Hurricane Katrina: Social-Demographic Characteristics of Impacted Areas

CRS Report for Congress
Hurricane Katrina: Social-Demographic
Characteristics of Impacted Areas
November 4, 2005
Thomas Gabe, Gene Falk, and Maggie McCarty
Domestic Social Policy Division
Virginia W. Mason
Congressional Cartography Program
Library of Congress

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Hurricane Katrina: Social-Demographic
Characteristics of Impacted Areas
Summary
On the morning of August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the
Gulf Coast between the major cities of New Orleans, Louisiana, to the west, and
Mobile, Alabama, to the east. Along the Gulf Coast and inland in the swath of the
storm, Hurricane Katrina impacted hundreds of thousands of families in three states
(Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) and contributed to the deaths of more than
1,000 people. While CRS estimates that 5.8 million people in three states may have
experienced hurricane-force winds, the majority rode out the storm safely. Property
damage, loss of life, and sizeable displacement of the population appear to have been
largely concentrated along the Gulf Coast within a 100-mile radius of where the
storm made landfall. Within this area, damage due to high winds and storm surge
resulted in significant devastation, but flooding, largely resulting from breached
levees and flood walls, affected the greatest number of people, with much of New
Orleans flooded.
CRS estimates that 700,000 or more people may have been acutely impacted by
Hurricane Katrina, as a result of residing in areas that flooded or sustained significant
structural damage. This estimate is based on geographical analysis of Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood and damage assessments and year
2000 Census data. The estimates in this report are subject to the methods and
assumptions used. Other agencies and organizations are conducting assessments
using alternative and complementary methodologies; estimates may differ depending
upon the specific methodologies used. In the case of this analysis, the estimates
reflect the numbers and characteristics of people, families, and households in 2000,
who lived in areas that suffered damage or flooding from the hurricane in 2005.
The analysis shows that the Louisiana parishes of Orleans and St. Bernard were
especially hard hit by flooding, with an estimated 77% of Orleans’s population
affected, and nearly all residents of St. Bernard. In Mississippi, 55% of Hancock
County’s population is estimated to have been affected by flooding and/or structural
damage, and in the more populous Harrison County, about 19% of its population.
In Louisiana, an estimated 645,000 people may have been displaced by the hurricane
(based on 2000 Census data), and in Mississippi, 66,000.
Hurricane Katrina had varying impacts on the population. CRS estimates that
of the people most likely to have been displaced by the hurricane, about half lived in
New Orleans. Due to the city’s social and economic composition, the storm
impacted heavily on the poor and African Americans. CRS estimates that one-fifth
of those displaced by the storm were likely to have been poor, and 30% had incomes
that were below 1½ times the poverty line. African Americans are estimated to have
accounted for approximately 44% of the storm victims. An estimated 88,000 elderly
persons (age 65 and older), many with strong community ties, may have been
displaced, along with 183,000 children, many of whom were just starting the school
year when the storm struck. Katrina’s impact on individuals, families, and
communities will be felt for years to come, and will take time to fully comprehend.
This report will not be updated.

Contents
In troduction ......................................................1
Structure of the Report......................................3
Hurricane Katrina FEMA Declared Disaster Areas....................5
Hurricane Katrina — Estimates of Population Affected in
Impacted Areas...........................................5
FEMA Damage Assessment Criteria...........................6
Population Estimates.......................................7
Flooding ................................................7
Catastrophic Structural Damage.............................11
Extensive and Moderate Damage............................11
Hurricane Katrina — Social Impacts..................................13
Mass Displacement...........................................14
Disproportionate Effects on Minorities and the Poor.................14
The Aged...................................................17
Home Ownership Status and Community Ties..................17
Living Arrangements......................................17
Disability Status..........................................17
Poverty Status...........................................18
Vehicle Availability.......................................18
Children ....................................................18
Child Poverty Rates in areas Acutely Affected by
Hurricane Katrina.....................................18
Living Arrangements of Children in Hurricane-Affected Areas.....19
Working-Age Adults..........................................20
Labor Force Participation...................................20
Employment Population Ratio...............................20
Education ...............................................21
Aggregate Earnings Losses.................................22
Homeownership and Housing Characteristics.......................22
Status of Other Assessments........................................24
Appendix A. Methodology.........................................27
FEMA Flooding and Damage Assessments.........................28
Recategorization into Non-Overlapping Areas..................28
Apportion Census Block Populations by Flood/Damaged Areas....28
Apportionment Rates Applied to Census 2000 Tract-Level Data........29
Regrouping of Areas for Analysis................................29
List of Figures
Figure 1. Hurricane Katrina: Storm Track and Counties Designated
Eligible for Disaster Assistance (FEMA Individual Assistance),
with 2004 County Population Density..............................2

and/or Structural Damage (Based on FEMA Flood and
Damage Assessments)..........................................4
Figure 3. Hurricane Katrina: FEMA Damage Assessment — New Orleans
and Vicinity .................................................10
Figure 4. Hurricane Katrina: FEMA Damage Assessment — Mississippi
Gulf Coast, Bay St. Louis to Biloxi and Vicinity....................12
Figure 5. Hurricane Katrina: Comparative Impact of Flooding and
Storm Damage in Louisiana and Mississippi(Estimated Number of
People Impacted based on 2000 Census Data)......................13
Figure 6. Poverty Rates for the United States, Alabama, Louisiana,
and Mississippi, and Hurricane Katrina Flood or Storm-Damaged
Areas (Based on 2000 Census Data)..............................15
Figure 7. Estimated Number of Persons in Hurricane Katrina Flood or
Storm-Damaged Areas, by Race and Poverty Status in 1999
(Population for whom Poverty Status is Determined based on
2000 Census Data)............................................16
Figure 8. Employment-Population Ratios for Youth and Prime
Working-Age Men and Women in Hurricane Katrina Flood or
Storm-Damaged Areas Compared with National Averages (Based on
2000 Census Data)............................................21
Figure 9. Educational Attainment of Younger Adults (Age 18 to 34)
in Hurricane Katrina Flood or Storm-Damaged Areas Compared to
U.S. Metropolitan Areas Overall (Based on 2000 Census Data).........22
Figure 10. Percent of People Living in Owner-Occupied Housing in
Hurricane Katrina Flood or Storm-Damaged Areas Compared to
the Nation (Based on 2000 Census Data)..........................23
List of Tables
Table 1. Estimated Number of Persons Living in Counties with Assessed Damage
or Flooding From Hurricane Katrina and Number Living in Areas with
Significant Flooding or Damage(Based on FEMA Flood and Damage
Assessments and Census 2000 Population)..........................8
Table 2. Number and Poverty Rate for Children in Hurricane Katrina Flooded or
Damaged Areas..............................................18
Table 3. Own Children in Hurricane Katrina Flood and Storm-Damaged Areas, by
Age and Family Type..........................................19
Chris Zogby, of the Congressional Research Service Technology Office, helped
convert Census 2000 summary data files into a compatible format for use in this
analysis.

Hurricane Katrina: Social-Demographic
Characteristics of Impacted Areas
Introduction
On the morning of August 29, 2005, Hurricane Katrina made landfall on the
Gulf Coast between the major cities of New Orleans, Louisiana, to the west, and
Mobile, Alabama, to the east. Along the Gulf Coast and inland in the swath of the
storm, Hurricane Katrina impacted hundreds of thousands of families in three states
(Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama) and contributed to the deaths of more than
1,000 people.¹ While CRS estimates that 5.8 million people in three states may have
experienced hurricane-force winds, the majority rode out the storm safely. The
geographic range of Katrina’s hurricane-force winds corresponds quite closely with
the 88 counties declared as disaster areas by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA)². (See Figure 1, depicting Hurricane Katrina’s storm track,
estimated extent of hurricane and tropical force winds, counties designated FEMA
disaster areas, and county population density.³) Property damage, loss of life, and
sizeable displacement of population appear to have been largely concentrated within
a 100-mile radius of where the storm made landfall. Within this area, damage due
to high winds and storm surge resulted in significant devastation, but flooding,
largely resulting from breached levees and flood walls, affected the greatest number
of people, with much of New Orleans flooded.

¹ “Katrina’s official death toll tops 1,000.” CNN. September 21, 2005.
[ h t t p : / / www.cnn.com/ 2005/ US/ 09/ 21/ ka t r i n a.i mpact / ] .
² These counties were declared eligible for individual and household assistance.
Government entities in wider areas of the states were declared eligible for other forms of
disaster aid but are not included in this count. See the section, Hurricane Katrina FEMA
Declared Disaster Areas, later in this report.
³ The hurricane’s storm track is based on National Weather Service/National Hurricane
Center advisories. See [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/archive/2005/KATRINA.shtml?]. The
strength of the hurricane is shown according to the Saffir-Simpson scale. A Category 4
hurricane has maximum sustained winds between 131-155 miles per hour, a Category 3
hurricane, between 111-130 mph; a Category 2 hurricane, between 96-110 mph, and a
Category 1 hurricane, between 74-95 mph. See [http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/aboutsshs.shtml].
Tropical storm force winds are defined as sustained winds between 39 and 73 mph.

