Full text
PANDEMIC RESPONSE
ACCOUNTABILITY COMMITTEE
Pandemic Relief Experiences:
A Focus on Six Communities
March 2024
City of Springfield, Massachusetts
City of Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
Sheridan County, Nebraska
Marion County, Georgia
White Earth Nation Reservation in Minnesota
Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation in New Mexico
i
A Review of Pandemic Relief
Funding and How it Was Used in
Six Different U.S. Communities
Pandemic Relief Experiences: A Focus on Six Communities
Across the six communities we visited, we received similar feedback, information, and concerns
from the government, community, and business leaders we spoke to about the effects of the
pandemic on their communities and how they worked together to respond. We believe the themes
identified in our work provide valuable insights to policymakers, program officials, and the American
public as they assess the federal government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic and prepare
for the next major emergency. These themes centered around four focus areas:
Program Administration and Guidance | We heard mixed reviews across the six communities
about working with the federal government. New programs established to respond to the pandemic
tended to create confusion and administrative burden that made several communities hesitant to
spend relief funds for fear of unintentionally misspending the funds due to a lack of clarity about
program requirements and later being required to pay the money back to the federal government.
Alternatively, existing programs tended to get better reviews because recipients already knew
points-of-contact, program requirements, and reporting systems. Furthermore, in some instances,
funding expiration dates may have rushed spending and program design.
Purpose of the Review
Beginning in late March 2020, the
federal government provided more
than $5 trillion in emergency
relief across various programs
to help individuals, businesses,
and state, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments respond
to the COVID-19 pandemic. The
federal government’s assistance
was critical to communities’
ability to address the multiple
impacts of the pandemic. Just as
important is how the communities
themselves pulled together during
the crisis.
To learn more about how
communities across the nation
used federal pandemic relief
funds to respond to the pandemic,
we closely examined how six
communities used the funds and
whether the federal aid helped
the communities.
Communities Visited
•
Springfield, Massachusetts
•
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
•
Sheridan County, Nebraska
•
Marion County, Georgia
•
Jicarilla Apache Nation
Reservation in New Mexico
•
White Earth Nation Reservation
in Minnesota
•
10
Federal
Agencies
6
Communities
$2.65
BILLION
Pandemic Relief
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
ii
Knowing Your Community | Across all locations,
we heard a resounding theme—We know our
community. We know our residents. Each of
the communities that we visited had a unique
personality driven by its history, location, and
demographics. As such, community leaders
tailored pandemic outreach, education, and
programs to meet the specific needs of their
communities. For example, Springfield, MA,
developed a “Vax Force” to create outreach
tailored to its African American community.
Pre-existing Challenges | Rural communities—
including the two Tribal communities—expressed
challenges associated with limited to no internet
availability, limited staffing resources, routine
use of paper-based systems, housing shortages,
and other constraints. Despite these pre-existing
challenges, the communities tailored their uses of federal pandemic funds to help address the
specific needs of their citizens during the pandemic. For example, Marion County, GA, used
geospatial technology to help determine where to place internet hot spots to reach students with
internet access issues.
Sustaining Lives and Recovering from the Pandemic | Community officials explained to us that
they first had to address the immediate health and safety concerns created by this global health
emergency. They also had to deal with, and were still dealing with, ongoing non-health-related
impacts of the pandemic such as food insecurity, public safety, and supporting local businesses
and the local economy. Multiple communities focused significant efforts on feeding schoolchildren,
the elderly, and other at-risk individuals and families.
Considerations for
Policymakers for
Future Emergencies
• Use existing channels and structures, when
possible, to provide funding, implement
programs, share guidance, and perform other
program administration services.
• Allow flexibility in the use of funds to the
extent feasible.
• Be aware of local resource limitations when
developing programs.
• Promote internet access and information
technology modernization efforts in rural
communities.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
iii
CONTENTS
A Review of Pandemic Relief Funding and How it Was Used In Six Different
U.S. Communities .................................................................................................................................i
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................iii
Pandemic Relief Experiences: A Focus on Six Communities ........................................................... 1
About the Six Communities ............................................................................................................ 2
Pandemic Experience Insights from Local Community Leaders.................................................. 5
A FOCUS ON | Federal Pandemic Relief Program Administration and Coordination
with Communities
While communities appreciated federal funding, new and changing program guidance
or reporting requirements resulted in confusion and additional burdens ................................. 7
A FOCUS ON | Knowing the Community and Developing a Response that Makes Sense for
its Residents
Pandemic response efforts centered around community leaders’ deep understanding
of their communities coupled with building and maintaining trust ..........................................12
A FOCUS ON | Challenges Existing Before the Pandemic
Pre-existing challenges in the rural counties and on Tribal reservations
may have made their pandemic response efforts more difficult ..............................................15
A FOCUS ON | Sustaining Lives During the Pandemic and Recovering from the Impacts of the
Global Health Crisis
The pandemic created several non-health-related challenges that community
leaders had to address. Some of these challenges still remained more
than two years into the pandemic ...............................................................................................19
A FOCUS ON | Meeting the Moment: Now and in the Future
Community experiences highlight considerations for emergency preparedness
now and in the future ...................................................................................................................22
Appendix A: Acronyms ......................................................................................................................24
Appendix B: Scope and Methodology ..............................................................................................25
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
1
Pandemic Relief Experiences:
A Focus on Six Communities
In response to the wide-reaching impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic, the federal government provided more than
$5 trillion in emergency relief across more than 500
government programs to help individuals, businesses, and
state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments respond to
the pandemic.
To learn how communities across the nation responded
to the pandemic, we initiated a multi-part review of six
communities. In coordination with 10 of our Pandemic
Response Accountability Committee (PRAC) member
Offices of Inspectors General (OIGs), we selected two
small-to-medium sized cities, two rural counties, and two
Tribal reservations to serve as case studies for our
review—see Figure 1 for the locations in our review.1
Why We Did This Review
In response to the wide-reaching
impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic,
the federal government provided more
than $5 trillion in emergency relief
across various programs. To learn more
about communities across the nation
and their pandemic responses, we
initiated a review of six communities to
understand how they used the funds
received and whether the funds helped
the communities.
1 For the purposes of this review, we defined the communities by the geographic boundaries—the city boundary, the county boundary, or the
reservation boundary. As such, our work focused on more than the local government for each community. Our work included any pandemic
relief and response program funding provided to a local government, business, organization, entity, or individual within the geographic
boundaries.
