despite his international student status. Our review of FEMA records confirmed the student's assertion that he provided FEMA with a copy of his visa. In fact, a copy of his visa was scanned into NEMIS and had a note next to it stating "Proof of Qualified Alien," despite the fact that the visa clearly showed he was an international student and therefore ineligible. In case 8, a student in New Orleans at the time of Hurricane Katrina received three payments totaling $6,500 covering expedited assistance, rental assistance, and personal property replacement even though he repeatedly told FEMA representatives that he was an international student. The student registered for aid via FEMA's Web site using a valid SSN. The student told us that the SSN was given to him because he was allowed to work in the United States. He stated that during the registration process, he did not find any information that made him aware that he was not eligible for assistance. After registering online, he stated that he also contacted FEMA call center employees and made them aware that he was not a U.S. citizen and was in the country on a student visa, and said he was told by call center employees that he was eligible. The student informed us that during an inspection process, the inspector certified that he was a qualified alien even after he showed the inspector his visa. He subsequently received more than $2,000 for property replacement based on the inspection. However, because the student's visa was not scanned into FEMA's system, we could not corroborate his statement that he repeatedly informed FEMA of his status. We also found that weaknesses in FEMA's controls resulted in improper and/or potentially fraudulent IHP payments being made to other nonqualified aliens, such as workers in the United States on temporary work visas. Because of the unavailability of detailed data on other nonqualified aliens, we were unable to calculate the magnitude of this problem. However, our investigative work uncovered 25 cases where FEMA provided improper payments to nonqualified temporary workers. Specifically, we found that FEMA provided 50 disaster assistance payments totaling nearly $156,000 to 25 individuals who worked at a crab processing facility, despite the fact that FEMA records clearly showed that 11 individuals were in the United States on temporary work visas, and were therefore ineligible for IHP assistance. These payments included expedited assistance payments of $2,000 and payments of over $10,000 for replacement of property. Some registrants received as much as $15,000 in IHP payments. In one instance, the registrant's file at FEMA contained a copy of a FEMA flier specifically indicating that aliens in the United States on work visas were not eligible for IHP. Next to the flier was a copy of the registrant's temporary work visa. Despite clearly having evidence that he was ineligible for IHP payments, FEMA paid this registrant more than $15,000 in IHP assistance. Although we were not able to validate that all 25 registrants possessed work visas, we were informed by the registrants' employer that all 25 employees brought their work visa documents with them to FEMA when they filed the disaster claims. However, data from SSA indicated that only 14 of the 25 employees used valid SSNs on their FEMA application. The remaining 11 individuals provided SSNs to FEMA that were never issued or belonged to other individuals in order to get IHP assistance. Payments made to the 11 workers who submitted fictitious information to FEMA are therefore potentially fraudulent. We previously reported that inadequate preventive controls related to the IHP application process resulted in an estimated $1 billion of potentially improper and/or fraudulent payments through February 2006. As of November 2006, FEMA had detected through its own processes about $290 million in overpayments and had collected nearly $7 million of the about $290 million identified as improper. Collection of only $7 million of an estimated $1 billion of potentially improper and/or fraudulent payments clearly supports the basic point we have previously made, that fraud prevention is far more effective and less costly than detection and monitoring. In June 2006, we testified that an estimated $1 billion was potentially improper and/or fraudulent. We derived this estimate from statistical sampling work we conducted on registrations submitted to FEMA as of mid-February 2006. We also reported that this estimate potentially understates the total potentially improper and/or fraudulent payments because the scope of our statistical sampling work did not include verifying for insurance or actual property damage, among others things. As of November 2006, FEMA reported that it had identified about $290 million in overpayments to nearly 60,000 registrants. This overpayment, which FEMA refers to as recoupments, represents the improper payments that FEMA reported it had detected and for which it had issued collection letters. According to FEMA officials, the payments identified as improper were based on cases referred to the fraud hotlines and registrations that met specific criteria of being more likely improper. Although FEMA had identified about $290 million in overpayments, to date FEMA had collected nearly $7 million. We did not validate the potential collection amount. However, the amount that FEMA had collected on overpayments related to hurricanes Katrina and Rita supports our prior statements that detective controls, while an important element of a fraud prevention program, are more costly and not as effective as preventive controls. As FEMA's historical experience demonstrated, once a payment had been disbursed because of weak preventive