Figure 1. Hurricane Katrina: Storm Track and Counties Designated Eligible for Disaster Assistance
(FEMA Individual Assistance), with 2004 County Population Density

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33141}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Fourteen counties with a combined population of 2.5 million people experienced
some flooding and/or structural damage based on FEMA flood and damage
assessments. All of these counties are within the 100-mile radius of the storm’s
landfall. Included in this region are the cities of New Orleans (estimated to have
445,000 people), the Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula Mississippi metropolitan area
(estimated at 364,000 people), and Mobile (County) Alabama (estimated at 393,000
persons).⁴
The populations of these 14 counties bore the brunt of the storm; however, the
impact was not uniform across the counties. Using a combination of FEMA damage
assessment and Census data, CRS estimates that within these 14 counties, about

700,000 people may have been the most acutely impacted by Hurricane Katrina,

experiencing flooding and/or significant structural damage. (See Figure 2, which
provides an overview of the areas most directly impacted by the storm.) It is this
population — those most severely impacted — that is the report's primary focus.
Structure of the Report. This report begins with a discussion of FEMA’s
disaster declaration process and its application to Hurricane Katrina. It then presents
CRS estimates of the population, living within 14 of the 88 counties designated as
eligible for disaster assistance, who were most affected and most likely displaced by
the storm, in total and in each of the three affected states: Louisiana, Mississippi, and
Alabama. These estimates are broken down by whether people were living in areas
that experienced flooding and/or structural damage (and further, by the level of
structural damage). The balance of the report presents a social-demographic profile
of this acutely affected population, looking at such characteristics as poverty and
race/ethnicity status, homeownership and housing status. Separate discussions are
also provided of the aged, children, and working-age adults. Although this report
does not explicitly discuss policy implications, its findings are relevant to numerous
aspects of the post-Katrina debate on how to address the immediate and ongoing
needs of the affected populations, both in their home counties as well as the many
other parts of the country to which some have relocated.
CRS estimates in this report are based on the mapping of FEMA flood and
damage assessments (September 21, 2005 data) applied to Census 2000 data. The
estimates provide a rough approximation of the numbers and characteristics of
persons, families, and households that are most likely to have been impacted by
the hurricane. Other agencies and organizations are conducting assessments
using alternate and complementary methodologies. Estimates may differ,
depending upon the specific methodologies used. The estimates presented in this
report rely heavily on the completeness and accuracy of the FEMA flood and
damage assessment data. The FEMA data are likely to have captured most, but
not all hurricane-related damage, and miss inland damage along the hurricane’s
storm track through Mississippi (mostly less than catastrophic damage). See the
discussion on the Status of Other Assessments and Appendix A (Methodology).

⁴ Based on U.S. Census Bureau 2004 American Community Survey (ACS) data. Estimates
are limited to household populations, and exclude persons living in institutions, college
dormitories, and other group quarters.

Figure 2. Hurricane Katrina: Overview of Areas Affected by Flooding and/or Structural Damage
(Based on FEMA Flood and Damage Assessments)

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33141}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Hurricane Katrina FEMA Declared Disaster Areas
The Presidential declaration of a major disaster identifies the types of disaster
assistance available in affected areas (usually counties, or the state equivalent of
counties or independent cities). The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act authorizes a range of federal aid for states, localities, and
households in the event of a Presidentially declared major disaster. The declaration
process for “emergencies” is similar to that used for major disasters, but the criteria
(based on the definition of “emergency”) are less specific.⁵ The two major categories
of assistance are public assistance, which encompasses various forms of aid to state
and local governments and some nonprofit organizations, and federal assistance to
individuals and households.⁶ Federal assistance is provided to individuals and
households who are uninsured or under-insured to pay for necessary expenses as a
result of the disaster that cannot be met otherwise, and may include financial help to
occupy alternative housing, provision of temporary housing units, home repair, and
aid for other expenses.
FEMA has issued regulations that specify the criteria for determining whether
individual and household assistance is available in an area. Though the Stafford Act
provides for Presidential discretion in designating areas as eligible for disaster aid,
the regulations include the following factors for considering whether individual and
household assistance should be available in an area: (1) concentration of damage; (2)
the degree of trauma to a state and communities, such as large numbers of injuries
or deaths, large scale disruptions of normal community functions, and emergency
needs such as extended or widespread loss of power; (3) special populations, such as
whether the area includes low-income, elderly or unemployed persons; (4) the extent
to which state and local or voluntary agencies can meet needs; (5) the amount of
insurance coverage in an area; and (6) the amount of individual assistance provided
by the state.⁷ In all, a total of 31 parishes in Louisiana, 47 counties in Mississippi,
and 10 counties in Alabama were declared eligible for individual and household
disaster assistance. Government entities in wider areas of these states were declared
eligible for other forms of disaster aid.
Hurricane Katrina — Estimates
of Population Affected in Impacted Areas
The analysis that follows focuses on the population in those areas that were
hardest hit by the hurricane — those communities that experienced significant

⁵ A Stafford Act “emergency” is “any occasion or instance for which, in the determination
of the President, federal assistance is needed to supplement state and local efforts and
capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen
or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States.” 42 U.S.C. 5122(1).
⁶ For a comprehensive list of the types of aid authorized by the Stafford Act, see CRS Report
RL33053. Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible
Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea.
⁷ See regulations as 44 CFR 206.48(b).

damage from flooding (excluding areas with saturated soil) or that had assessed
structural damage (excluding limited damage). The estimates are based on an
analysis of Census 2000 Census Tract level data and FEMA damage assessment data,
mapped into a Geographic Information System (GIS).⁸ It should be emphasized that
the estimates are based on 2000 Census data, reflecting the number and
characteristics of the population at that time — as if Hurricane Katrina struck in April

2000, as opposed to August 2005.

FEMA Damage Assessment Criteria. FEMA’s damage assessment is
characterized by several damage categories:
^!Structural Damage
^!Catastrophic Damage: Most solid and all light or mobile
structures are destroyed;
^!Extensive Damage: Some solid structures are destroyed; most
sustain exterior and interior damage (e.g., roofs are missing,
interior walls exposed), most mobile homes and light
structures are destroyed;
^!Moderate Damage: Solid structures sustain exterior damage
(e.g., missing roofs or roof segments); some mobile homes
and light structures are destroyed, many are damaged or
displaced;
^!Limited Damage: Generally superficial damage to solid
structures (e.g., loss of tiles or roof shingles); some mobile
homes and light structures are damaged or displaced;
^!Flood/water Damage
^!Flood: Indicates a separate severe damage category related to
the specific effects of flooding;
^!Saturated Area: Indicates the possibility of water damage due
to saturated soil.
It should be noted that flood and water damage are assessed separately from
structural damage. Consequently, areas that are designated as flooded may or may
not also contain areas of assessed structural damage. Similarly, some areas with
structural damage may also be assessed as flooded.

⁸ Areas of assessed damage and flooding were apportioned by Census Block (the smallest
unit of Census geography), based on the population in the Block, and the Block’s
overlapping and non-overlapping habitable area (i.e., land, as opposed to water) with the
assessed damage areas. Apportioned Census Block populations, by percent in flood areas,
and/or areas with assessed structural damage, were then summed up by Census Tract. The
apportionment rates were then applied to Census 2000 summary tract level data, which
provide information about the social, demographic, income, and housing characteristics of
the population, in order to describe populations most severely impacted by the hurricane.
For a fuller description of the methodology used, see Appendix A.

Population Estimates. CRS estimates that more than 700,000 people were
most acutely impacted by Hurricane Katrina, having lived in neighborhoods that
either experienced flooding or significant structural damage (catastrophic, extensive,
or moderate). Persons who lived in areas that experienced only limited damage,
unless also flooded, or in non-flooded saturated areas, are excluded from this
estimate. Approximately 657,000 people lived in areas that were flooded,
accounting for over 90% of those most acutely impacted by the storm. Among the
657,000 people likely impacted by flooding, approximately 25,000 also lived in areas
with significant structural damage that was either catastrophic (5,000), extensive
(4,200), or moderate (15,400). In non-flooded areas, approximately 54,000 people
were impacted by catastrophic (35,000), extensive (5,600), or moderate structural
damage (13,700) — likely due to wind and/or surging water.
Because areas could be affected by both flooding and structural damage, we
have regrouped areas affected into the following, non-overlapping groups, to avoid
double counting and to capture the populations most directly impacted by the storm:
^!Catastrophic damage, regardless of flood status (40,000);
^!Flooded, excluding areas of catastrophic damage (652,000);
^!Non-flooded, extensive damage (5,600); and
^!Non-flooded, moderate damage (13,700).
People who lived in areas that were affected only with limited damage (144,000), or
non-flooded saturated areas (not assessed in this analysis) are grouped with the
remainder of the population in the 14 counties/parishes chosen for this analysis,
based on the FEMA damage/flood assessment (see Table 1).
Flooding . As noted above, flooding is a separate assessment criterion, which
may or may not overlap with assessed structural damage. Here, areas that had
flooding and structural damage, other than catastrophic damage, are classified as
flooded, along with those areas that only had flooding, and no assessed structural
damage. The preponderance of the population who lived in flooded areas were
concentrated in Louisiana (97% of the total). St. Bernard Parish, to the south-east of
New Orleans, was especially hard hit by flooding, with an estimated 65,000 affected
— nearly its entire population (97%). Over three-quarters (372,000) of Orleans
Parish’s population is estimated to have been affected by flooding, nearly half
(13,000) of Plaquemines Parish’s population, also to the south-east of New Orleans,
and about two-fifths (181,000) of Jefferson Parish’s population, just to the west and
south of New Orleans. (See Figure 3.)
In Mississippi, nearly 22,000 people appear to have been affected by flooding,
with the majority (20,000) concentrated in Hancock County, the western most county
on the Mississippi Gulf Coast, just to the northeast of New Orleans, Louisiana.
Alabama experienced little flooding that directly impacted populated areas.

