Voluntary Organizations Are a Major Source of Mass Care and Other Services in Disasters and Have Significant Support Roles under the National Response Framework

As private service providers fulfilling their humanitarian missions, the  voluntary organizations in our review have historically served as  significant sources of mass care and other services in large-scale disasters  and play key roles in national response—in coordination with local, state,  and federal governments—under the National Response Framework. However, with regard to its ESF-6  responsibilities, Red Cross officials also said that while the organization  will continue to fulfill its ESF-6 responsibilities, it is changing the way it  staffs FEMA’s regional offices during disasters by assigning these  responsibilities, among others, to state disaster officers and using trained  volunteers to assist in this role. Under the Catastrophic Incident Supplement, the Red Cross Is Still Described as the Lead Agency for Mass Care, Which Is Inconsistent with Changes Made to ESF-6

While the Red Cross’s role for ESF-6 has been changed from that of a  primary agency under the National Response Plan to that of a support  agency under the new Framework, the Catastrophic Incident Supplement  still reflects its earlier role, requiring the Red Cross to direct federal mass  care resources. However, this  understanding is not currently documented. Voluntary Organizations Have Taken Steps to Expand Coverage and Strengthen Their Service Delivery Structures

In response to weaknesses in service delivery that became evident during  Hurricane Katrina, the American Red Cross, The Salvation Army, the  Southern Baptist Convention, and Catholic Charities have acted to expand  their service coverage and strengthen key aspects of their structures. The  Red Cross has reorganized its chapters and established new partnerships  with local community and faith-based organizations, particularly in rural  areas with hard-to-reach populations. Meanwhile, all four organizations, to varying degrees,  have made changes to strengthen their ability to coordinate services by  collaborating more on feeding and case management and improving their  logistical and communications systems. While Voluntary Organizations’ Resources Are Substantial, Their Sheltering and Feeding Capabilities Would Likely Fall Short of Estimated Needs in a Worst-Case Large-Scale Disaster without Government and Other Assistance

Although systematic assessments of mass care capabilities are limited, it is  evident that in large-scale, especially worst-case, catastrophic disasters,  the three mass care voluntary organizations would not likely be able to  fulfill the need for sheltering and feeding in the four metropolitan areas in  our review without government and other assistance, according to  voluntary organization officials we interviewed as well as our review of  federal and other data. In New York and Los  Angeles, officials from Catholic Charities confirmed that the lack of  personnel capable of responding to disasters is an ongoing challenge for  their organization. Voluntary Organizations Face Difficulties in Identifying and Dedicating Funding for Disaster Preparedness and Capacity Building

Identifying and dedicating funding for disaster preparedness is a challenge  for voluntary organizations in light of competing priorities, such as  meeting the immediate needs of disaster survivors. However, this  broad assessment effort has yet to fully include the sheltering capabilities  of many voluntary organizations and has not yet begun to address feeding  capabilities outside of shelters. First, to help ensure that the Catastrophic  Incident Supplement reflects the American Red Cross’s current role under  ESF-6 as a support agency for mass care, we recommended that the  Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Administrator of FEMA to  establish a time frame for updating the mass care section of the  Supplement so that it is consistent with the changes in the ESF-6 under the  new Framework, and no longer requires the Red Cross to direct federal  government resources. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

We designed our study to provide information on (1) what the roles of  major national voluntary organizations are in providing mass care and  other human services in response to large-scale disasters requiring federal  assistance, (2) what steps these organizations have taken since Katrina to  strengthen their capacity for service delivery, (3) what is known about  these organizations’ current capabilities for responding to mass care needs  in such a large-scale disaster, and (4) what the remaining challenges are  that confront voluntary organizations in preparing for such large-scale  disasters. Since the United Way of America does not provide direct  services in disasters, we did not include it in our analysis of recent  improvements to service delivery, response capabilities, and remaining  challenges. GAO-08-823. Emergency Management: Most School Districts Have Developed  Emergency Management Plans, but Would Benefit from Additional  Federal Guidance. Washington, D.C.: September 2006.
Why GAO Did This Study

Voluntary organizations have traditionally played a major role in the nation's response to disasters, but the response to Hurricane Katrina raised concerns about their ability to handle large-scale disasters. This testimony examines (1) the roles of five voluntary organizations in providing mass care and other services, (2) the steps they have taken to improve service delivery, (3) their current capabilities for responding to mass care needs, and (4) the challenges they face in preparing for large-scale disasters. This testimony is based on GAO's previous report (GAO-08-823) that reviewed the American Red Cross, The Salvation Army, the Southern Baptist Convention, Catholic Charities USA, and United Way of America; interviewed officials from these organizations and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); reviewed data and laws; and visited four high-risk metro areas--Los Angeles, Miami, New York, and Washington, D.C.

What GAO Found

The five voluntary organizations we reviewed are highly diverse in their focus and response structures. They also constitute a major source of the nation's mass care and related disaster services and are integrated into the 2008 National Response Framework. The Red Cross in particular--the only one whose core mission is disaster response--has a federally designated support role to government under the mass care provision of this Framework. While the Red Cross no longer serves as the primary agency for coordinating government mass care services--as under the earlier 2004 National Plan--it is expected to support FEMA by providing staff and expertise, among other things. FEMA and the Red Cross agree on the Red Cross's role in a catastrophic disaster, but it is not clearly documented. While FEMA recognized the need to update the 2006 Catastrophic Incident Supplement to conform with the Framework, it does not yet have a time frame for doing so. Since Katrina, the organizations we studied have taken steps to strengthen their service delivery by expanding coverage and upgrading their logistical and communications systems. The Red Cross, in particular, is realigning its regional chapters to better support its local chapters and improve efficiency and establishing new partnerships with local community-based organizations. Most recently, however, a budget shortfall has prompted the organization to reduce staff and alter its approach to supporting FEMA and state emergency management agencies. While Red Cross officials maintain that these changes will not affect improvements to its mass care service infrastructure, it has also recently requested federal funding for its governmental responsibilities. Capabilities assessments are preliminary, but current evidence suggests that in a worst-case large-scale disaster, the projected need for mass care services would far exceed the capabilities of these voluntary organizations without government and other assistance--despite voluntary organizations' substantial resources locally and nationally. Voluntary organizations also faced shortages in trained volunteers, as well as other limitations that affected their mass care capabilities. Meanwhile, FEMA's initial assessment does not necessarily include the sheltering capabilities of many voluntary organizations and does not yet address feeding capabilities outside of shelters. In addition, the ability to assess mass care capabilities and coordinate in disasters is currently hindered by a lack of standard terminology and measures for mass care resources, and efforts are under way to develop such standards. Finding and training more personnel, dedicating more resources to preparedness, and working more closely with local governments are ongoing challenges for voluntary organizations. A shortage of staff and volunteers was most commonly cited, but we also found they had difficulty seeking and dedicating funds for preparedness, in part because of competing priorities. However, the guidance for FEMA preparedness grants to states and localities was also not sufficiently explicit with regard to using such funds to support the efforts of voluntary organizations.