Figure 1. Six Locations Selected for Review
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
2
In July 2023, we issued phase one of this review that found 10 federal agencies provided the six
communities approximately $2.65 billion in pandemic relief funding across 89 pandemic programs
and subprograms. That report also addressed the data gaps that make it difficult for taxpayers to
identify the amounts and purposes of the relief provided to local communities.
This report covers phase two of our review, which examined how the communities used funds from
a subset of the 89 programs. Specifically, we looked at 22 programs and subprograms to see if use
of these funds generally aligned with pandemic program goals and objectives. In addition to this
“capping” report that highlights our insights across the six communities, we plan to issue separate
reports for each location that will focus on the specific programs and subprograms that provided
funding in each locale.
In this report, we focus specifically on insights and common themes gathered between May 2022
and December 2022 in conversations with local leaders involved in the pandemic response at
various government, business, community-based organizations, and other organizations during
site visits to the six communities. The experiences of these communities and the actions for
emergency preparedness may help inform emergency relief and response programs in the future.
We completed this work in accordance with the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and
Efficiency’s (CIGIE) Quality Standards for Inspection and Evaluation. See Appendix B for more
information on the site visits and details on the scope and approach of our review.
About the Six Communities
The six communities vary in size, population, and location. For example, Coeur d’Alene, ID, covers
15.57 square miles while Sheridan County, NE, covers 2,441 square miles. Jicarilla Apache Nation
(Jicarilla) Reservation, NM, has 3,108 residents, while Springfield, MA, has 154,064 residents.
The communities represent the Northeast, South, Midwest, Great Plains, Southwest, and Pacific
Northwest regions of the country. While these locations have many differences, we found they
shared many similarities and experiences during the pandemic. Figure 2 provides more information
about the six communities included in this review.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
3
Figure 2. Contextual Demographic Information for All Six Selected Communities
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
4
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
5
Sources for the Contextual Demographic Information for All Six Selected Communities
a
U.S. Census Bureau for cities and counties (as of July 1, 2022), Indian Tribes (2017-2021 American Community Survey
Estimates, pulled on May 31, 2023).
b
Because individuals may be considered a member of more than one racial demographic, the percentages may not equal 100 percent.
c
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention COVID Data Tracker based on the rate of individuals who received at least two doses of the vaccine.
For the two small-to-medium sized cities in the study, the vaccination rate represents the county-wide rate. Data as of May 30, 2023.
d
Number provided by personnel employed at the location, except for Springfield, MA, which was obtained from the Massachusetts Office of
Health and Human Services on March 23, 2023. Data for Kootenai County, ID (which includes Coeur d’Alene, ID), Sheridan County, NE, Marion
County, GA, and White Earth Nation Reservation provided as of February 28, 2023; and data provided for Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation,
NM, as of May 22, 2023. Total COVID-19 cases may exceed total population because an individual could have tested positive for COVID-19
more than once. Note: Case and death data for Coeur d’Alene, ID, could only be obtained at the county level (Kootenai County).
e
Data provided by Indian Health Services, as of May 22, 2023.
f
U.S. Census Bureau. The poverty line varies depending on factors, such as the year and household size. Please see Poverty Thresholds for
more information.
g
Land area size for Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation obtained from the Census Reporter, and land area size information for the White Earth
Nation Reservation obtained from the Tribe’s website.
Pandemic Experience Insights from Local Community Leaders
At the beginning of the pandemic, the federal government disbursed billions of dollars in funding
to local communities through new and existing programs using various mechanisms including
grants, contracts, direct payments, and individual financial assistance. Local officials in several
communities told us that new programs (those created
specifically in response to the pandemic) tended to create
more confusion and administrative burden compared
to existing programs. For example, some officials were
hesitant to spend funds they received from new pandemic
relief programs because guidance on allowable costs was
not always clear. Therefore, they feared unintentionally
misspending due to unclear or changing program
requirements and having to pay funds back to the federal
government. Alternatively, existing programs (those that
were already in place prior to the pandemic) tended to
receive better reviews because recipients already knew
program points-of-contact, program requirements, and
reporting systems.
In some instances, expiration dates for the funds may have
rushed spending and program design. For example, leaders
in one community said they would have designed individual
assistance programs with more controls and verification
activities if they had been given more time, but they had
to make spending decisions within nine months before the
funds expired. When they received additional funding and
had more time, these leaders said the community conducted
a lessons-learned assessment of their program and
designed it more intentionally.
EXPLORE THE
PANDEMIC-RELATED
FUNDING DATA ON
PandemicOversight.gov
Explore by Agency
Explore by Program
Explore by State
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
6
Across all locations, we heard a resounding theme—We know our community. We know our
residents. Each of the communities that we visited had a unique personality driven by its history,
location, and demographics. As such, community leaders tailored pandemic outreach, education,
and programs specifically to the needs of their communities. In some cases, community leaders
implemented locally tailored solutions and creative mechanisms to respond to the urgent needs
of their citizens. For example, locations relied on trusted members of society, such as prominent
local officials, religious leaders, and community members, to help provide targeted messaging
and outreach.
Another common theme we heard across the rural communities—including the two Tribal
communities—centered around pre-existing challenges that were either exacerbated during the
pandemic or made the response to the pandemic more difficult. Specifically, these communities
shared constraints with limited-to-no internet availability, limited staffing resources, routine use of
paper-based systems, and housing shortages. Despite these challenges, the communities were
able to tailor their uses of federal pandemic funds to help address the specific needs of their
citizens and to work with surrounding communities to bolster a response to the pandemic.
During our site visits, community officials said they had to deal with both immediate and longer-term
issues created during the pandemic. For example, community officials told us they not only had to
address the immediate health and safety concerns created by the global health emergency, but
they also had to deal with the non-health-related impacts of the pandemic, such as food insecurity,
public safety, and supporting local businesses and the local economy. Officials explained that they
were still dealing with these challenges at the time of our site visits—more than two years into the
pandemic.