Table 1. Estimated Number of Persons Living in Counties with
Assessed Damage or Flooding From Hurricane Katrina and Number
Living in Areas with Significant Flooding or Damage
(Based on FEMA Flood and Damage Assessments and Census 2000
Population)
^P^o^pul^atⁱ^o^{n af}^f^e^c^t^e^d^by^f^l^oodiⁿ^g^or^s^t^r^u^c^t^ur^al^dam^a^g^e^a
^(o^th^{er th}^aⁿ^lim^ited⁾
^To^ta^l
^popul^atⁱ^oⁿ^Assessed^S^t^ru^ctu^r^{al Dam}^a^g^e
ⁱⁿ^sel^ected^{No d}^a^m^a^g^e
^c^o^untⁱ^e^s^/^o^r^lim^ite^d
^p^a^ri^sh^es^dam^a^g^e^onl^y^T^o^t^a^l^F^l^oodiⁿ^g^Catastrop^hⁱ^c^E^x^t^en^si^ve^M^o^d^erate
^T^o^ta^{l — Se}^le^c^t^e^d
^C^ountie^s^/^P^a^rⁱ^s^h^e^s^2,458,789^711,698^652,291^40,146^5,570^13,690^1,747,091
^A^l^ab^am^{a (sel}^ect^ed
^c^ountie^s⁾^540,258⁹⁷⁰²⁰^-²⁹⁶⁶⁵⁵^539,288
^B^a^ldwⁱⁿ^140,415³⁰⁴^-^-⁷⁹²²⁵^140,111
^Mobile^399,843⁶⁶⁶²⁰^-²¹⁶⁴³⁰^399,177
^L^o^uⁱ^si^an^{a (sel}^ect^ed
^pa^rⁱ^s^h^e^s⁾^1,554,948^644,731^633,950^2,384⁶⁰⁴^7,792^910,217
^J^e^f^f^e^r^s^on^455,466^185,842^180,691¹⁹⁷⁵^5,057^269,624
^L^a^f^our^c^h^e^89,974⁶⁹⁰^-^-⁶⁹^89,905
^Lⁱ^vⁱ^ng^s^t^on^91,814²¹²¹^-^-^-^91,793
^O^r^le^aⁿ^s^483,779^373,206^371,697¹⁶¹⁸⁷^1,261^110,574
^P^l^a^que^mⁱ^ne^s^26,757^13,048^11,341^1,516³³¹⁵⁷^13,709
^{St. B}^e^rⁿ^a^r^d^67,229^65,153^64,955¹⁹²^-⁶^2,076
^{St. C}^h^a^r^le^s^48,072⁶⁷²⁶²⁰^-¹⁵¹^47,400
^{St. T}^a^m^m^a^ny^191,268^6,706^4,610⁴⁹⁶⁴⁰⁹^1,191^184,562
^T^a^ng^ipa^hoa^100,588¹⁵¹⁵^-^-^-^100,573
^Mⁱ^ssissip^pⁱ
⁽^s^e^l^e^c^t^e^d^c^ountie^s⁾^363,583^65,996^18,321^37,762^4,670^5,243^297,587
^H^a^nc^oc^k^42,967^23,477^17,624^3,652⁸³⁷^1,363^19,490
^H^a^r^rⁱ^s^oⁿ^189,196^35,169⁵⁷²^31,405⁸⁸³^2,310^154,027
^J^a^c^k^s^oⁿ^131,420^7,350¹²⁵^2,705^2,951^1,569^124,070
^P^e^r^c^eⁿ^ta^g^e^s^h^a^r^e^of^popula^{tion in s}^e^le^c^t^e^d^c^ountie^s^or^pa^rⁱ^s^h^e^s^a^f^f^e^c^t^e^d
^T^o^ta^{l — Se}^le^c^t^e^d
^C^ountie^s^/^P^a^rⁱ^s^h^e^s^100.0%^{28.9 26.5}^1.6^0.2^0.6^71.1
^A^l^ab^am^{a (sel}^ect^ed
^c^ountie^s⁾^100.0%^{0.2 0.0}^-^0.1^0.1^99.8
^B^a^ldwⁱⁿ^100.0%^0.2^-^-^0.1^0.2^99.8
^Mobile^100.0%^{0.2 0.0}^-^0.1^0.1^99.8
^L^o^uⁱ^si^an^{a (sel}^ect^ed
^pa^rⁱ^s^h^e^s⁾^100.0%^{41.5 40.8}^0.2^0.0^0.5^58.5
^J^e^f^f^e^r^s^on^100.0%^{40.8 39.7}^0.0^0.0^1.1^59.2
^L^a^f^our^c^h^e^100.0%^0.1^0.0^-^-^0.1^99.9
^Lⁱ^vⁱ^ng^s^t^on^100.0%^0.0^0.0^-^-^-^100.0
^O^r^le^aⁿ^s^100.0%^77.1^{76.8 0.0}^0.0^0.3^22.9
^P^l^a^que^mⁱ^ne^s^100.0%^{48.8 42.4}^5.7^0.1^0.6^51.2
^{St. B}^e^rⁿ^a^r^d^100.0%^96.9^96.6^0.3^-^0.0^3.1
^{St. C}^h^a^r^le^s^100.0%^1.4^1.3^-^0.0^0.1^98.6
^{St. T}^a^m^m^a^ny^100.0%^3.5^2.4^0.3^0.2^0.6^96.5
^T^a^ng^ipa^hoa^100.0%^0.0^0.0^-^-^-^100.0
^Mⁱ^ssissip^pⁱ
⁽^s^e^l^e^c^t^e^d^c^ountie^s⁾^100.0%^18.2^5.0^10.4^1.3^1.4^81.8
^H^a^nc^oc^k^100.0%^{54.6 41.0}^8.5^1.9^3.2^45.4
^H^a^r^rⁱ^s^oⁿ^100.0%^18.6^0.3^16.6^0.5^1.2^81.4
^J^a^c^k^s^oⁿ^100.0%^{5.6 0.1}^2.1^2.2^1.2^94.4

