Federal Aid for Riot Victims

I feel compelled to respond to those critical of Federal Emergency Management Agency Region IX efforts in providing assistance to the victims of the Los Angeles riots.

The women and men of our agency have been extraordinarily responsive to an unprecedented number of events and have given up their vacations, holidays and time with their loved ones for the past three years. Since 1989 we have averaged a presidentially declared disaster once every 30 days. Our responses have been swift, compassionate and effective. We have received praise for our responses to the victims in Hawaii, Guam, American Samoa, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Oakland, and other parts of California.

FEMA made an exceptional effort to qualify the Los Angeles riots as a disaster under the Stafford Act, which does not include riot in its definition of “disaster.” Our people delivered assistance under difficult circumstances, including threats to their personal safety.

To date FEMA has disbursed $117,626,955 to help Los Angeles riot victims. This sum includes home repair assistance to 399 families, rental and mortgage assistance to 6,738 families, cash grants to 1,180 families to cover the replacement of personal property and other necessary expenses, and unemployment assistance to 3,307 individuals. The city and county have received $80 million for their losses and response costs.

Of those denied FEMA assistance, 11% had business interruption insurance, which covers rental-mortgage payments; 9% were not facing foreclosures or eviction; 15% hadn’t been laid off due to the riots; 11% had no proof of occupancy or business ownership; and 54% could provide no evidence of a disaster-caused financial hardship. Many applicants cannot provide documentation for salaries, business income, rent or mortgage payments. They readily admit to never having paid taxes on previous income earned in our state.

The great majority of those seeking aid are truly deserving and do provide documentation of their claims. However, a significant number of applications have been submitted by those who seek to take advantage of the programs that are intended for legitimate disaster victims.

Hearings on a national level are in order, if only to provide a long-needed discussion as to how helpful government at all levels should be in addressing the needs of victims no matter what their status. One thing is clear to me as a professional emergency manager with many years experience at the state and federal level. FEMA, which is designed to speed recovery from disasters, cannot be expected to resolve longstanding social and economic problems that predate the presidential disaster declaration.

WILLIAM MEDIGOVICH

Regional Director, FEMA

San Francisco