In the following section, we go deeper into these common themes and highlight specific experiences
from local leaders in the six communities in four main areas:
• Federal pandemic relief program administration and coordination with communities
• Knowing the community and developing a response that makes sense for their citizens
• Challenges existing before the pandemic
• Sustaining lives during the pandemic and recovering from the impacts of the global
health emergency
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
7
A FOCUS ON | Federal Pandemic
Relief Program Administration and
Coordination with Communities
While communities appreciated federal funding, new and
changing program guidance or reporting requirements resulted
in confusion and additional burdens.
In our phase one report, we focused on 10 federal agencies that provided funding to the six
communities through a total of 89 programs and subprograms.2 Some recipients we spoke with
received funding from multiple agencies and programs, requiring them to navigate different
program structures and reporting requirements. Other recipients we spoke with, who did not
typically receive funding directly from the federal government prior to the pandemic, had to learn to
navigate federal guidance and reporting requirements. Throughout our discussions, while recipients
in multiple communities said they appreciated the federal funding, the communities had mixed
reviews about program guidance and administration of the financial assistance programs. For
example:
• Officials were more comfortable when agencies provided funding through existing programs
and funding structures in contrast to newly created programs like the Coronavirus Relief Fund
(CRF). For the new programs with changing or unfamiliar structures or points-of-contact, some
recipients were frustrated that unclear program guidance created additional administrative
challenges.
• Some community officials indicated that they were hesitant to use pandemic relief funds when
federal or state guidance was unclear because they may have spent the funds on unallowable
uses. Officials shared concerns about potentially being required to pay funds back under such
circumstances, conveying that their communities could not afford to do so if required.
• Officials also noted that the expiration dates for some funding affected their ability to be more
strategic with their spending, and as a result they spent funding in a more reactive way.
These factors may have hindered a community’s ability to fully meet individual program goals.
2 Programs were identified by each OIG for their applicable department. Some of the “programs” are associated with the same Assistance Listing
Number and have been identified as “subprograms” for the purposes of this review to establish consistency across agencies. For example,
multiple “subprograms” fall under the Education Stabilization Fund (84.425) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
(10.542).
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
8
Most community officials believed they received enough federal
assistance to respond to the pandemic’s immediate impact.
Generally, the recipients we spoke with across the communities believed they had received enough
relief to address the immediate impact of the pandemic. One community official stated that the
funding did “take the edge off” when responding to the pandemic; that official further explained
that the “formula worked for us” when referring to the total amount of funding they received to
assist with their pandemic response. Also, during discussions about CRF and other federal funding,
officials indicated that they were happy with the level of funding but noted that in some instances
they needed additional funding to address continuing issues resulting from the pandemic. An
official with Coeur d’Alene Public Schools stated that the district would not have financially
survived the pandemic without the federal support. Because of the financial support received
through the pandemic relief funds, the district, one official explained, could keep teachers and
employees calm. The additional funding allowed the district to have some financial flexibility during
an unknown situation and purchase items for virtual and classroom learning.
Using existing program structures provided familiar points-of-contact
and made required reporting and program implementation easier.
Across the six communities, we received more positive feedback on program guidance and
administration when funding was provided through existing program structures. Local officials said
the use of existing structures provided familiar points-of-contact to ask questions about the funds
and allowable expenses. We were also told it made required reporting to federal agencies about
expenditures and uses of funds easier when the system being used was one they already knew or
had previously used.
Moreover, programs using familiar structures appeared to be less burdensome to implement or
administer quickly. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) previously reported on this issue.
For example, in their December 2022 report about the distribution of relief to Tribal recipients,
GAO reported that agencies using existing mechanisms were able to distribute funds more quickly
to Tribal recipients. This reduced the strain on agencies and Tribal governments’ administrative
capacities because they did not have to learn new systems and processes.
An official with the Waubun-Ogema-White Earth Public School District within the White Earth
Nation (White Earth) Reservation said the state of Minnesota set up the application process for the
Department of Education’s Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds
using the same system it uses for other grants. The district official liked the process because they
were familiar with the system.
One official in Springfield, MA, found complying with the requirements for the Coronavirus Aid,
Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program easy because
they were familiar with the Federal Transit Administration’s reimbursement system and knew the
backup documentation they were required to maintain.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
9
Administration of new programs during an emergency created
confusion and a hesitancy to spend funds.
SPOTLIGHT ON | Direct Payments to Local Communities
CRF and the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) were both new programs that provided
direct payments to communities to help with their pandemic responses. Although the funds were
for similar purposes, CRF and SLFRF were distributed differently, resulting in varying oversight and
compliance responsibilities for state, Tribal, and local governments. Communities could have
received funding either directly as a prime recipient or as a subrecipient after it passed through a
non-federal entity. Table 1 below identifies the distribution structures for both CRF and SLFRF to the
local governments in each community.
Table 1. CRF and SLFRF Award Structure by Location
Community
CRF
SLFRF
Prime Recipient Subrecipient
Prime Recipient
Coeur d’Alene, Idaho
yes
yes
Springfield, Massachusetts
yes
yes
Marion County, Georgia
yes
yes
Sheridan County, Nebraska
yes
Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation, New Mexico
yes
yes
yes
White Earth Nation Reservation, Minnesota
yes
yes
yes
Note: This table only reflects the funding received by the local governments (i.e., the city, county, and Tribal governments), and does
not include other potential subrecipients of CRF or SLFRF within the community boundaries.
Two of the larger relief programs that provided funding to local governments were new during
the pandemic—CRF and SLFRF. New programs introduce new guidance, reporting requirements,
risks, and potentially unclear points-of-contact at federal agencies. GAO has previously reported
that officials from three organizations representing state and local governments said that smaller
governments (e.g., small cities or rural counties) typically have less knowledge and awareness of
federal processes than larger governments. This can limit a smaller government’s ability to comply
with requirements.
We heard similar sentiments about challenges understanding federal requirements and navigating
new federal program requirements during our site visits. Jicarilla officials explained they were
comfortable spending CRF money received through the state of New Mexico for hazard pay benefits
because the state had approved the expenditure and was responsible for paying it back if the
costs were later deemed not allowable. Jicarilla officials noted that hazard pay was beneficial
for employees working overtime and taking on increased health risks as they provided services
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
10
to Tribal members. However, they did not plan to use the CRF money they received directly as a
prime recipient on hazard pay because it was not clear to them based upon their reading of the
requirements and guidance that hazard pay was an allowable CRF expenditure. Consequently, the
Tribal government did not want to be in a position where it would have to pay funds back to the
federal government if they made an unallowable expenditure.