^P^o^pul^atⁱ^o^{n af}^f^e^c^t^e^d^by^f^l^oodiⁿ^g^or^s^t^r^u^c^t^ur^al^dam^a^g^e^a
^(o^th^{er th}^aⁿ^lim^ited⁾
^To^ta^l
^popul^atⁱ^oⁿ^Assessed^S^t^ru^ctu^r^{al Dam}^a^g^e
ⁱⁿ^sel^ected^{No d}^a^m^a^g^e
^c^o^untⁱ^e^s^/^o^r^lim^ite^d
^p^a^ri^sh^es^dam^a^g^e^onl^y^T^o^t^a^l^F^l^oodiⁿ^g^Catastrop^hⁱ^c^E^x^t^en^si^ve^M^o^d^erate
^C^ounty^/^pa^rⁱ^s^h^s^h^a^r^e^of^tota^{l popula}^{tion a}^f^f^e^c^t^e^d^by^f^l^ooding^or^da^m^a^g^e
^T^o^ta^{l — Se}^le^c^t^e^d
^C^ountie^s^/^P^a^rⁱ^s^h^e^s^100.0%^100.0%^100.0%^100.0%^100.0%^100.0%^100.0%
^A^l^ab^am^{a (sel}^ect^ed
^c^ountie^s⁾^22.0^0.1^0.0^-^5.3^4.8^30.9
^Ba^ldwⁱⁿ⁵^.7^0.0^-^-^1.4^1.6^8.0
^Mobile^16.3^0.1^0.0^-^3.9^3.1^22.8
^L^o^uⁱ^si^an^{a (sel}^ect^ed
^pa^rⁱ^s^h^e^s⁾^63.2^90.6^97.2^5.9^10.8^56.9^52.1
^J^e^f^f^e^r^s^on^18.5^26.1^27.7^0.0^1.3^36.9^15.4
^L^a^f^ourc^h^e³^.7^0.0^0.0^-^-^0.5^5.1
^Lⁱ^vⁱ^ng^s^t^on^3.7^0.0^0.0^-^-^-^5.3
^O^r^le^aⁿ^s^19.7^52.4^57.0^0.4^1.6^9.2^6.3
^P^l^a^que^mⁱ^ne^s¹^.1^1.8^1.7^3.8^0.6^1.1^0.8
^{St. Be}^rna^r^d²^.7^9.2^10.0^0.5^-^0.0^0.1
^{St. Cha}^r^le^s²^.0^0.1^0.1^-^0.0^0.4^2.7
^{St. T}^a^m^m^a^ny^7.8^0.9^0.7^1.2^7.3^8.7^10.6
^T^a^ng^ipa^hoa^4.1^0.0^0.0^-^-^-^5.8
^Mⁱ^ssissip^pⁱ
⁽^s^e^l^e^c^t^e^d^c^ountie^s⁾^14.8^9.3^2.8^94.1^83.8^38.3^17.0
^H^a^nc^oc^k¹^.7^3.3^2.7^9.1^15.0^10.0^1.1
^H^a^r^rⁱ^s^oⁿ⁷^.7^4.9^0.1^78.2^15.8^16.9^8.8
^J^a^c^k^s^oⁿ⁵^.3^1.0^0.0^6.7^53.0^11.5^7.1
^S^o^u^rce:^E^s^tⁱ^m^at^es^p^r^ep^ared^b^y^t^h^{e Co}ⁿ^g^ressi^oⁿ^a^l^Research^S^e^rvi^{ce (CRS}^{) w}ⁱ^t^h^assi^st^an^{ce f}^r^o^m^t^h^{e L}ⁱ^b^r^ary^o^f
^C^ong^r^e^s^s^C^ong^r^e^s^sⁱ^ona^l^C^a^r^t^og^r^a^phy^P^r^og^r^a^m^,^ba^s^e^{d on a}ⁿ^a^l^y^s^is^of^FEMA^f^l^{ood a}^nd^da^m^a^g^e^a^s^s^e^s^s^m^eⁿ^ts^aⁿ^d
^U^.^{S. C}^e^ns^us^B^u^r^e^a^u^{2000 Sum}^m^a^r^y^File^{4 (}^SF4)^da^ta^f^ile^s^.
^a^.^Floode^d^a^nd^a^r^e^a^s^of^a^s^s^e^s^s^e^d^s^t^r^u^c^t^ur^a^l^da^m^a^g^e^ha^v^e^be^eⁿ^r^e^c^l^a^s^sⁱ^fⁱ^e^d^a^s^f^o^llow^s^{, to a}^v^{oid double}^c^ounting^.
^Floode^d:^Aⁿ^y^f^l^oode^{d a}^r^e^a^,^e^x^c^l^uding^a^r^e^a^s^of^c^a^t^a^s^tr^ophic^da^m^a^g^e^.^Iⁿ^c^l^ude^s^a^r^e^a^s^w^ith^e^x^te^ns^iv^e^,^m^ode^r^a^te^,
^or^lim^ite^{d da}^m^a^g^e^w^h^e^r^e^f^l^ooding^a^l^s^o^oc^c^u^r^r^e^{d, a}^{nd a}^r^e^a^s^w^h^e^r^e^the^r^e^w^a^s^only^f^l^ooding^.
^C^a^tas^t^r^ophic^dam^age^{: A}^r^e^a^s^of^c^a^t^a^s^tr^ophic^da^m^a^g^e^{, r}^e^g^a^r^d^le^s^s^of^f^l^{ood s}^t^a^t^us^.
^Ex^te^ns^iv^e^dam^age^:^A^r^e^a^s^of^e^x^te^ns^iv^e^da^m^a^g^e^{, othe}^r^thaⁿ^thos^e^a^r^e^a^s^tha^t^a^l^s^o^e^x^pe^rⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^d^f^l^ooding^.
^M^ode^r^a^te^dam^age^:^A^r^e^a^s^of^m^ode^r^a^te^da^m^a^g^e^{, othe}^r^thaⁿ^thos^e^a^r^e^a^s^tha^t^a^l^s^o^e^x^pe^rⁱ^eⁿ^c^e^d^f^l^ooding^.

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33141}

^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Catastrophic Structural Damage. As noted above, an estimated 40,000
persons lived in areas that experienced catastrophic damage. In such areas, most
structures were destroyed. The majority of the population affected by catastrophic
damage lived in Mississippi (94%), and was concentrated predominantly in Harrison
County, which includes the cities of Biloxi and Gulfport. In Harrison County, 31,000
people are likely to have been displaced by catastrophic hurricane damage; they
account for about four-fifths of the population that experienced catastrophic damage,
and about 17% of that county’s population. (See Figure 4.)
In Louisiana, an estimated 2,400 people are likely to have experienced
catastrophic damage. Over 60% of this group (or 1,500 people) lived in Plaquemines
Parish, where Katrina first made landfall. These 1,500 people comprise 5% of that
parish’s population.
In Alabama, no catastrophic damage was assessed, and as noted above,
minimal flooding affecting populated areas.
Extensive and Moderate Damage. An estimated 9,700 persons lived
in areas that incurred extensive damage and 29,000 persons in areas that incurred
moderate damage. Extensive damage means that some structures are destroyed and
most have exterior and interior damage; and most mobile homes and light structures
are destroyed. In the moderate damage category, solid structures withstood exterior
and interior damage, and some mobile homes are destroyed.
Again, as with catastrophic damage, Mississippi accounted for the bulk of the
population affected by extensive (66%) and moderate (53%) damage. Hancock
County, to the west of Gulfport, had higher concentrations of its population affected
by extensive and moderate hurricane damage (33%) than bordering Harrison County
(2%), or Jackson County (3%), further to the east, which encompasses Pascagoula.
In Louisiana, Orleans Parish accounted for the majority of the state’s
population impacted by extensive damage (2,000, or two-thirds of those affected by
extensive hurricane damage in Louisiana). Jefferson Parish accounted for over two-
fifths (5,300) of Louisiana’s population affected by moderate hurricane damage
(13,000).
In Alabama, Mobile and Baldwin Counties experienced no catastrophic
damage, though some Alabamians are estimated to have lived in areas that
experienced extensive damage (300) or moderate damage (660).

Figure 4. Hurricane Katrina: FEMA Damage Assessment — Mississippi Gulf Coast,
Bay St. Louis to Biloxi and Vicinity

ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33141}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp

Figure 5 depicts the relative impact of flood and storm damage from
Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana and Mississippi in terms of the estimated number of
people affected.
Figure 5. Hurricane Katrina: Comparative Impact of Flooding
and Storm Damage in Louisiana and Mississippi
(Estimated Number of People Impacted based on 2000 Census
Data)

^So^urce^{: Es}^tim^ates^{prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^{) w}^ith^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce f}^r^om^th^e
^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^ss^Co^ngr^e^s^sⁱ^on^al^C^a^rt^og^raph^y^Prog^ram^,^bas^e^{d on}^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^F^E^MA^f^l^{ood an}^d
^dam^a^g^e^as^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^an^{d U}^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 S}^u^m^m^a^ry^Fⁱ^l^e^{4 (S}^F⁴^{) dat}^a^fⁱ^l^e^s^.
Hurricane Katrina — Social Impacts
Hurricane Katrina likely made one of the poorest areas of the country even
poorer. Among those displaced by the storm, many lost their homes, material
possessions, and jobs. Some had insurance to replace their material property losses,
received help from FEMA or Small Business loans to get by on an emergency basis
or replace property, or received unemployment insurance or disaster unemployment
insurance to replace lost wages. However, some who lived in the areas most
impacted by the storm may now be destitute; while having financially gotten by
before the storm, in the storm’s aftermath they may have joined the ranks of the poor.
Further, the socio-economic profile of the areas hardest hit by Katrina indicates that
these newly poor would join a population that was already disproportionately poor
and disadvantaged. Before the storm, the 700,000 people acutely affected by Katrina
were more likely than Americans overall to be poor; minority (most often African-
American); less likely to be connected to the workforce; and more likely to be
educationally disadvantaged (i.e., not having completed a high school education).
Both those who were poor before the storm, and those who have become poor
following the storm, are likely to face a particularly difficult time in reestablishing
their lives, having few if any financial resources upon which to draw.