controls, it is difficult to identify individuals who received the improper payments, contact those individuals, and collect on those payments. As discussed previously, when system edit checks that should occur during the processing of disaster registration are circumvented, significant improper payments occur that require extensive data mining and follow-up actions to identify and recover improper payments. In addition to the difficulties in collecting overpayments, there are limitations to the ability of detective controls in identifying all instances of overpayments. For example, our conversations with several foreign students indicate that although some have received recoupment letters, others have not. The limitations of detective controls are demonstrated through GAO's own experience with the FEMA registration, payment, and recoupment processes. As we testified previously, GAO submitted a number of registrations using false identities and fictitious addresses to test the effectiveness of FEMA's internal controls. We also testified that we received payments on registrations we submitted. However, to date, we had not received recoupment notices from FEMA indicating that it had identified the undercover registrations that GAO submitted. After our last testimony in June of 2006, we received another payment of more than $3,200 for rental assistance on a property that did not exist. In total, we received six payments on five registrations using falsified information, without receiving any recoupment notices from FEMA. We found weak accountability over FEMA property bought for hurricanes Katrina and Rita relief efforts using government purchase cards. Our investigation revealed that DHS overstated the number of items FEMA had actually located on the day of our July16, 2006, testimony and that additional items are missing. In total, of the 246 laptops, printers, flat- bottom boats, and GPS units that we investigated for this testimony, 85 items are missing and presumed lost or stolen. Moreover, during the course of our investigation, we found that FEMA did not have titles to any of the 20 flat-bottom boats it purchased for hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The fact that FEMA could not locate two of the flat-bottom boats raises additional concerns about DHS's accountable property controls. As part of our July 19, 2006, testimony, we reported that poor controls over property acquired with DHS purchase cards may have resulted in lost or misappropriated assets. Specifically, we reported that FEMA could not account for 143 items purchased in September and October 2005 for Hurricane Katrina and Hurricane Rita relief efforts. On the morning of the testimony, DHS sent your office an e-mail indicating that 87 of the 143 items had been found. At the hearing, DHS's Chief Financial Officer reiterated that most of the missing property had been found, but acknowledged that the items had not yet been physically verified. Our investigation revealed that DHS's July 19 e-mail overstated the number of items FEMA had located. By October 2006, a year after the property was purchased, we could only account for 79 of the 87 items that FEMA claimed it had found. In addition, of the 143 items that we reported as missing in our July testimony, 48 are still missing and presumed lost or stolen. Moreover, 37 of items were missing from an additional 103 new items we investigated. In total, of the 246 items we investigated for this testimony, 85 items (34 percent) are lost or stolen. A November 27 DHS memo supports the results of this investigation, acknowledging that many items purchased for hurricane relief efforts are still missing. Figure 1 details the results of our investigative work as of October 16, 2006. In our July 2006 testimony, we also reported on several issues surrounding the purchase of 20 flat-bottom boats needed for hurricane relief efforts. Specifically, we found that FEMA paid $208,000--about twice the retail price--to a broker, who in turn obtained the boats (17 new and 3 used) from several different retailers. Further, although the broker billed FEMA and was paid for all 20 of the boats, he failed to pay one retailer that provided 11 of the boats. The retailer subsequently reported the boats as stolen and did not provide FEMA with title to the boats. Consequently, in our testimony, we concluded that FEMA paid for, but did not receive title to, at least 11 of the boats. However, upon further investigation, we found that FEMA also did not have title to the remaining 9 boats. Thus, FEMA did not have title to any of the boats. Specifically, our searches for boat titles found that no transfer of title and/or registration had taken place on any of the 17 new boats, that is, the serial numbers were "not on file." Of the remaining 3 used boats, title searches revealed that all 3 remain registered to their previous owners. Furthermore, FEMA could not provide us with any information about the two boats that are still not in its possession as of October 2006. However, using the serial numbers and manufacturer information on the make and model, local law enforcement located one of the boats in a shed at the house of its previous owner. According to the previous owner, he sold the boat to FEMA and delivered it to the New Orleans Convention Center in September 2005. In March 2006, he received a call from the New Orleans Convention Center requesting that he retrieve his abandoned boat. When he went to retrieve the boat, he found that the tires on the boat's trailer were flat, the boat's battery had been removed, and the anchor rope had been cut. This boat is one of the three still registered under its previous owner's name and no application for transfer