Officials from the largest community we visited, Springfield, MA, stated that they too had difficulty
understanding allowable costs for CRF. In Springfield’s case, officials had to work with their U.S.
Representative to assist with setting up a meeting and identifying a point-of-contact to talk directly
with the Department of the Treasury officials to have their questions answered.
Pandemic program expiration dates, according to local officials, may have rushed decision-making,
reduced effectiveness of spending, or failed to address ongoing challenges that will remain post-
pandemic.
SPOTLIGHT ON | SLFRF Spending in Sheridan County, NE
The pandemic resulted in many new recipients of federal funding across many different programs.
Specifically, SLFRF provided funding to thousands of local governments that had never been direct
recipients of federal funding. The Department of the Treasury also provided these funds through
two direct payments, one in summer 2021 and the second about 12 months later. For example,
Sheridan County, NE, received its first payment in June 2021 and its second payment in June 2022.
At the time of our site visit to Sheridan County, NE, in August 2022, the county government had
not yet spent any of the SLFRF funding it had received—$1,018,974 in total. This delay occurred,
in part, because county government officials wanted to be intentional about how they used the
funds. Officials noted that they did not have full confidence in their understanding of what was an
allowable expenditure, and they were concerned that the county did not have the ability to pay back
the funds if they misinterpreted the guidance. The county even contacted an attorney to assist with
interpreting the program’s detailed guidance. It did not hire the attorney because, according
to one official, the estimated attorney fees would have cost them about half of their total SLFRF
funding. One official even stated that they would rather not spend the money (even though it could
help them) than risk spending it on an unallowable cost.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
11
Pandemic program expiration dates, according to local officials, may
have rushed decision-making, reduced effectiveness of spending, or
failed to address ongoing challenges that will remain post-pandemic.
Generally, federal programs that provide funding to recipients to implement or administer programs
make funds available for a set period of time—known as a period of performance or the period of
availability. The pandemic relief and response programs were similar. Some programs had funds
available for less than one year while others made funds available for as many as four years. Some
programs had multiple rounds of funding that each had different expiration dates. For example,
the ESSER program had three rounds of funding with expiration dates of September 30, 2022,
September 30, 2023, and September 30, 2024.
SPOTLIGHT ON | Emergency Operations Center Encouraged a Coordinated Effort
Three of the communities established an Emergency Operations Center (EOC) or team to help
respond to the pandemic while providing essential services to the community. The coordination and
structure of the EOC (along with previous emergency response experience) was highlighted and
touted as a key element of success in responding to and navigating the pandemic. Predominantly,
the EOC assisted each of the communities in developing a comprehensive response because the
teams included individuals from multiple disciplines such as emergency managers, health officials,
program staff, and financial managers.
• Springfield, MA, had previously experienced three natural disasters which resulted in
coordination with state officials as well as federal entities like the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). This previous experience helped city officials who were familiar
with disaster responses know which documentation was required for reimbursement while
in an uncertain situation. As such, the city officials set up an Emergency Response Team (an
EOC-like structure) to help coordinate and communicate the city’s response efforts.
• Jicarilla Apache Nation emergency officials had FEMA contacts so they could reach out
to FEMA Region 6 officials to ask specific questions and find resources to respond to the
pandemic. Officials expressed that this existing relationship was essential for ensuring the one
supermarket on the reservation continued to receive food shipments. Jicarilla also set up an
EOC that consisted of emergency managers, financial managers, and local health officials.
• White Earth Nation set up an EOC that included key Tribal government personnel as well as
county officials and local (non-Tribal) law enforcement and emergency services. Including non-
Tribal officials on the EOC helped coordinate a response across the large reservation which is
physically part of multiple counties.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
12
A FOCUS ON | Knowing the
Community and Developing a
Response that Makes Sense for its
Residents
Pandemic response efforts centered around community
leaders’ deep understanding of their communities coupled
with building and maintaining trust.
We heard from many community leaders that pandemic response efforts required locally tailored
solutions versus a “one-size-fits-all” approach. Across every location we visited, we discovered a
similar theme: we know our community and developed a response designed for our residents.
For example, officials used personal knowledge of their communities and survey results to inform
decisions and tailor outreach efforts about the pandemic. Multiple officials also stated that pandemic
assistance programs’ flexibilities enabled them to develop a response tailored to their communities.
SPOTLIGHT ON | The Anishinaabe
Medicine Wheel
White Earth leaders developed a public health risk
indicator using their traditional Medicine Wheel. It
was important to Tribal leaders to develop messaging
and outreach that made sense for their members
and would connect on a local level. Using the familiar
Medicine Wheel, White Earth was able to articulate
the severity of COVID-19 in their community. This
customized messaging was even highlighted as a
good practice by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) in their blog series, “Stories from
the Field.” The blog pointed to White Earth’s use of
cultural, spiritual, and familiar language to care for
their community in an uncertain time.
Figure 3. (Right) Image and Social media post on
December 7, 2020 sharing the risk level on the
Anishinaabe Medicine Wheel owned by White Earth Nation.
A message from the White Earth Emergency Management Team:
Again, our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones this week due to COVID-19. We are
in a surge and the numbers keep increasing. The best practice to slow the spread is to still social
distance, wear masks, wash hands and sanitize surfaces. Check on your elders. Do not travel if
possible, and stay home. Miigwech!
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
13
SPOTLIGHT ON | Springfield's
Vax Force
Springfield, MA, health officials said
that they were thankful for the federal
health messaging and public outreach
materials, but they also knew that those
materials would not resonate with many
city residents. Instead, the Springfield
Department of Health and Human
Services established a “Vax Force” in
January 2021. As part of its efforts, the
Vax Force surveyed the public to identify
the entities that community members
Figure 4. Members of Springfield’s Vax Force.
trusted most. The group found that
their community trusted faith-based
organizations. The Vax Force then worked closely with local faith-based organizations to disseminate
vaccine information. A prominent magazine focused on the African American community highlighted
the efforts of the Vax Force and its tailored approach for the African American community and other
minority communities in the Springfield area. Springfield also used this model to assist with youth
outreach and created a Youth Vax Force.
Officials we met with across the six communities said they sought to educate individuals about
the public safety risks from COVID-19 and in doing so needed to address fear in the community.
