The United States Government Accountability Office has released a 320 page report (PDF) admitting that "DHS has made limited progress in the areas of emergency preparedness and response."
On the same issue, the US Senate’s Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs has heard The Honorable David M. Walker, Comptroller General, United States Government Accountability Office and The Honorable Paul A. Schneider, Under Secretary for Management, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
Also, since Katrina, members of Congress urged the Red Cross (PDF) to develop a new governance structure. “The latest findings confirm that Homeland Security and FEMA are dysfunctional. There have been countless reports since Katrina and many make the same recommendations, over and over" says Ben Smilowitz, Director, Disaster Accountability Project.
"Instead of hearing from Homeland Security’s top brass, Congress ought to hear from whistleblowers within the department. We are in the middle of a hurricane season that produced two category five storms in as many weeks. Homeland Security’s leadership should be investigated.”
"One thing in particular that's of specific interest to me", Ben says,"are the new whistle-blowing procedures discussed in the report. My understanding is that whistle blowing reviews are still internal. While the American Red Cross contracted out the collection of whistle- blower reports, the public still does not have access to information about what is reported..... this underscores my concern regarding a lack of public accountability in the nation's lead agency for Emergency Support Function Six (Mass Care)"
Any function so important to the well-being of all Americans (and our visitors) should be completely transparent, Ben thinks
Ben's story
After Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf Coast, Ben Smilowitz, who later founded the Disaster Accountability Project, contacted the Red Cross to volunteer and was sent to Gulfport, Mississippi
There, he tells, he managed a Client Service Center from mid-September until early October. "While the site provided as much as $20 million in 20 days to nearly 20,000 households, the actual support each household received was minimal"
Ben with Rev Harris
Could you give more details?
The center was unable to meet the needs of the community despite significant public relations and fundraising efforts by the American Red Cross misrepresenting the opposite. We wrote checks for $360 per person. $660 for two in a household, $960 for three, $1265 for four, $1565 for five or more in a household. After Katrina, $360 was petty cash for someone that lost everything. Many people walked in without anything--- everything had been destroyed in the storm.
You say that the center was unable to meet the needs of the community, explain more what you mean here please - what do you think was the problem, and what the cause
Specifically, I think that an organization fundraising this heavily is not likely to disclose its shortcomings. I see this as a great conflict of interest. Disaster survivors need disaster relief groups that will serve as advocates and be honest about the extent of their abilities and limitations in providing disaster relief services. This is why I believe that the public affairs work by the American Red Cross after Katrina was deceptive.... the public was not told about the problems, only the successes. Because the problems were shielded from public scrutiny, they were not addressed and suffering was exacerbated.
If my experience means anything, as a manager of a Red Cross "Client Service Center after Katrina, I was told that I'd be fired if I talked to the media without calling public affairs first...I continued to talk about service gaps (facts only) and was relieved of my service in the middle of the day by Red Cross security and was driven to the airport in Mobile, AL.....
To which media did you talk, and what issues/facts, did you report?
I spoke with a few reporters. One from a radio station in Syracuse, CNN showed up one day, and one more reporter, I think from an AL or L television station. I shared this information: We had and unresponsive infant at our site because of the heat and long lines, mothers bringing babies that weren't their own to move up in the line, an inability to provide tetanus shots and IVs, a complete cut in National Guard medics and 1/4 the National Guard members you had the day before, only one or two tents (provided by the damaged church next door) that were only enough to cover a small percentage of those waiting for services, no automation and less efficiency because of it, critical supply shortages on some days (i.e. no salts, meals).... I don't think I was directly quoted on much... and I wasn't negative, just eager to make sure gaps in services were made public and addressed. Also, Hurricane Rita struck Louisiana around the same time and a lot of the news shifted to Rita for a few days. Another interesting twist, is that a few days after I left, one of the security guards that drove me to the airport called me to let me know about another problem he was experiencing, related to Red Cross services being provided, with a request that I help publicize it.
You say that 'reported' gaps were addressed faster than unreported ones, can you give some examples?
Yes. I call it the Anderson Cooper effect. I remember watching him report that a number of FEMA trailers were sitting in Arkansas or Tennessee unused. A couple days later, I watched him report that because of the news story and publicity, the trailers were getting moved to the Gulf Coast and being put to use. It's that kind of publicity that often broke through the red-tape and led to problems and gaps in services getting addressed.
Did you sign any contract/agreement which bound to confidentiality while in volunteer service for the RC?
I'm sure I signed an agreement that I'd follow a code of conduct, rules, etc. However, during a crisis, critical supply shortages on some days (i.e. no salts, meals) .... staying quiet is not an option or a service to the public, even if it means getting sent home. Regardless, lives were at stake, we were providing a public function (ESF-6 of the National Response Plan) and the Red Cross was getting reimbursed by the Federal Government for billions of dollars of aid. The big rule was that we could not compromise the privacy of the clients/survivors at our site and that is something I did not do. When I asked my supervisors to document why they were sending me home in my evaluation, they would not. I was given high marks and was told I was getting sent home because my three-week service term had expired.. a direct contradiction of what I was told by the public affairs coordinator who told me that if I talked before calling public affairs, I'd get fired.
What does the Disaster Accountability Project do?
The mission of the Disaster Accountability Project is to provide accountability and oversight before, during, and after disasters through monitoring and policy research. We focus on both immediate and long-term disaster accountability and oversight. Our Disaster Accountability Monitor network attempts to verify reports that we receive via the hotline. We publicize reported gaps in services in an effort to make sure that they are addressed by the responsible organizations or agencies. After Katrina, publicized gaps in services were more likely to be addressed than those that were not. Long-Term, our website is tracking the hundreds (soon thousands) of post-Katrina recommendations to improve the nation's disaster prevention, response, relief, and recovery systems. While we are going through reports, collecting recommendations on our website, and tracking their progress, we have a public-engagement tool that allows the public to help track recommendations and submit that information. We will do our best to verify the information we receieve and post it as soon as possible. Right now, our top priority is recruiting Disaster Accountability Monitors and Bloggers and fundraising to hire a staff person and maintain the site.
How are the reports on your website verified?
We do not endorse them. But we are looking to see what has been done about the recommendations in each report. Given our nation's lack of preparedness, I think it makes sense that we consider as many options as possible and I'd like to hold our leaders accountable to that. Each recommendation on our website has citation information and with that, anyone can access the report the recommendation came from.... and people can decide for themselves how much weight they want to give each recommendation.
How is the Disaster Accountability Project funded?
Good question. We're not. The idea for this project was conceived in Fall 2005, planned between February - July 2007, and officially launched in August 2007. Hiring a staff position is now a top priority and we need funding to both achieve that goal and maintain the Project. Please help!