Mass Displacement
The economic and social impact of Hurricane Katrina will be felt for years
to come. The hurricane resulted in mass displacement of people and fractured
communities. Estimates of the number of people displaced range widely; the analysis
in this report assumes 700,000 were acutely impacted, Secretary Chertoff has stated
that FEMA has sheltered over 600,000,⁹ and media reports have cited figures as high
as 1.2 million in describing the displaced.¹⁰ At their peak, shelters were housing
over 270,000 evacuees,¹¹ but, as of October 19, fewer than 8,000 were still in
shelters. While some families have already returned home, many are living in
interim housing, including FEMA-provided trailers, and apartments, paid for in part
with grants from FEMA. FEMA reports, as of September 26, that it has approved
over 265,000 applications for temporary housing payments¹² and, as of October 19,
has provided just under 12,000 trailers.¹³
Whether these families will eventually return home or resettle in new
communities is unclear and will not be fully known until the reconstruction of the
Gulf Coast is complete. Regardless, individuals, families, and communities have
been, and will be, dramatically transformed by the storm.
Disproportionate Effects on Minorities and the Poor
Hurricane Katrina disproportionately impacted communities where the poor
and minorities, mostly African-Americans, resided. The three states where
communities were damaged or flooded by the hurricane rank among the poorest in
the nation. According to the 2000 Census, Mississippi ranked second only to the
District of Columbia in its poverty rate; Louisiana was right behind it ranking third,
and Alabama ranked sixth. CRS estimates that about one-fifth of the population
most directly impacted by the storm was poor. That poverty rate (21%) was well
above the national poverty rate of 12.4% recorded in the 2000 Census.¹⁴

⁹ Prepared testimony of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff before the
House Select Committee on Hurricane Katrina, October 19, 2005.
¹⁰ Katrina Exodus Reaches All States, Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY,
September 28, 2005.
¹¹ Governmental Gulf Coast Response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, FEMA press release,
October 25, 2005, Release Number: 1603-116.
¹² FEMA Distributes Almost $625 Million In Expedited Housing Assistance In First Two
Days, FEMA press release, September 26, 2005, Release Number: HQ-05-306.
¹³ Department of Homeland Security Report to Congress, October 20, 2005, available at
[http://appropriations.house.gov/ _files/HurricaneKatrinaLink.htm] .
¹⁴ The poverty rate is the percent of the population considered poor, by the official Census
Bureau definition of poverty. Census Bureau poverty income thresholds demarcate income
levels to which families’ incomes are compared for determining poverty status. Poverty
income thresholds vary by family size, and composition (e.g., number of related children,
or for individuals and couples, by whether the householder is age 65 or older, or younger).
In 2004, for example, the weighted average poverty threshold for a 4-person family was
(continued...)

Figure 6 shows the national poverty rate alongside the rates for Alabama,
Louisiana, and Mississippi. Morever, the figure shows how the national and
statewide rates compare to rates in the storm-damaged or flooded areas in the three
affected states combined, and individually. The poverty rates in the storm-damaged
or flooded areas generally reflect the high poverty rates for the region as a whole, and
are higher than the national average (12.4%) in each of the three states, although the
poverty rate for the damaged areas of Mississippi was considerably below the state’s
overall poverty rate. The poverty rate for storm-damaged areas in all three states
combined (20.7%) is determined mostly by the high poverty rates in the flooded and
damaged areas of Louisiana, which has most of the population of the storm-damaged
and flooded areas.
Figure 6. Poverty Rates for the United States, Alabama,
Louisiana, and Mississippi, and Hurricane Katrina Flood or
Storm-Damaged Areas
(Based on 2000 Census Data)

^Source:^Es^tim^ates^{prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice^(C^R^S⁾^w^ith^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^f^r^om^th^e
^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^ss^Co^ngr^e^s^sⁱ^on^al^C^a^rt^og^raph^y^Prog^ram^,^bas^e^{d on}^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^F^E^MA^f^l^{ood an}^d
^dam^a^g^e^as^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^an^{d U}^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 S}^u^m^m^a^ry^Fⁱ^l^e^{4 (S}^F⁴^{) dat}^a^fⁱ^l^e^s^.
^No^te:^P^o^p^u^latioⁿ^f^o^r^w^h^o^p^o^v^er^ty^statu^s^{is d}^e^ter^mⁱⁿ^ed^{. Ex}^clu^d^{es p}^e^r^s^oⁿ^{s liv}ⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^an^d
^uⁿ^r^{elated in}^divⁱ^du^als^uⁿ^d^{er ag}^{e 15.}
As noted above, CRS estimates that about one-fifth of the population most
directly impacted by the storm was poor (144,000 people). In addition, over 30% of
¹⁴ (...continued)
$19,307, for a 2-person family, $12,334, and for one person, living alone (unrelated
individual), $9,645. Poverty thresholds are adjusted each year for changes in prices (CPI-
U).

the most impacted population had incomes below one-and-one-half times the poverty
line and over 40% had income below twice the poverty line (See Figure 7).¹⁵
Figure 7. Estimated Number of Persons in Hurricane Katrina Flood
or Storm-Damaged Areas, by Race and Poverty Status in 1999
(Population for whom Poverty Status is Determined based on 2000
Census Data)

^Source:^Es^tim^ates^{prepared by}^th^e^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^Serv^ice^(C^R^S⁾^w^ith^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce f}^r^om^th^e
^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^e^ss^Co^ngr^e^s^sⁱ^on^al^C^a^rt^og^raph^y^Prog^ram^,^bas^e^{d on}^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^F^E^MA^f^l^{ood an}^d
^dam^a^g^e^as^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^an^{d U}^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 S}^u^m^m^a^ry^Fⁱ^l^e^{4 (S}^F⁴^{) dat}^a^fⁱ^l^e^s^.
^No^te:^P^o^p^u^latioⁿ^f^o^r^w^h^o^p^o^v^er^ty^statu^s^{is d}^e^ter^mⁱⁿ^ed^{. Ex}^clu^d^{es p}^e^r^s^oⁿ^{s liv}ⁱⁿ^gⁱⁿⁱⁿ^stitu^tioⁿ^s^an^d
^uⁿ^r^{elated in}^divⁱ^du^als^uⁿ^d^{er ag}^{e 15.}
The hurricane’s impact on New Orleans also took a disproportionate toll on
African Americans. An estimated 310,000 black people were directly impacted by
the storm, largely due to flooding in Orleans Parish. Blacks are estimated to have
accounted for 44% of storm victims. In Orleans Parish, an estimated 272,000 black
people were displaced by flooding or damage, accounting for 73% of the population
affected by the storm in the parish. In contrast, an estimated 101,000 non-black
people in Orleans Parish were displaced by flooding or damage, accounting for about

63% of the non-black population living in the parish; still a high proportion affected,

but somewhat less than that experienced by blacks.
Among blacks living in Orleans Parish who were most likely displaced by the
storm, over one-third (89,000 people, or 34.0% of displaced blacks) were estimated
¹⁵ Note, the estimates shown in Figures 6 and 7 are for persons for whom poverty status
was determined in the 2000 Census. Persons living in institutions and unrelated individuals
(e.g., foster children) under the age of 15 are excluded from these estimates.)

to have been poor, based on 2000 Census data. Among non-black (predominantly
white) persons living in the parish who were likely displaced by the storm, an
estimated 14.6% (14,000) were poor.
The Aged
The aged may have been especially affected by Katrina. Many had close ties
to their communities, having resided there for years, and for some, their entire
lifetimes. Some may have found it more difficult than others to evacuate. The
elderly are more likely to live alone, and less likely to own a car, or be able to drive.
Some may have been more isolated, living alone, or homebound due to frailty or
disability.
Home Ownership Status and Community Ties. Among households
headed by persons age 65 or older who were likely displaced by the storm, 70% are
estimated to have owned their own home — an ownership rate higher than any other
age group. Among aged homeowners likely displaced by the storm, over 70% had
lived in their homes for over 20 years, and 47% over 30 years, in the year 2000.
Among likely displaced aged renters, an estimated 55% had lived in their rental units
for over 20 years, and 36% over 30 years, based on 2000 Census data.
Living Arrangements. An estimated 88,000 persons age 65 and older
were likely displaced by Hurricane Katrina, or 12.4% of the population affected by
flooding and/or storm damage. Among the aged population affected, an estimated
27,000 lived alone, in one-person households, which accounted for 41% of
households with an aged member.
The hurricane likely displaced an estimated 45,000 persons age 75 and older,
a population prone to frailty. Among this group, nearly 15,000 are estimated to have
lived alone, in one-person households, which accounted for 45% of the households
with a member age 75 or older.
Disability Status. Nearly half (48%) of all persons age 65 or older living
in flooded or damage-affected areas reported having a disability, and over one-
quarter (26%) reported two or more types of disability.¹⁶ Reported disabilities
included sensory disabilities (blindness, deafness, or severe hearing impairment), and
other disabilities reflecting conditions lasting more than six months that limit various
activities. These activity-limiting disabilities include mental disabilities (difficulty
learning, remembering, or concentrating); self-care disabilities (difficulty dressing,
bathing, or getting around inside the home); and, going outside disabilities (difficulty
going outside the home alone to shop or visit a doctor’s office). An estimated 13%
of persons age 65 and older in the flood or damage affected areas reported a self care
disability, and 19% of those age 75 and older; one-quarter of those age 65 and older
reported a disability that made it difficult to go outside, unassisted, and of those age

75 and older, one-third reported such a disability.

¹⁶ Civilians living in noninstitutionalized settings.