of title has been recorded. Ineffective preventive controls for FEMA's IHP have resulted in substantial fraudulent and improper payments. The additional examples of potentially fraudulent and improper payments in our testimony today further show that our estimate of $1 billion in improper and/or fraudulent payments through February is likely understated. With respect to property bought with government purchase cards, items not found 1 year after they were purchased, and over 8 months after we selected them for investigation, shows that ineffective FEMA property accountability controls resulted in lost or stolen computers, printers, and GPS units. We have provided 25 recommendations to DHS and FEMA to improve management of IHP and the purchase card program. FEMA and DHS had fully concurred with 19 recommendations, and substantially or partially concurred with the remaining 6 recommendations. DHS and FEMA also reported that they have taken actions, or plan to take actions, to implement many of our recommendations; however, we have not determined if these actions adequately address our recommendations. If properly implemented, our prior recommendations should help to address control weaknesses identified in this testimony. As with prior work, we will refer cases we deem to be potentially fraudulent to the Katrina Fraud Task Force for further investigation. Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes my statement. Special Agent Ryan and I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other Members of the Committee may have at this time. For further information about this testimony, please contact Gregory D. Kutz at (202) 512-7455 or kutzg@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this testimony. The individuals who made major contributions to this testimony were Kord Basnight, Gary Bianchi, Matthew Brown, Norman Burrell, Jennifer Costello, Thomas Dawson, Dennis Fauber, Christopher Forys, Alberto Garza, Adam Hatton, Christine Hodakievic, Ryan Holden, Jason Kelly, John Ledford, Barbara Lewis, Jonathan Meyer, Andrew McIntosh, Kristen Plungas, John Ryan, Viny Talwar, Tuyet-Quan Thai, and Matthew Valenta. To assess whether the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided potentially improper and/or fraudulent rental payments to individuals at the same time it was providing the registrant's free lodging in FEMA trailers and rent-free (i.e., FEMA-provided) apartments, we interviewed FEMA officials, reviewed Title 8 of the United States Code, and reviewed the Stafford Act (Pub. L. 93-288) and its implementing regulations. We obtained the FEMA Individuals and Households Program (IHP) databases as of June 2006 and data on individuals residing in FEMA trailers and rent-free apartments. We performed data reliability assessment for these databases. In addition, we validated that the FEMA IHP database was complete and reliable by comparing the total payment against reports FEMA provided to the Appropriations Committee on hurricanes Katrina and Rita disbursements. We then compared FEMA paid housing data to IHP registration data to determine whether FEMA provided duplicate benefits to the same registrants. We also conducted field visits to Texas and Louisiana to view the property and interview individuals who received IHP payments after they had moved into free housing. While we were able to determine the number of individuals staying in FEMA trailers who received duplicate housing assistance, the data related to individuals staying in FEMA-provided apartments were not sufficiently reliable for us to perform the same analysis. To determine whether FEMA made duplicate payments to individuals who claimed damages for both hurricanes Katrina and Rita using the same damaged addresses, we compared the social security numbers and damaged addresses maintained in the FEMA databases for hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and reviewed National Emergency Management Information System (NEMIS) data on selected individuals. To determine whether FEMA made potentially improper payments to ineligible foreign students, we contacted officials at four Louisiana and Texas universities and obtained the names and identifying numbers of enrolled foreign students. We compared the listing of students provided by the universities to FEMA payment data. We also interviewed foreign students at those four schools receiving IHP assistance in order to determine what guidance FEMA provided them on eligibility. We also conducted investigative work to determine whether FEMA made improper and potentially fraudulent payments to nonqualified aliens, such as those in the United States on work visas. Because we did not receive data on all foreign students and nonqualified aliens in the United States, we were not able to determine the magnitude of potentially improper and fraudulent payments to these individuals. Further, because of data availability issues, our work was not designed to identify illegal aliens receiving improper payments. We also received FEMA data on its recoupment program, but did not validate data on identified overpayments and collections provided to us by FEMA officials. To conduct our investigation into the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) purchase card program, we traveled to New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and Fort Worth, Texas, in September 2006, to physically inspect selected property. If we could not physically inspect the property during our visit, we requested that DHS, FEMA, or the New Orleans Police Department send us a clear photograph of the property and its serial number as proof of possession. We ultimately requested that photographic evidence be sent to us no later than October 