Surrounded by great uncertainty and changing health guidance, many leaders said their
communities needed information that was pertinent to them and their circumstances. They
used trusted voices in their communities such as Tribal elders, firefighters, Emergency Medical
Services (EMS) workers, and leaders of faith-based organizations. Many communities found that
disseminating information through these trusted sources was more reassuring for residents.
Across the locations we visited, using trusted voices in the community contributed to the success
of pandemic education and vaccinations programs. For example, Coeur d’Alene, ID, firefighters
provided vaccines to each other, the community, and city
government employees to support vaccination efforts.
Community leaders said that having known and trusted
community members provide vaccination information
increased vaccination rates and allowed individuals to make
informed decisions, reducing anxiety and fear.
According to the CDC data and information published by the
Indian Health Service, American Indians and Alaska Natives
had COVID-19 infection rates at least 3.5 times higher than
any other population, were four times more likely to be
"Ensuring the safety of our elders
and of our people was a primary
focus. If we lose our elders, we
could lose our traditions. If we
lose our people, our entire Tribe
could be wiped out."
-Jicarilla Apache Nation
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
14
hospitalized due to COVID-19, and had higher mortality rates. Given the increase in risk due to
COVID-19 and historical distrust in the federal government and Western medicine, federal
guidance highlighted the need for comprehensive, culturally appropriate personal and public health
services during the pandemic. In Jicarilla, elders and leaders, including the Tribal President, publicly
received the vaccination and discussed why they had done so. Some of their reasons were to
protect their elders and, thus, their traditions. Videos showing elders discussing significant cultural
events and traditions that were postponed due to the public health crisis were posted on social
media and announced on the radio in both English and the Apache language. These outreach
activities helped the Jicarilla people stay connected during a time of isolation. Tribal leaders
attributed their high vaccination rate (almost 84 percent) to the example set by trusted elders
being vaccinated.
Communities appreciated flexible federal funding that enabled a
locally focused response.
Many of the pandemic programs allowed broad uses of funds to provide communities flexibility in
responding to the pandemic in a way that made sense for their communities. Officials we spoke
with across the communities appreciated this flexibility in how they could spend the federal money.
For example, an official with the White Earth government explained that even though the Tribe did
not receive CRF funds until June 2020, they were able to use the funds to cover expenses going
back to the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020.
In another example, an official with the Mahnomen School District, located within the White Earth
reservation, indicated that the allowable uses of funding from the Department of Education’s
ESSER program were broad and provided flexibility for the school district given the differences in
school populations and facilities. The Mahnomen official stated that guidance for school bus use
recommended that the windows be kept open to increase air flow. However, open windows on a bus
during winter in Minnesota was not an option. Instead, the district purchased an additional school
bus with ESSER funds to enable social distancing and allow windows to remain closed during
cold weather.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
15
A FOCUS ON | Challenges Existing
Before the Pandemic
Pre-existing challenges in the rural counties and on Tribal
reservations may have made their pandemic response efforts
more difficult.
Leaders discussed the pre-existing challenges faced by rural and Tribal communities that were
exacerbated by the pandemic.
• Internet availability: Officials across four locations cited a lack of consistent internet
availability in their communities. This made it difficult for students and workers to transition to
remote environments needed to protect them from COVID-19.
• Paper-based processes: Community organizations who relied on paper-based operations to
conduct business struggled to process the influx of paper documentation while keeping the
public and workers safe.
• Staffing issues: The local governments of rural or small communities faced pre-existing
challenges with low staffing levels and high turnover that hindered their pandemic responses.
• Low housing stock: Lastly, a shortage of available housing adversely affected the health,
safety, and well-being of citizens at several locations.
During our visits, we learned that these communities worked to devise workarounds to these
challenges, sometimes with the assistance of federal pandemic funds. See below for more
information about each of these pre-existing challenges.
The lack of internet access in rural communities made it challenging
for students to learn remotely and for government workers to serve
the public.
In several locations we visited, household internet access was limited and often non-existent. With
the move to remote work and learning in the early months of the pandemic, communities needed to
quickly find solutions to provide internet access to their residents.
Locations we visited used pandemic aid to help fund creative solutions. For example, the Marion
County School District worked with the River Valley Regional Commission to use geospatial imagery
tools and technology to place school buses equipped with hotspots near residences with the least
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
16
internet access to assist students with retrieving and submitting their school assignments. In
another example, Jicarilla officials used similar ingenuity to help address students’ lack of internet
access, or, for many, extremely low-speed internet. Using ESSER funds, Jicarilla officials equipped
vehicles with hotspots and parked them across the reservation. In addition, Tribal officials stated
that they used CRF funds to construct six new communication towers to increase internet
availability needed for virtual learning and continued Tribal government operations through virtual
work. Despite these efforts, officials stated that internet availability within their communities was
still very limited and hindered their response to the pandemic.
Staffing and resource challenges, such as non-competitive wages, for
local governments and organizations made it difficult to recruit and
retain employees.
Rural communities had pre-existing staffing challenges that worsened during the pandemic due
to low wages, overwhelming responsibilities, and staff concerns about increased health risks.
For example, a non-profit organization in the Sheridan County, NE, area noted high turnover in
Head Start teachers (teachers who provide early childhood education, health, nutrition, and
parent involvement services to low-income families) because these positions already had heavy
responsibilities which grew during the pandemic and proved even more challenging than before.
While pandemic funds helped communities provide additional bonuses to their workers, some
community officials said that the temporary nature of pandemic funds did not allow them to
address long-standing challenges in recruiting and retaining staff. Rural communities may
have been less likely to hire permanent staff or give existing staff permanent pay increases
because the communities did not know if they could continue to pay these costs after temporary
pandemic assistance funding ran out. In addition, one Marion County, GA, leader stated that
smaller communities often do not have enough staff or the experience to identify potential federal
funding opportunities to address their challenges, which may result in missed opportunities for
needed funding.
SPOTLIGHT ON | Marion County, GA, Staffing Challenges
A Marion County official informed us that they faced long-standing staffing challenges in key
positions critical to serving their community. These challenges intensified during the pandemic.
Officials informed us that many critical positions with overwhelming responsibilities were only part-
time positions, including the County Commissioners and the Mayor of Buena Vista, GA (the largest
city within the county boundaries). Even full-time positions faced overwhelming responsibilities.
For example, one registered nurse was responsible for managing the entire health district for
the county
.