Poverty Status. Among aged persons likely displaced by the storm, an
estimated 12,600, based on 2000 Census data, were poor, or about 14.7% of the aged
displaced population, and nearly 23,600 (27.6%) had incomes below 150% of the
poverty line.
Vehicle Availability. Among all households living in the flood or damage-
affected areas, an estimated 19% had no vehicle available to the household. Among
households with heads age 65 or older, over one-quarter (26%) were without a
vehicle, and among those age 75 or older, one-third (33%). In order to evacuate
from the storm, these households would have been dependent on other nonresident
family members, friends, neighbors, or public or specially arranged transportation.
Children
About one-fourth of the people who lived in areas damaged or flooded by
Hurricane Katrina were children (under age 18). Hurricane Katrina struck at the
beginning of the school year, potentially displacing an estimated 183,000 children,
based on CRS analysis of 2000 Census data, including an estimated 136,000 children
who were of school age. An estimated 47,000 children under the age of 5 lived in
neighborhoods that experienced flooding or damage from the hurricane.
Child Poverty Rates in areas Acutely Affected by Hurricane
Katrina. The characteristics of the children in the damaged and flooded areas reflect
greater disadvantage compared with the characteristics of children in the nation as
a whole. Many of the children in affected areas were poor. Table 2 shows the
number of poor children and the child poverty rate in the affected areas. Note that
the number of children for whom the Census Bureau determines poverty status
(180,000) is slightly less than the total for all children in these areas (183,000),
because poverty is not determined for children under the age of 15 who live in group
quarters (e.g., foster children). The poverty rate of 30% for children in hurricane-
flooded or damaged areas is almost twice the 2000 Census child poverty rate for the
nation as a whole of 16.6%.
Table 2. Number and Poverty Rate for Children in Hurricane
Katrina Flooded or Damaged Areas
TotalPoorPercent Poor
Age 0-446,02515,07932.8%
Age 5-17134,07739,56729.5
Total Under 18180,10254,64630.3
^Source:^Es^tim^ates^prepared^by^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^{) w}^ith^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^f^r^om^th^e
^Lⁱ^bra^r^y^o^f^Co^ngres^s^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^C^a^rt^og^raph^y^Prog^ram^,^bas^e^{d on}^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^F^E^MA^f^l^{ood an}^d
^dam^a^g^e^as^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^an^{d U}^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 S}^u^m^m^a^ry^Fⁱ^l^e^{4 (S}^F⁴^{) dat}^a^fⁱ^l^e^s
The table shows that about 15,000 children of preschool age (age 0-4), or
about one-third of all children in that age group, were poor. Another 40,000 school
age children who lived in flooded or hurricane-damaged areas were poor.

Over half (55%) of the children most likely to have been displaced by the
hurricane were African-American based on 2000 Census data. Approximately 45%
of the displaced black children were estimated to have been poor (about 45,000
children), accounting for 25% of all children displaced by the storm, and 82% of all
poor displaced children.
Living Arrangements of Children in Hurricane-Affected Areas.
Children in the areas damaged and flooded by Hurricane Katrina were more likely
than children nationwide to live in female-headed families. Table 3 shows the
percent of children¹⁷ in the hurricane-damaged or flooded areas by their family type
— whether they lived in a family headed by a married couple or single female or
male head. Overall, 38% of children under the age of 18 in the hurricane-affected
areas lived with a female head; nationally, this percentage is 20%. Children in
female-headed families are more likely to be poor than children living in married
couple or other families. (According to the 2000 Census, nationwide, 41% of
children in female-headed families were in poverty versus an overall poverty rate of
16%.) Further, a single mother often needs child care to enter the workforce or
remain working. In the Hurricane Katrina-damaged and flooded areas, there were
12,000 preschool children living in families headed by a single mother. The high rate
of children living with single mothers also is consistent with the hurricane having
disproportionately affected African-Americans, as African-American children are
more likely than children of other racial and ethnic groups to be raised by a single
mother.
Table 3. Own Children in Hurricane Katrina Flood and
Storm-Damaged Areas, by Age and Family Type
Hurricane
Katrina-Damaged
U.S. Averageor Flooded Areas
Under Age 5
In married couple families77.3%59.5%
In female-headed families (no husband present)17.134.2
In male-headed families (no wife present)5.66.3
Age 5-17
In married couple families73.856.0
In female-headed families (no husband present)21.038.8
In male-headed families (no wife present)5.25.2
Total Under Age 18
In married couple families74.756.8
In female-headed families (no husband present)20.037.7
In male-headed families (no wife present)5.35.5
^Source:^Es^tim^ates^{prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^ice^(C^R^S⁾^w^ith^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^f^r^om^th^e
^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^C^a^rt^og^raph^y^Prog^ram^,^bas^e^{d on}^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^o^f^FE^MA^f^l^{ood an}^d
^dam^a^g^e^as^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^an^{d U}^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 S}^u^m^m^a^ry^Fⁱ^l^e^{4 (S}^F⁴^{) dat}^a^fⁱ^l^e^s^.

¹⁷ Own children, related by birth or adoption to the family head.

Working-Age Adults
The disproportionate impact of Hurricane Katrina on the poor is also shown
through other indicators of disadvantage. Hurricane-damaged areas tended to have
lower labor force participation rates and higher unemployment rates than the nation
as a whole.
Labor Force Participation. Persons who are either with a job
(employed), or actively searching for work (unemployed) are considered as
participating in the labor force. Labor force participation among men — both youth
(aged 16-24) and adults (aged 25-64) — in the hurricane-damaged areas was
considerably below that in the nation as a whole. The labor force participation rate
for male youths in hurricane-damaged areas was 55%, compared with a nationwide
average rate of 65%. For adult men, the labor force participation rate was 77% in
hurricane-damaged areas, compared with an 82% rate on average nationwide.
Additionally, unemployment rates for both youth and adult men were higher in
hurricane-damaged areas than nationally.¹⁸ The combined lower levels of labor force
participation and higher unemployment meant that a larger share of men in hurricane-
damaged areas were not working than is true nationally. Overall, an estimated
72,000 men over the age of 16 were not working. Of this number, 47,000 were age

25-64.

The labor force participation and work status of young women (aged 16-24)
is similar to that for young men: lower labor force participation rates than the
national average (57% versus 62% nationally) and higher rates of unemployment.
Almost 19% of young women aged 16-24 in hurricane-damaged or flooded areas
were unemployed, an even higher unemployment rate than observed for young men.
However, women aged 25-64 in hurricane-damaged areas had very similar labor
force participation rates to the national average, though their unemployment rates
were above the national average.
Employment Population Ratio. Figure 8 shows the employment-
population ratio for youths (age 16-24) and prime working age adults (age 25-64) for
the nation as a whole and for the areas damaged or flooded by Hurricane Katrina for
men and women. The employment-population ratio is the percentage of the
population actually employed. For all groups, those in the areas acutely affected by
the hurricane had lower employment rates than for the nation as a whole. However,
for men, both youths and prime working-aged men, the employment-population ratio
in hurricane-affected areas was substantially lower than the national average,
reflecting both lower labor force participation and higher unemployment rates for
men. Employment-population ratios for young women in hurricane-affected areas
were also substantially below national averages. However, the employment-

¹⁸ Unemployment rates for male youth (16-25) were 16.9% in the areas acutely affected
by the hurricane, and 13.9% nationwide. For prime working-aged men (25-64), the
unemployment rate in hurricane damaged or flooded areas was 5.8%, compared with

4.2% nationwide.

population ratio for prime working-aged women in hurricane-affected areas was only
slightly below average.
Figure 8. Employment-Population Ratios for Youth and Prime
Working-Age Men and Women in Hurricane Katrina Flood or
Storm-Damaged Areas Compared with National Averages
(Based on 2000 Census Data)

^Sou^r^{ce: Es}^tim^ates^{prepared by}^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^{) w}^ith^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce f}^r^om^th^e
^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^ongr^e^ss^Co^ngres^sⁱ^on^al^C^a^rt^og^raph^y^Prog^ram^,^bas^e^{d on}^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^F^E^MA^f^l^{ood an}^d
^dam^a^g^e^as^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^an^{d U}^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 S}^u^m^m^a^ry^Fⁱ^l^e^{4 (S}^F⁴^{) dat}^a^fⁱ^l^e^s^.
Education. The adult population living in hurricane-damaged or flooded
areas was also educationally disadvantaged relative to the averages for the nation as
a whole. Overall, 23% of adults (aged 25 and over) in storm-damaged or flooded
areas lacked a high school diploma, representing 106,000 people.
Younger adults living in hurricane-damaged or flooded areas had lower levels
of educational attainment compared to their counterparts living in U.S. metropolitan
areas overall.¹⁹ Among younger adults, age 18 to 34, who were not enrolled in
school, 22.8% had not attained a high school diploma, or its equivalent, compared
to 20.6% in U.S. metropolitan areas overall. (See Figure 9.) In U.S. metropolitan
areas overall, 29.3% of younger adults who were no longer in school had attained a
post-secondary school degree (associates, bachelors, graduate or professional degree),
compared to 22.5% of those living in Katrina storm or flood-damaged areas.
¹⁹ Here, the comparison is made to metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), nationwide, as the
population in metropolitan areas is generally more highly educated than in non-metropolitan
areas. The population in the 14 counties included in this analysis all live within a
metropolitan area (either the New Orleans, Louisiana, Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula,
Mississippi, or Mobile, Alabama MSAs).