16, 2006, nearly a year after most of the property was acquired. To obtain information on the case study detailed in appendix II, we reviewed data from the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Financial Management Service, FEMA's NEMIS database, the Texas Department of Motor Vehicles, the Social Security Administration, and the U.S. Postal Service, and we conducted field investigations. We conducted our audit and investigations from June 2006 through November 2006. We conducted our audit work in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and conducted our investigative work in accordance with the standards prescribed by the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. When Hurricane Katrina came ashore in late August 2005, 15 of the 16 total units in a single Gulfport, Mississippi, apartment building were occupied by tenants. The landlord of this building told us that damage to the apartment building was minimal. Although one apartment had a broken window and some personal property damage, the only real effect of the hurricane was water damage from rain and water seepage from missing roof tiles. The landlord also said that anyone who left after Hurricane Katrina did so voluntarily, and that they were not required (e.g., forced) to leave as a result of damage by the storm. During a visit to the apartment building, we spoke to the landlord about an individual we identified as receiving potentially improper rental assistance payments. Subsequently, we conducted additional data mining on the apartment address to determine whether other tenants applied for and received FEMA disaster assistance. We found that 8 tenants of this apartment building received FEMA disaster assistance. The remaining 7 tenants did not file any disaster assistances claims, as a result of being displaced because of uninhabitable or inaccessible living quarters as a result of Hurricane Katrina. In addition, we were able to confirm with the building landlord that 6 additional individuals who did not live at the apartment building at the time of hurricane Katrina also made disaster assistance claims. Table 3 lists 14 individuals who improperly received disaster assistance using the apartment building as their hurricane- damaged address.

Summary:
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed homes and displaced millions of individuals. While the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) continues to respond to this disaster, GAO's previous work identified significant control weaknesses--specifically in FEMA's Individuals and Households Program (IHP) and in the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) purchase card program--resulting in significant fraud, waste, and abuse. Today's testimony will address whether FEMA provided improper and potentially fraudulent (1) rental assistance payments to registrants at the same time it was providing free housing via trailers and apartments; (2) duplicate assistance payments to individuals who claimed damages to the same property for both hurricanes Katrina and Rita; and (3) IHP payments to non-U.S. residents who did not qualify for IHP. This testimony will also discuss (1) the importance of fraud identification and prevention, and (2) the results of our investigation into property FEMA bought using DHS purchase cards. To address these objectives, GAO data mined and analyzed FEMA records and interviewed city officials, university officials, and foreign students. GAO also traveled to Louisiana and Texas to inspect selected property items and to investigate improper housing payments to individuals living in FEMA-provided housing. FEMA continued to lose tens of millions of dollars through potentially improper and/or fraudulent payments from both hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These payments include $17 million in rental assistance paid to individuals to whom FEMA had already provided free housing through trailers or apartments. In one case, FEMA provided free housing to 10 individuals in apartments in Plano, Texas, while at the same time it sent these individuals $46,000 to cover out-of-pocket housing expenses. In addition, several of these individuals certified to FEMA that they needed rental assistance. FEMA made nearly $20 million in duplicate payments to thousands of individuals who claimed the damages to the same property from both hurricanes Katrina and Rita. FEMA also made millions in potentially improper and/or fraudulent payments to nonqualified aliens who were not eligible for IHP. For example, FEMA paid at least $3 million to more than 500 ineligible foreign students at four universities in the affected areas. This amount likely understates the total payments to ineligible foreign students because it does not cover all colleges and universities in the area. FEMA also provided potentially improper and/or fraudulent IHP assistance to other ineligible non-U.S. residents, despite having documentation indicating their ineligibility. Finally, FEMA's difficulties in identifying and collecting improper payments further emphasized the importance of implementing an effective fraud, waste, and abuse prevention system. For example, GAO previously estimated improper and potentially fraudulent payments related to the IHP application process to be $1 billion through February 2006. As of November 2006, FEMA identified about $290 million in improper payments and collected about $7 million. GAO's previous work on the DHS purchase cards also showed significant problems with property accountability. Of 246 items we investigated that FEMA purchased for hurricane relief efforts using DHS's purchase cards, 85 items--or 34 percent--are still missing and presumed lost or stolen.