Additionally, Marion County officials stated that many positions critical to the pandemic response
had high turnover, such as EMS workers, the County Manager (who managed any federal
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
17
assistance), and schoolteachers. For example, the EMS supervisor stated that EMS workers
experienced high turnover rates because they made only $17 per hour despite the significant
demand and increased health risk they faced. Marion County officials stated that pandemic funding
enabled them to provide premium pay for these positions. However, the school superintendent
noted difficulties recruiting school counselors because the short-term availability of pandemic
funding could not support permanent positions.
Despite Marion County’s many staffing challenges, officials found creative ways to address them.
For example, the only registered nurse working in the county health department sought assistance
from nurses in neighboring counties to administer COVID-19 vaccines through coordinated testing
events. In another example, the Marion County School District began a teacher internship program
using ESSER funds. The interns gained experience and absorbed some of the workload for
the t eachers.
Community organizations who relied on paper-based processes to
conduct their business faced increased challenges in their pandemic
response.
Some government organizations in rural communities relied on paper-based processes to conduct
their business. These organizations faced greater challenges in their pandemic response because
they could not process the large influx of paper documentation needed to protect the public and
their staff during the pandemic. For example, at the onset of the pandemic, the Marion County
health district required patients to complete paper applications to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.
This was a time-consuming process that required their only registered nurse to compile and report
vaccination information to the state of Georgia. In response, the health district used some of its
pandemic funds and other funds from the state to buy electronic tablets for patients to complete
their applications for COVID-19 vaccines. This allowed the registered nurse to report COVID-19
statistics more efficiently, which, in turn, allowed the nurse to focus on the health needs of the
community rather than administrative tasks.
At the onset of the pandemic, Jicarilla required government employees to submit their timesheets
on a paper form. The use of paper timesheets required Tribal government staff to come into the
office to submit their timesheets, and required human resources personnel to handle high volumes
of paper that were touched by multiple people during processing. One official explained that the
high volume of paper processing was particularly worrisome because at that point in time, the initial
CDC guidance stated that COVID-19 could be spread through different surfaces, including paper.
Although Jicarilla took precautions to protect employees from COVID-19, paper-based processes
prevented employees from working in a completely virtual environment and increased the risk that
employees could contract and spread COVID-19. In response, Jicarilla officials stated they used CRF
money to buy an electronic payroll system so employees could report their time virtually.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
18
Low housing stock, before and during the pandemic, made it difficult
for communities to provide housing options and thus increased health
risks for their citizens.
The officials from the two rural counties, two Tribal reservations, and Coeur d’Alene, ID, expressed
concerns about the shortage of houses in their communities and the effects that COVID-19 had
on this shortage. Lack of housing increased the health risk of multigenerational families sharing
living quarters and of individuals and families living in substandard conditions. One organization
supporting Sheridan County, NE, said that there were a limited number of homes for rent, and cited
an example where a resident would not report severe maintenance issues to the housing authority
because they feared being evicted and becoming homeless.
The shortage of affordable housing also created staffing challenges. Coeur d’Alene, ID, experienced
a surge in real estate prices as individuals and families from other states relocated there during the
pandemic. According to local officials, the increase in housing costs made it difficult to fill open jobs.
For example, one school district stated that they attempted to hire a school nurse who turned down
the job because they were unable to find affordable housing. A hospital in Coeur d’Alene, ID, faced a
similar issue when it tried to hire medical staff.
SPOTLIGHT ON | Prevalence of Multigenerational Households on Tribal Reservations
Tribal Reservations experienced challenges keeping elders safe from COVID-19 exposure due, in
part, to long-standing issues with limited housing resulting in a high number of multigenerational
households. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation within the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) published a report in October 2021 about The
Impacts and Implications of COVID-19 on Household Arrangements. This report identified that
individuals over the age of 65, who are at higher risk of severe illness or hospitalization from
COVID-19, living in multigenerational households faced increased risk of potential exposure to
the disease by working adults or schoolchildren who might have been exposed to COVID-19 in the
workplace, at schools, or in childcare settings.
Jicarilla officials stated that public utility infrastructure limitations prevented them from building
more homes to address the high number of multigenerational households. Given these limitations,
the Tribal government and housing authority used federal funds to purchase personal protective
equipment and cleaning supplies to help keep members safe in their homes. In addition, the
Tribal government used federal funding to purchase trailers, campers, and porta potties to assist
with isolation requirements. In some instances, Tribal members isolated in tents outside of their
homes, which meant that they did not have access to an indoor restroom. When that occurred, the
Tribal government delivered a portable restroom to their home for the isolation period, picked it up,
cleaned it, and then redistributed it to another home.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
19
For the White Earth Nation Reservation, the Housing Authority was able to use Indian Housing Block
Grant – CARES Act funding to help build 12 new homes, and at the time of our visit, it planned to
use Indian Housing Block Grant – American Rescue Plan Act funding to build an additional 15 new
homes. The Housing Authority noted this was a step in the right direction, but the Tribe still faced
major challenges with low housing stock and a high number of multigenerational households.
A FOCUS ON | Sustaining Lives
During the Pandemic and Recovering
from the Impacts of the Global
Health Crisis
The pandemic created several non-
health-related challenges that
community leaders had to address.
Some of these challenges still remained
more than two years into the pandemic.
Community leaders told us the additional health protocols and
restrictions put in place to minimize the spread of COVID-19
affected every aspect of society and community life. Local
communities took action to help ensure citizens survived
the pandemic that extended beyond protecting them from a
COVID-19 infection. At the time of our visits, many communities
indicated that they were still dealing with the consequences
related to the pandemic and trying to support their citizens.
Some noted the likelihood of unknown effects that they didn’t
know about yet. These non-health-related challenges ranged
from:
Figure 5. PRAC recreation of a
social media post by Dulce
Independent Schools, within
the Jicarilla Apache Nation
Reservation, about food
pickups for schoolchildren during
the pandemic.
• Feeding their communities, including schoolchildren, the
elderly, and others facing food insecurity challenges.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
20
• Maintaining public safety during unique situations created by the pandemic.
• Supporting local businesses to keep their local economies intact.
The challenges discussed below are both immediate and longer-term issues that may still be
prevalent for some communities even as we move past the pandemic.
Communities focused on feeding schoolchildren, the elderly, and
others facing food insecurity challenges.