Figure 9. Educational Attainment of Younger Adults (Age 18 to 34) in
Hurricane Katrina Flood or Storm-Damaged Areas Compared to U.S.
Metropolitan Areas Overall
(Based on 2000 Census Data)

^Source:^Es^tim^ates^prepared^by^th^{e C}^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^{al R}^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^{) w}^ith^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^ce^f^r^om^th^e
^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^C^a^rt^og^raph^y^Prog^ram^,^bas^e^d^oⁿ^aⁿ^a^l^y^sⁱ^s^of^F^E^MA^f^l^{ood an}^d
^dam^a^g^e^as^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^an^{d U}^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 S}^u^m^m^a^ry^Fⁱ^l^e^{4 (S}^F⁴^{) dat}^a^fⁱ^l^e^s^.
^No^te:^E^s^tⁱ^m^a^t^e^s^a^r^e^fo^r^y^o^unge^r^a^d^ul^t^s^no^t^eⁿ^r^o^l^l^e^dⁱⁿ^sc^ho^o^l^.
Aggregate Earnings Losses. At the time of the 2000 Census,
households living in the hurricane-damaged or flooded areas had estimated aggregate
annual earnings in 1999 of $10 billion. This figure includes wages and salaries, and
net self employment income. Additionally, employers in the affected areas may have
depended on workers who lived in areas that were less severely impacted by the
storm, and their earnings are not included in this estimate. Some of the workers in
the most affected areas may have had jobs elsewhere, in less affected areas, and could
conceivably retain their jobs and earnings. The estimated $10 billion in earnings of
households that lived in hurricane-damaged or flooded areas amounts to nearly 29%
of the total earnings of all households living in the 14 county area. The $10 billion
aggregate earnings figure, cited above, is only a crude approximation of potential lost
earnings in the affected areas, reflecting economic circumstances of households in

1999, not 2005, but even by this crude measure, the impact is substantial.

Homeownership and Housing Characteristics
For most American families, a home is or will be their largest investment and
asset. It can be a source of equity and financial stability, as well as a tie to the
community. Another indicator of the pre-hurricane financial disadvantage in the
areas impacted by Hurricane Katrina is the low rate of homeownership. According

to CRS analyses, the area most heavily impacted by Hurricane Katrina had a lower
than average proportion of homeowners. The rate of homeownership among all
households in occupied housing units was 66% nationally in 2000, according to
Census figures, but was only 55% in the Katrina-impacted areas. As shown in Figure

10, this lag existed for the elderly, the non-elderly as well as the poor.

Figure 10. Percent of People Living in Owner-Occupied
Housing in Hurricane Katrina Flood or Storm-Damaged Areas
Compared to the Nation
(Based on 2000 Census Data)

^Source:^Es^tim^ates^prepared^by^th^e^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^sⁱ^on^al^R^e^s^earch^Serv^{ice (C}^R^S^{) w}^ith^as^sⁱ^s^t^an^{ce f}^r^om^th^e
^Lⁱ^brary^of^C^oⁿ^g^r^es^s^Co^ngr^e^ssi^on^al^C^a^rt^og^raph^y^Prog^ram^,^bas^e^{d on}^an^al^y^sⁱ^s^of^F^E^MA^f^l^{ood an}^d
^dam^a^g^e^as^s^e^s^s^m^en^t^s^an^{d U}^.^S^.^C^eⁿ^s^u^s^{2000 S}^u^m^m^a^ry^Fⁱ^l^e^{4 (S}^F⁴^{) dat}^a^fⁱ^l^e^s^.
It is unclear whether this lower rate of homeownership will impact the return
of residents displaced by Hurricane Katrina. Renters are more mobile and may have
an easier time resettling in new communities than homeowners, who will need to
either repair and return to damaged homes or sell them, assuming that they are worth
more than the amount of debt still owed on them. Note that 65% of owner-occupied
homes in the impacted region had some form of mortgage at the time of the 2000
Census. While Census data cannot answer the question of who will return, the data
do indicate that homeowners in the impacted areas had lived in their homes for many
years, possibly indicating strong community ties. More than half of all homeowners
had lived in their homes for 20 or more years (compared to 42% nationally), and just
under a third had lived in their homes for 30 or more years (compared to 22%
nationally). The data also indicate that, despite their general mobility, renters may
also have had strong ties, with 29% having lived in their homes for 10 years or more
(compared to 23% nationally).

Most homeowners in impacted areas lived in single-family homes (69%),
although a larger share than the national average lived in mobile homes (25%,
compared to 8% nationally). The finding that a high percentage of homes in the
damaged areas are mobile homes is not surprising, given the lower incomes in the
impacted areas as well as mobile homes’ susceptibility to damage.
Overall, an estimated 55% of 278,000 households impacted by the storm
owned their own home. Among poor households, over one-quarter owned their
home (27%); among non-poor households, over three-fifths (62%).²⁰
About a quarter of all owners and 46% of all renters in the impacted areas had
at least one housing condition as of the 2000 Census. Housing conditions are defined
as paying more than 30% of income toward housing costs (the standard considered
affordable), living with more than 1.01 person per room (the standard for
overcrowding), and lacking complete plumbing and/or kitchen facilities (the standard
for housing inadequacy). These rates are consistent with the national averages (of
24% of owners and 43% of renters). It is likely that these measures of inadequacy
and/or affordability will change as housing is rebuilt and new stock is added after the
hurricane.
Status of Other Assessments
This report’s analysis is based on the merger of FEMA flood and damage
assessments (data of September 21, 2005) with Census 2000 data. The FEMA flood
and damage assessments are derived from interpretations of satellite and aircraft
overflight imagery of the impacted area, combined with analysts’ assessments on the
scene. The FEMA flood and damage assessments were primarily derived from
interpretations of aerial imagery, which may be limited by the range of the flights
as well as subject to errors in categorizing areas. (The FEMA flood assessment
represents the high-water mark of hurricane-related flooding, not the level of flooding
on September 21.) Although the data from Census 2000 are now more than five
years old, they are the only currently available data at the geographic scale required
(Census Blocks and Tracts) to infer the social and demographic characteristics of
populations who were likely directly impacted by hurricane damage and/or flooding.
The estimates presented in this report rely heavily on the completeness and accuracy
of the FEMA flood and damage assessment data. The FEMA data are likely to have
captured most, but not all hurricane-related damage, and miss inland damage along
the hurricane’s storm track through Mississippi (mostly less than catastrophic
damage).
The data that were used in this report are not the only data being developed
to assess Hurricane Katrina’s impact. More will become available as time goes on.
In terms of categorizing the damage, the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration) has continued to conduct flyovers of the impacted area and update
its data, especially as flood waters have receded. Further, local officials and

²⁰ Here, poverty status is determined by the poverty status of the householder.

insurance adjusters have now gone into many of the impacted areas to conduct
thorough assessments of structural damage. The American Red Cross has also
conducted a structure-by-structure damage assessment. Using trained volunteers and
damage categories aligned with FEMA, the American Red Cross has estimated that
885,791 structures were impacted by Hurricane Katrina, of which 492,576 were
either destroyed (352,930) or sustained major damage (139,646). The breakdown,
as of October 3, 2005, is as follows:
^Ma^j^o^r^Miⁿ^o^r
^Dw^elling^Ty^pe^Dest^ro^y^e^d^D^a^m^age^Dam^age^Affected^Iⁿ^acces^sⁱ^ble^T^otal
^Sing^{le Fa}^m^ily^310,353^102,297^135,879^127,290^1,769^667,588
^M^a^nuf^a^c^t^u^red^1,815^3,388^6,692^5,834²⁴⁸^17,977
^Apa^r^tm^ent^40,762^33,961^27,881^52,551³⁴¹^155,226
^To^t^a^l^352,930^139,646^170,452^185,675^2,358^840,791
^Source:^Greg^T^uⁿ^e^{, A}^m^erican^R^e^{d C}^r^os^s^.^Nu^m^b^ers^v^e^r^b^ally^p^r^esen^ted^{at Ho}^u^sⁱⁿ^g^{Statistics User}^s
^G^r^ou^{p m}^eetⁱⁿ^g^on^T^u^es^day^,^O^c^t^{ober 25, 2005 at}^t^h^{e N}^a^tⁱ^oⁿ^a^l^A^s^s^o^ci^atⁱ^oⁿ^of^H^o^m^e^B^uⁱ^l^ders
^H^eadqu^art^e^rs^{, Was}^hⁱⁿ^g^t^on^{, D}^C^.
^No^te:^{More recen}^{t R}^e^{d C}^r^os^s^{data dis}^c^u^s^s^e^{d below}^areⁿ^o^tⁱⁿ^clu^d^edⁱⁿ^th^is^{table becau}^s^e^th^eyⁱⁿ^clu^d^e
^Hu^rrican^{e R}^ita.
Further assessments conducted by the American Red Cross suggest that the
FEMA damage assessment does not capture the full extent of inland damage,
concentrated largely along Hurricane Katrina’s storm track in Mississippi. The
FEMA damage assessment accounts for damage in just three Mississippi Counties
— Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson — that are situated directly on the Gulf Coast.
Information obtained from the American Red Cross indicate 4,609 destroyed
dwellings in areas that are outside of these three counties, accounting for 6.7% of all
destroyed dwellings (68,729) in Mississippi.²¹ The Red Cross’s assessment identifies
a total of 65,237 dwellings that suffered major damage (e.g., large portions of roofs
missing, extensive wall damage) in Mississippi, of which 45.9% (29,917) were
located in inland counties, not included in the FEMA assessment and therefore not
included in this CRS analysis.
The best source of data about the families who were displaced as a result of
Hurricane Katrina is the FEMA database of registrants. By early October, over 2
million individuals and households (not all necessarily displaced) had registered with
FEMA for disaster assistance as a result of hurricanes Katrina and Rita.²² That
database includes information about each person who has registered for assistance
after the disaster, including information about where they lived prior to evacuation

²¹ Red Cross damage assessment data, dated October 13, 2005. Provided to the Housing
Statistics Users Group (HSUG) via the National Association of Home Builders on
November 4, 2005.
²² Requests For Disaster Assistance Exceeds Two Million For 2005, More Than 1.9 Million
Registrations for Katrina and Rita Received in One Month, FEMA press release, October
4, 2005, Release Number: HQ-05-321

and where they are living after the disaster, based on postal zipcodes. While not
publicly available, at least one newspaper has had access to the zipcode information
and has published a map showing where families were from and where they have
gone.²³ While FEMA has stated it is concerned about the privacy rights of
registrants,²⁴ it can be expected that more information about displaced families will
become available in the future from this database.