When we met with community leaders, they highlighted different approaches and programs used
to address food insecurity in their communities. These included ensuring that schoolchildren
continued to receive meals during remote learning, and that the elderly and others facing food
insecurity received meals. These food programs served as platforms for social connection and
encouraged positive mental health. For example, Springfield, MA, scheduled themed meal pickup
events, such as a costume party or luau, for senior citizens in their community. White Earth included
traditional Tribal medicines in their meal deliveries as requested.
For students enrolled in remote learning, a number of school districts initially organized educational
packet pickups and ensured that parents and guardians could pick up weekly meals along with
their school packets. As the shutdown continued, several districts used their cafeteria staff to make
bagged meals, used bus drivers to distribute
meals, or used teachers and staff to establish
meal pickup stations during parts of the pandemic.
For example, the Dulce Independent School
District, located within the Jicarilla Reservation,
had bus drivers provide food drop-offs at the
beginning of the pandemic. The school district
then transitioned to a meal bag pickup line at the
school to ensure students received food even while
they were learning remotely. The use of bus drivers
also had additional benefits, including continued
employment for the drivers and continuity for the
children who got to see and connect with a familiar
person while attending school virtually.
The Marion County School District used the
“Meals-to-You” grant program offered by Baylor
University to provide free meals to students.
Marion County school officials told us that they
emphasized the health and safety of school staff
while keeping the schoolchildren fed, and that
they were thankful for this grant program because
it allowed them to meet both needs.
Figure 6. Social media post by White Earth
Nation on October 27, 2020 about previous food
box distributions for families in need.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
21
Some of the communities built upon existing programs to provide food to the elderly and families or
individuals in need. For example, White Earth’s Food Shelf program, which had previously been
established to feed Tribal elders and those who were food insecure was expanded to support all
members in need. The Tribal government also use staff at its casino to help prepare and package
meals for delivery, which helped keep Tribal members employed and involved in response
activities. The Tribe also used its Food Shelf Program's delivery service to distribute traditional
medicines to individuals who requested them. Further, White Earth used the Families to Farmers
Food Box program to distribute food to families. See Figure 6 for an example of the food
distribution event advertisement used to help inform the Tribal members about this opportunity.
Officials faced unique challenges maintaining public safety within
their communities.
Public safety that went beyond public health risks was a significant concern for multiple
communities. Some community officials we spoke to provided us with examples of challenges
enforcing curfews, protecting nursing home residents, managing an increased number of tourists
and visitors, and responding to an increase in alcohol and drug use.
For example, Jicarilla officials implemented a curfew to help reduce infections during peak periods.
Enforcing the curfew presented unique challenges for the community, including new patrolling and
setting up check points at some of the reservation’s boundaries. Similarly, a nursing home in a
different location reported hiring security guards to enforce visitation restrictions because some
residents’ family members did not want to follow COVID-19 precautions.
Coeur d’Alene, ID, officials experienced an influx of tourism which required additional efforts
from the Coeur d’Alene Police Department. Coeur d’Alene is located on the border of Idaho and
Washington state. City officials explained that because Washington state had stricter COVID-19
social distancing requirements, the city experienced high levels of tourism traffic during the entire
year instead of just during the summer months. This increased tourism occasionally resulted in
more public disturbances and public safety personnel working longer hours and responding to
more calls to keep the community safe.
Communities also had to deal with issues resulting from increased alcohol and drug use. One
community told us that in addition to the increase in deaths due to COVID-19, it also experienced
an increase in the total number of deaths related to drug overdoses.
Community leaders focused on trying to keep their local economies
and small businesses intact.
Community leaders focused on supporting local and small businesses with federal pandemic funds
in an effort to maintain their economies during COVID-19 shutdown orders. Some communities
provided additional programs using either pandemic funds or existing funds to help their small
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
22
businesses and local economies. For example, in Coeur d’Alene, ID, officials stated that they used
CRF money received from the state to set up a small business grant program for local businesses.
Across the locations, we anecdotally heard that community leaders remained concerned with
supply chain delays, increased costs, and worker shortages—some of which had a direct effect on
the communities’ local economies and recovery. One business owner said they were struggling
more in 2022 than at the beginning of the pandemic. In another example, firefighters and EMS
personnel in Sheridan County, NE, stated they continued to deal with delivery delays for needed
supplies or were paying increased prices. Specifically, they had to wait eight months for a pair
of firefighter boots. According to Springfield Public School district officials, they were continuing
to deal with construction delays and increased contractor costs when trying to make needed
HVAC updates to their older school buildings. Lastly, one small business owner indicated he had
been unable to find additional workers, which limited the number of hours his business could be
open and the service it could provide. Interviews with regional state workforce agency officials
revealed that some employers reported unemployment insurance claimants could earn more by
collecting unemployment insurance benefits and, therefore, would not return to work. However,
state workforce agency officials stated there were other factors that affected individuals’ choices
to not return to work, such as health concerns and virtual school requiring adults to stay home to
supervise children.
A FOCUS ON | Meeting the Moment:
Now and in the Future
Community experiences highlight considerations for
emergency preparedness now and in the future.
Preparing for an emergency starts well before the actual event. When an emergency occurs,
federal, state, local, Tribal, and territorial governments must be able to respond and act quickly
and strategically. While the federal government can play a key role in providing needed funds to
help communities directly respond on the ground to an emergency, state and local governments,
businesses, and community organizations also play key roles as the boots on the ground. These
organizations serve as community experts and understand their community’s needs in an
emergency.
Our work and the experiences of the six communities we highlighted throughout this report provide
useful information about what happened on the ground during the pandemic, challenges faced
by local government officials and organizations, and creative workarounds and leading practices
used in response to the global health crisis. Based on our conversations with officials, we offer the
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
23
following considerations for federal policymakers and program administrators to help improve the
federal government’s response in future emergencies.
• Use existing channels and structures, when possible, to provide funding, implement
programs, share guidance, and perform program administration services. Standing up new
programs or communication channels during an emergency can result in confusion and
delay a community’s response. If existing channels or structures cannot be used, consider
partnering with states to subgrant funds to local governments or other organizations.
• Allow for as many funding flexibilities as possible consistent with appropriate use of the
federal funds. Flexibility in use of funds could allow local officials who are more familiar with
the situation on the ground to customize responses to address their community’s specific
challenges. Flexibility in availability of funds may allow a community to make more strategic
investments to address longer-term concerns as it recovers from an emergency.
• Be mindful of local staffing limitations when developing programs. This is especially
important for smaller communities with less administrative staff available to implement
federal program guidance, understand allowable uses of funds, and track a myriad of other
program requirements.
• Enhance internet access and information technology modernization efforts in rural
communities to help these communities social distance, work remotely, and streamline
operations.
These are just some of the lessons learned through our visits to six communities across the
country. Location-specific reports will provide more information about each of the six communities’
experiences during the pandemic. These reports will provide more detail about selected programs,
whether spending generally aligned with the goals and objectives of those programs, and whether
the pandemic relief funds helped the communities respond to the pandemic.
We hope these reports, which provide important location-specific insights resulting from this two-
phase review, will help federal policymakers and program managers identify lessons learned from
the country’s COVID-19 pandemic response and adjust preparedness accordingly before the next
emergency or disaster.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
24
Appendix A: Acronyms
ARP Act
American Rescue Plan Act
CARES Act
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act
CRF
Coronavirus Relief Fund
CIGIE
Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency
EMS
Emergency Medical Services
EOC
Emergency Operations Center
ESSER
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
GAO
Government Accountability Office
HHS
Department of Health and Human Services
HUD
Department of Housing and Urban Development
HVAC
heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
Jicarilla
Jicarilla Apache Nation
OIG
Office of Inspector General
PRAC
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
SLFRF
State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund
White Earth
White Earth Nation
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
25
Appendix B: Scope and Methodology
Scope
In October 2021, the PRAC, along with ten of our OIG members, initiated a review that sought to
identify the federal pandemic response funds provided to select geographic areas, the purpose
of those funds, and if the spending generally aligned with the intended goals and objectives. To
conduct our work, we divided the review into two phases. Phase one sought to determine how much
pandemic funding went to the six selected communities. The final report for phase one, Tracking
Pandemic Relief Funds that Went to Local Communities Reveals Persistent Data Gaps and Data
Reliability Issues, was issued on July 6, 2023. Phase two of the review sought to gain more insight
into how the six communities used their pandemic relief funding, if the spending generally aligned
with the goals and objectives of the programs and subprograms, and whether the funding helped
the six communities respond to the pandemic.
To conduct our work, we selected six communities across the United States: Springfield,
Massachusetts; Coeur d’Alene, Idaho; Sheridan County, Nebraska; Marion County, Georgia; White
Earth Nation Reservation in Minnesota; and Jicarilla Apache Nation Reservation in New Mexico.
More information about the selection process can be found in the Scope and Methodology section
of our July 2023 report.
We worked with nine of our PRAC OIG members to complete the second phase of our review, which
involved site visits to all six communities and a closer look at specific pandemic-related programs.3
In total, we selected 22 programs and subprograms for review. Of note, not all 22 programs and
subprograms provided funds to all six communities. The programs and subprograms included in
phase two of our review are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Pandemic Relief Programs and Subprograms Included in Phase Two
Department
Program or Subprogram
Department of Agriculture
Farmers to Families Food Box Program
Department of Education
Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund
3 One OIG did not participate in phase two due to resource constraints and other planned oversight work that would seek to identify similar
insights to the phase two work.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
26
Department
Program or Subprogram
Department of the Interior
Aid to Tribal Governments
Assistance to Tribally Controlled Community Colleges
Highway Planning and Construction
Indian Education Facilities, Operations, and Maintenance
Indian Housing Assistance
Indian Law Enforcement
Indian Schools Student Transportation
Indian Self-Determination Contract Support
Indian Social Services and Welfare Assistance
Department of Health and
Human Ser
vices
Provider Relief Fund Payments to Nursing Homes
Department of Homeland Security
Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Public
Assistance Pr
ogram
Department of Housing and
Urban De
velopment
Community Development Block Grant – CARES Act
Project-Based Rental Assistance – CARES Act
Public Housing Operating Fund – CARES Act
Indian Housing Block Grant – CARES Act and ARP Act
Department of Labor
Pandemic Unemployment Insurance Programs including:
Federal Pandemic Unemployment Compensation,
Pandemic Unemployment Assistance, and
Pandemic Emergency Unemployment Compensation
Department of Transportation
CARES Act Relief Urbanized Area Formula Grants Program
Department of the Treasury
Coronavirus Relief Fund
This report presents the information and key takeaways that the PRAC staff gathered from the
interviews during our six site visits and our discussions with the people who live in the communities
and helped organize the local response to the pandemic. More information about the results
of our review of the specific programs and subprograms identified in Table 2 and the selection
methodology will be provided in separate location-specific reports that will follow this report. Once
issued, these reports will be available on our website at www.PandemicOversight.gov.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
27
Methodology
The insights shared in this report are supported by work completed by PRAC staff during phase two
of this review. We visited all six locations and conducted interviews with government, community,
Tribal, and business leaders on the communities’ experiences with the pandemic, federal guidance,
best practices, lessons learned, and suggestions for improvement. The site visits occurred from
May 2022 through December 2022. In addition to the site visits, we reviewed laws, program
guidelines, and background information for the programs and subprograms under review.
After the completion of our site visits, the PRAC staff analyzed the information received to identify
trends or similarities across all six locations. The PRAC staff also coordinated with the participating
OIG members to obtain preliminary review findings and results from their work to ensure that this
insights report aligned with their phase two work. In addition, the content of this report has been
reviewed by all OIG members who participated in phase two. The specific methodology used to
review the selected programs and subprograms will be discussed in the location-specific reports to
be issued at a later date.
Standards
This work was completed between April 2022 and May 2023, and complies with the CIGIE’s Quality
Standards for Inspection and Evaluation. These standards require that we plan and perform this
review to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for the insights
and conclusions.
Pandemic Response Accountability Committee
For more information:
Lisa Reijula
Associate Director of Outreach and Engagement, PRAC
Lisa.Reijula@cigie.gov
Visit us at:
PandemicOversight.gov
Follow us at:
Report Fraud, Waste, Abuse, or Misconduct:
To report allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or
misconduct regarding pandemic relief funds or programs
please go to the PRAC website at
PandemicOversight.gov.
A Committee of the
Council of the Inspectors General
on Integrity and Efficiency