²³ Katrina Exodus Reaches All States, Haya El Nasser and Paul Overberg, USA TODAY,
September 28, 2005.
²⁴ FEMA Restricts Evacuee Data, Citing Privacy: Families and Police Protest, By John
Pomfret, Washington Post, October 12, 2005.

Appendix A. Methodology
The estimates presented in this report are based on FEMA flood and damage
assessment data, combined with Census 2000 demographic and geographic boundary²⁵
data. The FEMA flood and damage assessments are as of September 21, 2005.
They reflect FEMA’s assessment of areas affected by structural damage and/or
flooding, based on remote sensing imagery (satellite and aircraft) interpretation,
combined with analysts’ assessments on the scene. (The FEMA flood assessment
represents the high-water mark of hurricane-related flooding, not the level of flooding
on September 21). FEMA data files showing the areas affected by flooding and/or
structural damage were obtained and mapped into a Geographic Information System
(GIS) by a Library of Congress cartographer. Among its other features, the GIS
contains U.S. Census population and geographic boundary data, and provides the
facility for geo-spatial analysis and mapping. The GIS was used to apportion areas
of assessed damage and/or flooding to Census Blocks, and then to aggregate Census
Blocks up to Census Tracts. Flood and damage apportionment factors were then
applied to Census 2000 Tract-level data in order to assess impacted areas in terms of
the social-demographic characteristics of the population most likely to have been
directly affected by the hurricane.
As noted in the body of the report, the estimates are based on 2000 data,
reflecting the number and characteristics of the population at that time — as if the
hurricane struck in April 2000, as opposed to August 2005. Numbers presented in
this report are estimates, providing a rough approximation of the numbers and
characteristics of persons, families, and households that are most likely to have been
impacted by the hurricane. The estimates are based on the methodology described
above, and rely heavily on the completeness and accuracy of the FEMA flood and
damage assessment data.
Subsequent and ongoing assessments conducted by the American Red Cross
suggest that the FEMA damage assessment does not capture the extent of inland
damage, concentrated largely along Hurricane Katrina’s storm track through
Mississippi. The FEMA damage assessment accounts for damage in just three
Mississippi Counties — Hancock, Harrison, and Jackson — that are situated directly
on the Gulf Coast. Information obtained from the American Red Cross indicate

4,609 destroyed dwellings in areas outside of these three counties, accounting for²⁶

6.7% of all destroyed dwellings (68,729) in Mississippi. The Red Cross’s
assessment identifies a total of 65,237 dwellings that suffered major damage (e.g.,
large portions of roofs missing, extensive wall damage) in Mississippi, of which
45.9% (29,917) were located in inland counties, not included in the FEMA
assessment and therefore not included in this CRS analysis.

²⁵ FEMA, ITS Mapping and Analysis Center, flood and damage assessment as of September

21, 2005. [http://www.gismaps.fema.gov/2005pages/rsdrkatrina.shtm].

²⁶ Red Cross damage assessment data, dated October 13, 2005. Provided to the Housing
Statistics Users Group (HSUG) via the National Association of Home Builders on
November 4, 2005.

FEMA Flooding and Damage Assessments
The FEMA flooding and structural damage data are based on separate
assessments. Consequently, areas with flooding and structural damage may overlap.
Structural damage is characterized at four different levels:
^!Catastrophic Damage: Most solid and all light or mobile structures
are destroyed;
^!Extensive Damage: Some solid structures are destroyed; most
sustain exterior and interior damage (e.g., roofs are missing, interior
walls exposed), most mobile homes and light structures are
destroyed;
^!Moderate Damage: Solid structures sustain exterior damage (e.g.,
missing roofs or roof segments); some mobile homes and light
structures are destroyed, many are damaged or displaced;
^!Limited Damage: Generally superficial damage to solid structures
(e.g., loss of tiles or roof shingles); some mobile homes and light
structures are damaged or displaced.
Recategorization into Non-Overlapping Areas. GIS methods were
applied to separate areas with flooding or structural damage only, from those areas
where flooding and structural damage overlapped, in order to avoid double counting.
Ten mutually exclusive areas were initially derived: 1) Flooding Only, 2)
Catastrophic Damage Only, 3) Extensive Damage Only, 4) Moderate Damage Only,
5) Limited Damage Only, 6) Flooding and Catastrophic Damage, 7) Flooding and
Extensive Damage, 8) Flooding and Moderate Damage, 9) Flooding and Limited
Damage, 10) No Flooding or Damage.
Apportion Census Block Populations by Flood/Damaged Areas.
The areas of assessed damage and/or flooding, defined above, were apportioned by
Census Block (the smallest unit of Census geography), based on the population in the
Block, and the Block’s overlapping and non-overlapping habitable area (i.e., land,
as opposed to water) with the assessed damage areas. Census Block boundaries are
not coincident with the geographic boundaries of the assessed damaged and/or
flooded areas. In order to apportion the 10 mutually exclusive categories (mentioned
above), an areal percentage of the overlapping damaged and/or flooded area was
applied to the Census 2000 Block population. To do this, we had to make the
assumption that population is evenly distributed within the Census Block. Because
of the small area geography of the Census Block, error introduced at the Block level
is less than it would be if the apportionment methodology had been implemented
directly at the Tract level. Apportioned Census Block populations, by percent in
flood areas, and/or areas with assessed structural damage, were then aggregated by
Census Tract, to arrive at apportionment rates for the Tract, for flooding and/or level
of structural damage, based on the 10 non-overlapping areas, defined above.

Apportionment Rates Applied
to Census 2000 Tract-Level Data
The apportionment rates, derived above, were then applied to Census 2000²⁷
data, summarized at the Census Tract level. The Census 2000 summary Tract level
data provide the lowest level of geographical detail that is publicly available on a
broad range of social, demographic, income, and housing characteristics of the
population.
As an example, if a Census Tract had a population in 2000 of 3,200 people²⁸
and 20% of its population was estimated to have lived in a flooded area based on the
Census Block population apportionment rate procedure described above, then 640
people would be estimated to have lived in flooded areas, and 2,560 in non-flooded
areas. If 40% of that Census Tract’s population was African American (1,280
people), then, under the methodology employed, the same share for the Tract’s
overall population estimated to live in its flooded area (i.e., 20%), would be applied
to the black population in the Tract (1,280), to arrive at an estimate of 256 black
people who lived in the flooded area of the Tract. While the methodology estimates
proportionate shares of Census Blocks’ populations affected by flooding and/or
structural damage at the aggregated Census Tract level, it does not distinguish within
a Census Tract where individuals with different characteristics lived. For example,
it assumes at the Census Tract level, the entire population was affected
proportionately, regardless of their characteristics or where they lived within the
Tract.
Regrouping of Areas for Analysis
The ten mutually exclusive areas of flooding and/or damage, described
earlier, were regrouped into areas presented in the analysis. Areas with Catastrophic
Damage were combined into one grouping, regardless of whether there was also
Flooding (i.e., categories 1 and 2, above). All areas with Flooding, other than those
that also had Catastrophic Damage (2), were combined into Flooded areas (i.e, 1, 7,
8, and 9, above). Comprehensive data on the depth or duration of flooding by area
were not available when we conducted this analysis, so we are unable to distinguish
the severity of flooding. Areas without flooding, that had Extensive (3) or Moderate
Damage (4) were combined into a single category. Lastly, areas with Limited
Damage and no flooding (5) were combined with areas where there was no Flooding
or Damage (10).

²⁷ U.S. Census 2000 Summary File 4 (SF4) data files. Documentation for these files may
be found at [http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2000/doc/sf4.pdf].
²⁸ Of the 510 Census Tracts identified as having any damage or flooding based on the
analysis of the FEMA damage flood assessment data, the median population in 2000
numbered 3,213. Half of the 510 Census Tracts covered less that a square mile. One-
quarter of the Tracts covered less than 0.38 square miles, and one-quarter over 5.8 square
miles.

assessed, the estimated populations in the redefined areas based on their April 2000
Census populations were as follows:
^!Catastrophic damage, regardless of flood status (40,000);
^!Flooded, excluding areas of catastrophic damage (652,000);
^!Non-flooded, extensive damage (5,600);
^!Non-flooded, moderate damage (13,700);
^!No damage or flooding, or limited damage only (1,747,000).